517300 research-article2014
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260513517300Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceBroady et al.
Article
Taking Responsibility: A Psychological Profile of Men Attending a Domestic Violence Group Work Intervention Program in New South Wales, Australia
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2014, Vol. 29(14) 2610–2629 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260513517300 jiv.sagepub.com
Timothy R. Broady,1 Rebecca Gray,1 and Irene Gaffney1
Abstract Domestic violence is a significant social issue with serious implications for victims, families, and the wider community. The present research seeks to investigate specific characteristics that influence the propensity to behave violently. This first stage of a research-based evaluation identifies key differences between men attending a group work intervention program and the general community in terms of gender equity beliefs, self-esteem, personal mastery, and psychological distress. These findings not only provide valuable information for the provision of intervention services but also form a basis that future research may build on in evaluating the effectiveness of such programs. Keywords domestic violence, perpetrators, characteristics, intervention 1Relationships
Australia NSW, Australia
Corresponding Author: Timothy R. Broady, Relationships Australia NSW, 277 Lane Cove Rd., Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia, 2113. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2611
Broady et al.
Introduction According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS; 2006) approximately 20% of Australian women have experienced violence at the hands of an intimate partner. This prevalence of domestic violence has serious implications for the victims of abuse and for the wider Australian community, including the costs of property damage, the justice system, and health services (KPMG Management Consulting, 2009). Domestic violence has a significant impact on the general health and well-being of victims, and is associated with a wide range of health problems (Marcus & Braaf, 2007). Beyond this, many victims report that the emotional impact of experiencing domestic violence far outweighs any physical injuries (Flood & Fergus, 2008). These figures demonstrate the extent to which domestic violence can negatively impact individuals and the wider community. As such, intervention programs that seek to assist perpetrators to reduce their use of violent behavior play a vital role in society. This article outlines the first stage of a longitudinal research project designed to evaluate the effectiveness of one particular intervention program in achieving this goal. To investigate the extent to which participants exhibit change, it is necessary first to recognize risk factors that may contribute to the perpetuation of violent behavior, and also to identify typical characteristics of men who have been abusive toward others in regard to these factors. Much previous research has identified many such factors, as will be outlined in the following paragraphs. A significant portion of this literature refers to external and behavioral influences (e.g., socioeconomic status, substance use/abuse, personal childhood experiences of violence). However, the present study seeks to investigate intrinsic personal characteristics, as those are the issues that can most appropriately be addressed by intervention programs.
Heterogeneity of Men Who Have Been Abusive Toward Others A great deal of research has investigated the typical characteristics of men who perpetrate domestic violence. For example, Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) proposed a framework by which such men can be classified. This typology has been the most supported by subsequent research and has been shown to be a robust representation (Dixon & Browne, 2003). This typology categorizes violent men based on a range of key characteristics, such as impulsivity, social skills, attitudes toward women and violence, psychopathology and/or psychological distress, and the frequency, severity, and generality of violent behavior. For example, men categorized at the
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2612
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(14)
milder end of the typology tend to exhibit low impulsivity, mild deficits in social skills, and do not display attitudes that are supportive of violence or hostility toward women. The violence displayed within this group is therefore typically less severe or frequent than other groups. Comparatively, individuals described as “Generally Violent/Antisocial” are highly impulsive, more likely to be diagnosed with psychopathology, have negative attitudes toward women, and attitudes that support violence. They engage in more severe violent behavior, and are responsible for the highest instances of violence outside the family. Similarly, Johnson et al. (2006) investigated subtypes of domestically violent men and identified four major variables that characterized these men: psychopathology, interpersonal dependency, macho attitudes, and narcissism. These characteristics were found to vary across four different subtypes of violent offenders. For example, macho attitudes vary from low levels in the “narcissistic” subtype, through to high levels in the “antisocial” subtype. Similarly, issues related to psychopathology are typically much less severe within the “low pathology” subtype than in the “borderline” subtype. Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) and Johnson et al. (2006) argued for the heterogeneity of men who have used domestic violence, and in doing so, they demonstrate the inherent differences between individuals. While certain characteristics appear across different subtypes, the impact that each has can be markedly different. For example, some subtypes tend to exhibit significantly higher levels of psychological distress than others, and individuals within certain subtypes are likely to be more impulsive than others. Despite the differences between groups, both of these typologies describe variations of characteristics of individuals whose behavioral patterns remain similar, in that they can be considered violent. Characteristics that distinguish subtypes in either of Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) and Johnson et al.’s (2006) typologies are therefore not independently sufficient predictors of an individual’s propensity to behave violently. It may be the case that a change in these attitudes or characteristics alters the individual’s classification within a given typology, but that violent behavior still exists.
