Research has attempted to elucidate men and women’s proximal motivations for perpetrating intimate partner violence (IPV). However, previous research has yet to clarify and resolve contention regarding whether motives for IPV are gender-neutral or gender-specific. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare motives for physical IPV perpetration among a sample of men (n = 90) and women (n = 87) arrested for domestic violence and court referred to batterer intervention programs. Results demonstrated that the most frequently endorsed motives for IPV by both men and women were self-defense, expression of negative emotions, and communication difficulties. With the exception of expression of negative emotions and retaliation, with women endorsing these motives more often than men, there were no significant differences between men and women’s self-reported reasons for perpetrating physical aggression. The implications of these findings for future research and intervention programs are discussed.

A 15-page questionnaire, the North American Domestic Violence Intervention Program Survey, was sent to directors of 3,246 domestic violence perpetrator programs (also known as batterer intervention programs, or BIPs) in the United States and Canada. Respondent contact information was obtained from state Coalitions Against Domestic Violence and from various government agencies (e.g., Attorney General) available on the Internet. Two hundred thirty-eight programs completed and returned the questionnaire, a response rate of 20%. The survey yielded descriptive data on respondent characteristics; program philosophy, structure, content, and service; client characteristics; treatment approach and adjunct services; and group facilitator views on intervention approaches and domestic violence policy and treatment standards. The programs varied in the extent to which they adhere to treatment approaches suggested by the empirical research literature. In addition, chi-square analyses were conducted on the associations between several factors. Significant correlations were found between respondent low level of education and adherence to a feminist-gendered program philosophy; respondent low level of education and use of a shorter assessment protocol; feminist-gendered program philosophy and incorrect facilitator knowledge about domestic violence; and feminist-gendered program philosophy and a program focus on power and control as the primary cause of domestic violence.

The Revised Safe at Home instrument (Begun et al., 2008) is based on application of the transtheoretical model of behavior change (TMBC) and offers clinicians and clients an assessment tool to measure client readiness for changing intimate partner violence (IPV) behaviors. Scale scores from this tool can be used to assess client readiness to change and evaluate treatment program outcomes. The purposes of this study are to relate patterns in scale scores with those obtained in previous studies, across the treatment cycle, and for women as well as men. This cross-sectional study engaged 246 participants from 6 IPV batterer treatment programs. Analyses consisted of computing scale totals and means for 5 scales (precontemplation, contemplation, preparation/action, maintenance, and overall readiness), comparing scores for men and women, and drawing comparisons with reports at treatment intake only (Begun et al., 2008; Begun et al., 2003). Findings indicated similar scores on precontemplation and contemplation but significantly higher scores on preparation/action, maintenance, and overall readiness compared to the previous study. No differences related to phase of treatment and no gender differences were significant. The potential impact of self- versus clinical interview administration of the instrument is discussed, along with additional implications for clinical practice and directions for future research using this instrument.

This study examined perceptions of motives in the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Respondents (N = 401) of diverse professions read three vignettes and indicated their perception of the aggressor’s motive (from 1 = Exclusively Expressive; 5 = Exclusively Coercive). Half of respondents read vignettes describing male-perpetrated violence against a female partner; the other half, female-perpetrated violence against a male partner. Overall, male-perpetrated aggression was seen as more coercive than female-perpetrated aggression, particularly by shelter workers and victim advocates. Further analyses revealed that men generally gave higher ratings than women, and that women rated female-perpetrated aggression as less coercive than male-perpetrated aggression. In contrast, men did not differ in their ratings of male versus female perpetration. Implications are discussed with respect to the assessment and treatment of partner violence.

