Mental health practitioners have a responsibility to provide effective interventions to all their clients, accounting for each client's cultural context and values relevant to their well-being. In this study, eight therapists who have worked with Iranian-immigrant intimate partner violence (IPV) clients were interviewed to answer two questions: (a) What have therapists who work in the United States learned about challenges of working with Iranian IPV clients living in the United States? and (b) What suggestions do these thera-pists have for improving services to Iranian IPV clients living in the United States? In response to this question, six main themes were found: (a) Clients' lack of knowledge, (b) cultural acceptance that men are not accountable for their behaviors/gender norms in patriarchal culture, (c) women's sense of disempowerment (victim's role), (d) clients do not disclose IPV due to a sense of obligation, (e) clients' fear of consequences of disclosing, and (f) clients' difficulty trusting therapists and the mental health field. In response to the second question, that is, what suggestions do these therapists have for improving the services to Iranian IPV clients living in the United States? three main themes emerged: (a) clients need for knowledge and psychoeducation, (b) the services for Iranian-immigrant clients are not culturally appropriate, (c) therapists need to have a broad perspective of clients. Results add to the understanding of IPV grounded in the Iranian immigrant culture and ultimately contribute to a culturally based conceptualization of IPV among Iranian immigrants to sensitize therapists regarding culturally appropriate interventions that reflect the concerns of the Iranian living in the United States.

Little information is available about couples experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) who voluntarily seek couples therapy. We examined the characteristics of 129 couples who sought therapy for IPV to learn more about this population. A majority of the sample, 74%, experienced bilateral physical violence, 16% experienced unilateral male violence, and 5% experienced unilateral female violence. Conflict theory is used to explain the finding that couples experiencing bilateral violence reported higher levels of physical violence and injury than did those experiencing unilateral violence. Bilaterally violent couples also experienced more jealousy and psychological aggression and less relationship satisfaction than either group of unilaterally violent couples. Implications and suggestions for clinicians are offered, as well as ideas for future research.

This study examined gender differences in impacts of dating violence (specifically minor and severe physical injury, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], problems with alcohol, self-esteem, and relationship satisfaction) using a sample of 305 male and 363 female undergraduate students. Multiple linear regression models were used to test for the effects of dating violence victimization on the eight outcome variables while controlling for the effects of perpetration and psychological victimization. Results indicated that physical violence victimization did not impact problems with alcohol, self-esteem, or relationship satisfaction for either males or females. However, being a victim of minor violence significantly increased the levels of depression, anxiety, and PTSD and being a victim of severe violence significantly increased minor and severe injury. Different gender effects were seen in anxiety and PTSD scores where male victims scored higher than male nonvictims, but female victims did not differ significantly from female nonvictims and in minor and severe injury where both male and female victims scored higher than nonvictims, but the difference between the two groups was greater for men on the severe injury subscale and greater for women on the minor injury subscale. Overall, results of our analyses indicate that both male and female victims of dating violence experience physical and mental health consequences and, on the whole, do not support previous findings that would suggest that female victims suffer a greater impact than male victims do.

In 2005, 68% of the 50 states in the United States expressly prohibited the funding of any program that offers couples or family counseling when there has been intimate partner violence (IPV; Maiuro & Eberle, 2008). However, many couples experiencing violence want to participate in couples treatment. The purpose of this study is to examine the changes experienced by clients during participation in a couples treatment program for IPV. In this study, we analyzed interviews with couples participating in a specific treatment program, Domestic Violence Focused Couples Treatment (Stith, McCollum, & Rosen, 2011), to learn from them what changes they made while participating in the treatment program. Clients reported changes in both individual and relational domains. In addition, a few clients reported no change or an increase in stress. This article examines these changes and provides implications for practice.

Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH) is one of the leading causes of death for women in the United States. Recent research has identified the strongest risk markers for IPH from quantitative studies, but there is still a need to synthesize what is known about IPH from qualitative studies. Additionally, few studies have examined perpetrator-reported motivations for IPH, along with victim's and co-victims' experiences of attempted or completed IPH. In order to synthesize the current qualitative literature surrounding motivations and risk factors for IPH, a thematic qualitative synthesis was conducted. This qualitative synthesis included 20 studies that examined IPH risk factors, motivations, and other pertinent themes related to IPH. Some of the most prevalent reported motivations for committing IPH were loss of control, jealousy, relationship termination, and a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization (i.e., self-defense). A few of the most common risk factors for IPH found in the qualitative literature included previous IPV, coercive control, and the victim underestimating danger/lethality. It is important for both clinicians and law enforcement to know more about IPH so that that they are able to assess situations effectively.

Given the ever-increasing number of people accessing the Internet and the widespread use of search engines, social activists and human rights advocates have a great opportunity to use this resource to better serve victims of intimate partner violence (IPV), create cultural movements, and even create pressure to change the laws. This study utilized qualitative methods to analyze the content of the Google search engine to learn what information regarding IPV in Iran is available in Farsi language. Scholarly articles and the links addressing IPV in other Farsi language countries were excluded. Three themes were found: “knowledge,” “barriers and obstacles,” and “solutions.” The implications and suggestions derived from this study are designed to help activists better use the digital world to raise awareness about IPV in Iran.

Conjoint couples treatment for interpersonal partner violence (IPV) remains controversial despite a growing body of research and practice experience indicating that it can be effective and safe. In addition, developing typologies of couples who are violent suggest that a “one-size-fits-all” treatment approach to IPV is not appropriate and conjoint treatment may have a place in the treatment of at least some couples. In this article, we review the experimental studies and clinical practices of conjoint treatment. Based on this review, we suggest current best practices for this approach to treatment. Best practices include couples treatment as part of a larger community response to IPV, careful screening of couples for inclusion in couples treatment, modification of typical conjoint approaches to promote safety and ongoing assessment of safety with contingency plans for increased risk.

This meta-analysis compared risk markers for perpetration of physical intimate partner violence (IPV) among military and civilian males. We also examined strength of risk markers among male and female service members. In total, 36 military studies and 334 civilian studies, which reported 883 effect sizes, were included in the analyses. Results revealed more similarities than differences in risk markers for IPV among military and civilian males and among military males and females. Of the risk markers examined, relationship satisfaction and alcohol problems were significantly stronger risk markers for IPV among civilian males compared to military males. Perpetrating emotional abuse was a significantly stronger risk marker for IPV perpetration among military females compared to military males. Recommendations for IPV prevention and intervention are discussed.