Homogeneity of Men Who Have Been Abusive Toward Others While the heterogeneity of men using violence has been supported through the above-mentioned research, other research has implied a concurrent homogeneity among this population. Dixon and Browne (2003), in an extensive review of previous research, identified a list of characteristics that have been associated with men who have used violence when compared with non-violent
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2613
Broady et al.
men. Those who have used violence exhibit lower self-esteem and assertiveness than non-violent men (Asli & Nebi, 2011; Hundt & Holohan, 2012; Renner & Whitney, 2012; J. Walker & Knauer, 2011; Weber & Robinson Kurpius, 2011), and have also been found to show evidence of antisocial personality (Declercq, Willemsen, Audenaert, & Verhaeghe, 2012; Harris, Hilton, & Rice, 2011; Wallinius, Nilsson, Hofvander, Ackarsater, & Stalenheim, 2012), have a history of substance abuse (Mattson, O’Farrell, Lofgreen, Cunningham, & Murphy, 2012; Renner & Whitney, 2012; Smith, Homish, Leonard, & Cornelius, 2012; Stuart et al., 2008), and display poor impulse control with more regularity than comparatively non-violent men (Chan & Chui, 2012; Derefinko, DeWall, Metze, Walsh, & Lynam, 2011; Howard, 2012). Similarly, attitudinal factors have been found to be significant predictors of whether a person is likely to intervene when witnessing acts of domestic violence. Those who are more likely to intervene are also more likely to firmly believe that violence against women is a serious issue, report greater levels of support for equality between genders, and strongly disagree that the use of physical force against a partner could be justified (McGregor, 2009). These findings suggest that the attitudes an individual holds play a significant part in the extent to which that individual engages (or does not engage) in violent behavior, particularly when that violence is directed toward an intimate partner. While attitudinal factors play an important role in contributing to the existence of domestically violent behavior, Leonard (2001) argued that specific situational cues combine with these long-term personal characteristics to trigger individual instances of violence. This relationship is particularly apparent in the context of ongoing conflict between partners (Leonard, 2001). As such, impulsivity and difficulties with self-regulation have been identified as potential contributors to abusive behavior. Characteristics such as a lack of self-regulation may be due to long-term variables (e.g., attention-deficit hyperactive disorder [ADHD]), or short-term state influences (e.g., drugs and/or alcohol). Other theories, based on cognitive-affective models, focus on the centrality of anger in a majority of violent behaviors. Such theories argue that to successfully intervene and change an individual’s behavior, the thought processes that support violent and abusive behavior must first be altered (Day, Chung, O’Leary, & Carson, 2009). Each of these approaches supports the concept of underlying attitudes providing a baseline, and situational cues acting as a trigger to instigate violent behavior. The contribution of previous research (e.g., Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986) that has identified certain predictors of family violence (e.g., substance abuse, social class, employment, violence in the family of origin) must not be discounted. It is widely acknowledged that such factors contribute significantly
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2614
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(14)
to the perpetration of violent behavior. However, the present research seeks to investigate internal, subjective characteristics that may make similar contributions, and therefore add to existing understandings of external influences. This article argues that a particular selection of attitudes and psychological constructs are particularly salient among men who have been abusive and are purposefully addressed within clinical settings such as the program being evaluated in this longitudinal project. These constructs are therefore discussed in the following baseline. This article further argues that these attitudes and constructs are significantly correlated with the existence of domestic violence, and addressing them may assist in any attempt to change the pattern of such behavior. The following variables are not intended to comprise an exhaustive list, but rather to provide an indication of issues that have been regularly raised in previous research and those specifically addressed by the program being evaluated in this study. Due to their prevalence throughout literature and relevance to themes addressed by the program, these constructs have been purposefully selected to frame this evaluation research project.