We conducted a survey-based study looking at the associations among attachment insecurities (anxiety and avoidance), relationship functioning, and psychological domestic violence. We looked at three relationship functioning variables (i.e., anger management, communication, and conflict resolution) and three domestic psychological violence variables (i.e., derogation and control, jealous-hypervigilance, and threats-control of space). Data were collected from 76 male and 21 female court-mandated batterers. Participants completed the self-report measures of attachment insecurities, relationship functioning, and psychological domestic violence-related variables. Overall, attachment insecurities were negatively associated with relationship functioning and positively associated with psychological domestic violence outcomes. Among the whole sample, attachment anxiety correlated positively with derogation and control and with jealous-hypervigilance. There were also differential attachment associations by gender. Attachment anxiety correlated positively with threats of controlling space only among men, and with derogation and control and jealous-hypervigilance only among women. Finally, avoidance correlated negatively with communication only among women. Overall, this pattern of results is consistent with predictions derived from attachment theory: attachment insecurities are associated with poor relationship functioning and high rates of domestic violence.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is regarded by key stakeholders involved in shaping arrest and intervention policies as a gendered problem. The prevailing assumptions guiding these policies, centered on patriarchal social structures and men's motivation to dominate their female partners, have collectively been called the gender paradigm. When states started to enact laws against domestic violence in the late 1970s, it was due to the efforts of battered women and their allies, including second wave feminists fighting for the political, social, and economic advancement of women. The focus was on life-threatening forms of abuse in which women represented, and continue to represent, the much larger share of victims. Since then, IPV has been found to be a more complex problem than originally framed, perpetrated by women as well as men, driven by an assortment of motives, and associated with distal and proximate risk factors that have little to do with gender. Nonetheless, the gender paradigm persists, with public policy lagging behind the empirical evidence. The author suggests some reasons why this is so, among them the much higher rates of violent crimes committed by men, media influence and cognitive biases, political factors, and perpetuation of the very sex-role stereotypes that feminists have sought to extinguish in every other social domain. He then critically reviews two theories used in support of the paradigm, sexual selection theory and social role theory, and explores how empirically driven policies would more effectively lower IPV rates in our communities, while advancing core feminist principles.

In the United States, the judicial system response to violence between intimate partners, or intimate partner violence (IPV), typically mandates that adjudicated perpetrators complete a batterer intervention program (BIP). The social science data has found that these programs, on the whole, are only minimally effective in reducing rates of IPV. The authors examined the social science literature on the characteristics and efficacy of BIPs. More than 400 studies were considered, including a sweeping, recently conducted survey of BIP directors across the United States and Canada. Results of this review indicate that the limitations of BIPs are due, in large part, to the limitations of current state standards regulating these programs and, furthermore, that these standards are not grounded in the body of empirical research evidence or best practices. The authors, all of whom have considerable expertise in the area of domestic violence perpetrator treatment, conducted an exhaustive investigation of the following key intervention areas: overall effectiveness of BIPs; length of treatment/length of group sessions; number of group participants and number of facilitators; group format and curriculum; assessment protocol and instruments; victim contact; modality of treatment; differential treatment; working with female perpetrators; working with perpetrators in racial and ethnic minority groups; working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) perpetrators; perpetrator treatment and practitioner–client relationships; and required practitioner education and training. Recommendations for evidence-based national BIP standards were made based on findings from this review.

Research has consistently found that partner violence, defined as physical abuse between married, cohabitating, or dating partners, is not the only type of abuse with long-term deleterious effects on victims. Male and female victims alike report that emotional abuse, along with controlling behaviors, are often as or more traumatic. Existing instruments used to measure emotional abuse and control have either been limited to male-perpetrated behaviors, as conceived in the well-known Duluth “Power and Control” wheel, or field tested on dating or general population samples. This study discusses the genesis and evolution of a gender-inclusive instrument, the Controlling and Abusive Tactics (CAT) Questionnaire, which was field tested on males and females with both a clinical and general population sample. For perpetration, a preliminary comparison across gender found no significant differences across gender for the great majority of items, with women reporting significantly higher rates on 9 items, and men reporting significantly higher rates on 6 items. Women reported higher rates of received abuse than men on 28 of 30 items in which gender differences were found to be significant, but both males and females reported higher victimization than perpetration rates on all items. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses resulted in the CAT-2, a valid and reliable instrument appropriate for clinical use by treatment providers as well as for research purposes.