Gender Equity Holding traditional gender role attitudes has been found to be among the most consistently accurate predicators of having negative attitudes toward women and displaying more support for the use of violence against women than those who hold more equitable gender role attitudes (Berkel, Vandiver, & Bahner, 2004; Bettman, 2005). Previous research has also suggested that men attending domestic violence intervention programs are more likely to believe that violence can be appropriate in marital relationships (Eckhardt, Samper, Suhr, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2012; Saunders, Lynch, Grayson, & Linz, 1987). As such, an individual’s personal attitudes toward women, gender roles, and the nature of a marital relationship can be seen to significantly influence the likelihood of domestic violence occurring. These findings are supported by large-scale Australian research. For example, the Victorian-based Community Attitudes to Violence Against Women Survey (Taylor & Mouzos, 2006) found that the extent to which an individual was supportive of violence against women was best predicted by his or her “gender equity score.” High support for gender equity indicates that a person believes women should possess the same rights, roles, and opportunities in society as men. A similar, nationwide study, the National Community Attitudes to Violence Against Women Survey (McGregor, 2009), also found that the two strongest predictors of being in any way permissive of violence against women were low gender equity scores and being male. Respondents
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2615
Broady et al.
who were categorized as scoring in the “low” range of gender equity scores were significantly less likely to consider any given action to be violent. For example, while 94% of respondents (male and female) with high gender equity scores considered forcing a partner to have sex as always being an example of domestic violence, only 70% of those with low gender equity scores held the same view. The results of these large-scale surveys suggest that the more support a person has for gender equity, the more likely they are to consider that certain behaviors are always examples of domestic violence (e.g., forcing a partner to have sex, yelling abuse, controlling a partner by denying them money). As such, these results provide further support for the idea that traditional and patriarchal gender attitudes can be associated with views that are more permissive of violence against women. However, it is not a Black and White case of low gender equity support corresponding to support for violence and high gender equity support corresponding to opposition to violence against women. Rather, higher support for gender equity simply correlates to an increased likelihood that an individual will consider a certain action to be an act of domestic violence.
Self-Esteem Research exists to suggest that self-esteem is related to an individual behaving violently or abusively toward their partner. Duplantis, Romans, and Bear (2006) argued that research on the relationship between self-esteem and domestic violence is ambiguous, and point out that very little research has examined the relationship between a client’s level of self-esteem and rates of dropout from counseling programs. This suggests that significant complexities exist in the relationship between self-esteem and the behavior of perpetrators of domestic violence. A number of authors have theorized about the relationship between selfesteem and violent behavior. For example, Gilligan (2000) asserted that the aggression is often associated with feelings of humiliation and negative selfevaluations. Alternatively, Walker and Bright (2009) identified contrasting theories that suggest higher levels of self-esteem increase the risk of violent behavior, particularly when such high self-esteem is not supported by any evidence that the individual in question is successful. In these cases, it is argued that any threat to the self-concept is taken more seriously and violence is a medium by which superiority may be asserted. However, Walker and Bright (2009) argued that if the self-esteem of men using violence appears to be inflated, this is in actual fact covering low self-esteem. They argue that if they were genuinely secure in themselves, they would not be vulnerable to
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2616
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(14)
threats to their self-concept. This viewpoint is supported by Salmivalli (2001), who suggests that violent perpetrators display falsely inflated selfesteem when the problem is really their low self-esteem. Through a systematic review of literature, Walker and Bright (2009) found that a majority of studies suggested that low self-esteem was a risk factor for violent behavior. This relationship was supported by the seven largest studies reviewed, including the only two studies that used a longitudinal cohort design. However, while some sampled populations of violent perpetrators, a majority of these studies were conducted using samples of American university students, so the generalizability of findings to a wider population may be questioned. The systematic review conducted by Walker and Bright (2009) ultimately suggested that the most robust finding is that of low self-esteem being related to violent behavior. However, this relationship appears to be more robust among student populations than it is in forensic populations. Regardless, Walker and Bright (2009) still concluded that there is sufficient evidence to determine that low self-esteem is more strongly associated with violence and aggression than high self-esteem.