There is a growing impetus within the field of aggression research to further elucidate the risk factors, predictors, and correlates of dating violence (DV), particularly among dating couples. Of particular importance is understanding the proximal motivations, or reasons, for DV and whether these motivations differ for men and women. Research examining the motivations for DV has focused almost entirely on physical violence, and findings regarding gender differences in DV motivations have been mixed (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars, & Misra, 2012). To our knowledge, limited research has examined the motivations for psychological aggression among dating college students, and no research has directly compared men and women’s motivations for psychological aggression. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the motivations for psychological aggression among dating college students (N = 216), and whether these motivations differed by gender. Results demonstrated that expression of negative emotions, jealousy, and communication difficulties were the most frequently endorsed motive categories for both men and women. Men and women did not differ on any motive category. Despite the preliminary nature of this study, several research and clinical implications are addressed.

Research on partner abuse has lagged in much of the world where attention has been on other problems (such as famine and war) and other crimes against women (e.g., honor killings, genital mutilation). We conducted a sweeping review of scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals and by government agencies outside of the United States and English-speaking developed nations that provided quantitative data on physical, psychological, and sexual abuse of intimate partners as well as consequences, risk factors, and attitudes. One hundred sixty-two articles reporting on more than 200 studies in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Europe met the inclusion criteria from various types of samples. Most of the studies reported on female victimization only, but 73 reported on both male and female victimization.

We also conducted an analysis of data from our literature review, including 1 major cross-national study, to determine the relationship among prevalence of abuse, social factors, and women’s empowerment. Results indicate that partner abuse is a widespread problem around the world, with multiple causes. Overall prevalence of abuse is higher in Third World countries compared to the United States, and rates for physical and psychological abuse are comparable across gender in most countries when all types of samples are considered. No significant association was found between rates of partner violence (PV) and a nation’s level of human development. However, a significant relationship was found between a nation’s level of gender empowerment and rates of PV by both males and females but only for university dating samples from the International Dating Violence Study (IDVS). In addition, an analysis of the IDVS indicates that efforts by 1 partner to dominate the other are positively correlated with physical abuse perpetration for women, but not for men. Among the limitations of this review was the relatively few numbers of large population studies that ask about both male and female perpetration and victimization and the consequences and context of PV. Implications of the findings include the need for a broader conceptualization of PV as not merely a gender problem but also (and perhaps primarily) a human problem.

A debate persists regarding the effectiveness of batterer intervention programs (BIPs), the predominant form of intervention for individuals who have perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV). Social science research has identified some promising research trends—for example, the effectiveness of motivational interviewing and process factors that maintain an effective therapist–client alliance, what clients say facilitators can do to keep them engaged and motivated, and, for certain low-risk populations, the viability of couples counseling. Unfortunately, most frontline treatment providers lack access to much of this research, which appears primarily in peer-reviewed journals. A previous national survey of BIPs reported that, on the whole, BIP group facilitators have ample clinical experience, but are poorly informed about IPV risk factors and dynamics; and while they report substantial training, the nature of that training, and the extent to which the training accurately reflects current research, remains unknown. BIPs, and most treatment providers, including licensed mental health professionals, depend on organizations who too often lack reliable, up-to-date information about domestic violence. The Association of Domestic Violence Intervention Providers (ADVIP) was created by the first author to provide a platform where researchers and providers could cooperate by exchanging information and resources. This article reports on findings from a larger follow-up to the 2016 survey, that sought to elicit views on how to increase cooperation between domestic violence scholars and treatment providers and advance evidence-based practice, and to gauge the role of ADVIP in this effort.

Though usually framed in the context of ideological and political processes, the failure of domestic violence perpetrator programs to embrace research-supported practice may also be influenced by a widespread unwillingness to use public funds for that purpose. This policy analysis examines the links among federal policy, state implementation, organizational structure, and funding sources of perpetrator service-providing organizations. Those links reveal reciprocal relationships among conservative and ostensibly feminist views of domestic violence within an implied policy framework justifying public underfunding of perpetrator treatment programs. Placed within the current hyper-politicized context of US Federal governance and policy, this analysis identifies advancements in perpetrator treatment in several state governments as harbingers of potential movement toward research-supported practice.