Mastery Mastery can be defined as “the extent to which people see themselves as being in control of the forces that importantly affect their lives” (Pearlin, Menaghan, Lieberman, & Mullan, 1981, p. 340). This concept is becoming increasingly more central to current understandings of domestic violence and interventions. For example, the Minimum Standards for Men’s Domestic Violence Behaviour Change Programs in New South Wales (NSW Government Attorney General & Justice, 2011) insist that perpetrators of family and domestic violence are held accountable for their actions. Furthermore, a central tenet of many intervention programs (e.g., the Duluth Model) is that accountability is placed on those who commit violent acts. As such, the extent to which individuals have control or mastery over their circumstances, environments, and actions holds great significance, and is specifically addressed within the current intervention program. Feelings of powerlessness have been argued to characterize men who have been abusive, particularly as such behavior often involves a component of attempting to overpower and control intimate partners (Rosenbaum & Leisring, 2003; Walker & Knauer, 2011). In such instances, men use controlling behaviors directed at their partners to alleviate their own feelings of powerlessness (Petrik, Petrik-Olson, & Subotnik, 1994; Ronel & Claridge, 2003; Rubenstein, 2001; Walker & Knauer, 2011). Among a sample of 52 male
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2617
Broady et al.
participants in a domestic violence intervention program, Katsigiannis (2006) found that as scores on a mastery scale increased, corresponding scores on a family violence scale decreased. While this correlation was not statistically significant, methodological issues (e.g., small sample size) provide significant limitations. Katsigiannis (2006) suggested that a larger sample size or improved measurement techniques may result in this relationship becoming statistically significant. Previous research therefore suggests that perpetrators of domestic violence are likely to feel they have little control over forces that importantly affect their lives, and indicates that their exhibition of violent behavior may be an attempt to counteract such feelings and regain a sense of control (Umberson, Williams, & Anderson, 2002; Walker & Knauer, 2011).
Psychological Distress Stress is considered to occur when the demands of one’s environment exceed that person’s resources and capacity to manage those pressures (Wheaton, 1999). Research has suggested that the experience of stress, under the above definition, may contribute somewhat to the existence of domestic violence (Felson, 1992; Straus, 1990; Umberson et al., 2002). This contribution may take the form of an interaction with underlying attitudes. That is, when confronted with situations that induce significant feelings of stress, men who hold more traditional gender role attitudes and who are generally more permissive of violent behavior may be more inclined to act in a violent or abusive fashion. This notion has been supported by a number of previous research studies. Generally speaking, psychological issues have been found to be more prevalent among men who have been abusive than non-violent men (Declercq et al., 2012; Gibbons, Collins, & Reid, 2011; Wallinius et al., 2012; Walsh et al., 2010). A number of the psychological issues that have been associated with domestically violent behavior have also been related to one another (e.g., depression, substance abuse disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline personality). It is therefore possible that psychological disorders such as these represent a common risk factor when considering the perpetration of domestic violence (Riggs, Caulfield, & Street, 2000).
Present Study Taken together, this literature suggests that men who behave violently toward their partners are likely to demonstrate the following characteristics: low support for gender equity, low self-esteem, low mastery, and heightened psychological distress. This is not to say that every man who behaves abusively will exhibit these characteristics, but as a population, these tendencies could
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2618
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(14)
reasonably be expected when compared with general community samples. If accurate, this psychological profile points toward significant implications for clinical practice and evaluation. This study therefore initially sought to investigate gender equity attitudes, self-esteem, mastery, and psychological distress among clients commencing a group-based domestic violence intervention program. In doing so, this study aimed to demonstrate the existence of these characteristics within this clinical sample. As the first stage of a longitudinal evaluation of the intervention program, it is important to first establish these baseline measures, particularly in comparison with the general community. By developing a psychological profile of this sample of clients, it will be possible to draw comparisons with the general community and then allow later stages of this project to determine the extent to which the intervention program enabled elements of personal change to be achieved.
Method Participants Men attending a domestic violence group-based intervention program run by Relationships Australia NSW were invited to participate in the research. A total of 85 men from 14 different groups throughout New South Wales agreed to participate. Ages of participants ranged from 21 to 59 years (M = 39.88, SD = 8.48), and a majority (71.8%) identified themselves as having an Australian cultural background. Almost half of participants (44.7%) reported a low range income ($A0-$A599 per week). In all, 31 participants (36.5%) were married and 18 (21.2%) were in de facto relationships. 22 participants (25.9%) were separated from their partners. Direct comparisons between the demographic profile of this sample and those represented in normative studies are not possible, as comparable demographic information is not available.
Surveys Surveys were distributed among group members by a research officer who was not associated with the clinical work of the groups, and group members were assured of the confidentiality of their answers. To obtain baseline measures, these surveys were completed within the first 3 weeks of group attendance. These surveys contained demographic questions, as well as four widely used questionnaires. Participants’ scores on each questionnaire were categorized according to the cutoff scores described by their original authors, as outlined below. The studies with which current results will be compared also
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2619
Broady et al.
utilized these categories, thus enabling direct comparisons between the present findings and normative data. 1. Gender Equity Scale (McGregor, 2009). This research used the Gender Equity Scale that was used in the National Community Attitudes Toward Violence Against Women Survey (NCATVAWS; McGregor, 2009). Participants were required to respond to eight statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Responses were summed to give a total out of 40, which was then converted into a score out of 100 and categorized as high (>90), medium (75-90), or low (
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260513517300Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceBroady et al.
Article
Taking Responsibility: A Psychological Profile of Men Attending a Domestic Violence Group Work Intervention Program in New South Wales, Australia
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2014, Vol. 29(14) 2610–2629 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260513517300 jiv.sagepub.com
Timothy R. Broady,1 Rebecca Gray,1 and Irene Gaffney1
Abstract Domestic violence is a significant social issue with serious implications for victims, families, and the wider community. The present research seeks to investigate specific characteristics that influence the propensity to behave violently. This first stage of a research-based evaluation identifies key differences between men attending a group work intervention program and the general community in terms of gender equity beliefs, self-esteem, personal mastery, and psychological distress. These findings not only provide valuable information for the provision of intervention services but also form a basis that future research may build on in evaluating the effectiveness of such programs. Keywords domestic violence, perpetrators, characteristics, intervention 1Relationships
Australia NSW, Australia
Corresponding Author: Timothy R. Broady, Relationships Australia NSW, 277 Lane Cove Rd., Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia, 2113. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2611
Broady et al.
Introduction According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS; 2006) approximately 20% of Australian women have experienced violence at the hands of an intimate partner. This prevalence of domestic violence has serious implications for the victims of abuse and for the wider Australian community, including the costs of property damage, the justice system, and health services (KPMG Management Consulting, 2009). Domestic violence has a significant impact on the general health and well-being of victims, and is associated with a wide range of health problems (Marcus & Braaf, 2007). Beyond this, many victims report that the emotional impact of experiencing domestic violence far outweighs any physical injuries (Flood & Fergus, 2008). These figures demonstrate the extent to which domestic violence can negatively impact individuals and the wider community. As such, intervention programs that seek to assist perpetrators to reduce their use of violent behavior play a vital role in society. This article outlines the first stage of a longitudinal research project designed to evaluate the effectiveness of one particular intervention program in achieving this goal. To investigate the extent to which participants exhibit change, it is necessary first to recognize risk factors that may contribute to the perpetuation of violent behavior, and also to identify typical characteristics of men who have been abusive toward others in regard to these factors. Much previous research has identified many such factors, as will be outlined in the following paragraphs. A significant portion of this literature refers to external and behavioral influences (e.g., socioeconomic status, substance use/abuse, personal childhood experiences of violence). However, the present study seeks to investigate intrinsic personal characteristics, as those are the issues that can most appropriately be addressed by intervention programs.
Heterogeneity of Men Who Have Been Abusive Toward Others A great deal of research has investigated the typical characteristics of men who perpetrate domestic violence. For example, Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) proposed a framework by which such men can be classified. This typology has been the most supported by subsequent research and has been shown to be a robust representation (Dixon & Browne, 2003). This typology categorizes violent men based on a range of key characteristics, such as impulsivity, social skills, attitudes toward women and violence, psychopathology and/or psychological distress, and the frequency, severity, and generality of violent behavior. For example, men categorized at the
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2612
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(14)
milder end of the typology tend to exhibit low impulsivity, mild deficits in social skills, and do not display attitudes that are supportive of violence or hostility toward women. The violence displayed within this group is therefore typically less severe or frequent than other groups. Comparatively, individuals described as “Generally Violent/Antisocial” are highly impulsive, more likely to be diagnosed with psychopathology, have negative attitudes toward women, and attitudes that support violence. They engage in more severe violent behavior, and are responsible for the highest instances of violence outside the family. Similarly, Johnson et al. (2006) investigated subtypes of domestically violent men and identified four major variables that characterized these men: psychopathology, interpersonal dependency, macho attitudes, and narcissism. These characteristics were found to vary across four different subtypes of violent offenders. For example, macho attitudes vary from low levels in the “narcissistic” subtype, through to high levels in the “antisocial” subtype. Similarly, issues related to psychopathology are typically much less severe within the “low pathology” subtype than in the “borderline” subtype. Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) and Johnson et al. (2006) argued for the heterogeneity of men who have used domestic violence, and in doing so, they demonstrate the inherent differences between individuals. While certain characteristics appear across different subtypes, the impact that each has can be markedly different. For example, some subtypes tend to exhibit significantly higher levels of psychological distress than others, and individuals within certain subtypes are likely to be more impulsive than others. Despite the differences between groups, both of these typologies describe variations of characteristics of individuals whose behavioral patterns remain similar, in that they can be considered violent. Characteristics that distinguish subtypes in either of Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) and Johnson et al.’s (2006) typologies are therefore not independently sufficient predictors of an individual’s propensity to behave violently. It may be the case that a change in these attitudes or characteristics alters the individual’s classification within a given typology, but that violent behavior still exists.
Homogeneity of Men Who Have Been Abusive Toward Others While the heterogeneity of men using violence has been supported through the above-mentioned research, other research has implied a concurrent homogeneity among this population. Dixon and Browne (2003), in an extensive review of previous research, identified a list of characteristics that have been associated with men who have used violence when compared with non-violent
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2613
Broady et al.
men. Those who have used violence exhibit lower self-esteem and assertiveness than non-violent men (Asli & Nebi, 2011; Hundt & Holohan, 2012; Renner & Whitney, 2012; J. Walker & Knauer, 2011; Weber & Robinson Kurpius, 2011), and have also been found to show evidence of antisocial personality (Declercq, Willemsen, Audenaert, & Verhaeghe, 2012; Harris, Hilton, & Rice, 2011; Wallinius, Nilsson, Hofvander, Ackarsater, & Stalenheim, 2012), have a history of substance abuse (Mattson, O’Farrell, Lofgreen, Cunningham, & Murphy, 2012; Renner & Whitney, 2012; Smith, Homish, Leonard, & Cornelius, 2012; Stuart et al., 2008), and display poor impulse control with more regularity than comparatively non-violent men (Chan & Chui, 2012; Derefinko, DeWall, Metze, Walsh, & Lynam, 2011; Howard, 2012). Similarly, attitudinal factors have been found to be significant predictors of whether a person is likely to intervene when witnessing acts of domestic violence. Those who are more likely to intervene are also more likely to firmly believe that violence against women is a serious issue, report greater levels of support for equality between genders, and strongly disagree that the use of physical force against a partner could be justified (McGregor, 2009). These findings suggest that the attitudes an individual holds play a significant part in the extent to which that individual engages (or does not engage) in violent behavior, particularly when that violence is directed toward an intimate partner. While attitudinal factors play an important role in contributing to the existence of domestically violent behavior, Leonard (2001) argued that specific situational cues combine with these long-term personal characteristics to trigger individual instances of violence. This relationship is particularly apparent in the context of ongoing conflict between partners (Leonard, 2001). As such, impulsivity and difficulties with self-regulation have been identified as potential contributors to abusive behavior. Characteristics such as a lack of self-regulation may be due to long-term variables (e.g., attention-deficit hyperactive disorder [ADHD]), or short-term state influences (e.g., drugs and/or alcohol). Other theories, based on cognitive-affective models, focus on the centrality of anger in a majority of violent behaviors. Such theories argue that to successfully intervene and change an individual’s behavior, the thought processes that support violent and abusive behavior must first be altered (Day, Chung, O’Leary, & Carson, 2009). Each of these approaches supports the concept of underlying attitudes providing a baseline, and situational cues acting as a trigger to instigate violent behavior. The contribution of previous research (e.g., Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986) that has identified certain predictors of family violence (e.g., substance abuse, social class, employment, violence in the family of origin) must not be discounted. It is widely acknowledged that such factors contribute significantly
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2614
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(14)
to the perpetration of violent behavior. However, the present research seeks to investigate internal, subjective characteristics that may make similar contributions, and therefore add to existing understandings of external influences. This article argues that a particular selection of attitudes and psychological constructs are particularly salient among men who have been abusive and are purposefully addressed within clinical settings such as the program being evaluated in this longitudinal project. These constructs are therefore discussed in the following baseline. This article further argues that these attitudes and constructs are significantly correlated with the existence of domestic violence, and addressing them may assist in any attempt to change the pattern of such behavior. The following variables are not intended to comprise an exhaustive list, but rather to provide an indication of issues that have been regularly raised in previous research and those specifically addressed by the program being evaluated in this study. Due to their prevalence throughout literature and relevance to themes addressed by the program, these constructs have been purposefully selected to frame this evaluation research project.
Gender Equity Holding traditional gender role attitudes has been found to be among the most consistently accurate predicators of having negative attitudes toward women and displaying more support for the use of violence against women than those who hold more equitable gender role attitudes (Berkel, Vandiver, & Bahner, 2004; Bettman, 2005). Previous research has also suggested that men attending domestic violence intervention programs are more likely to believe that violence can be appropriate in marital relationships (Eckhardt, Samper, Suhr, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2012; Saunders, Lynch, Grayson, & Linz, 1987). As such, an individual’s personal attitudes toward women, gender roles, and the nature of a marital relationship can be seen to significantly influence the likelihood of domestic violence occurring. These findings are supported by large-scale Australian research. For example, the Victorian-based Community Attitudes to Violence Against Women Survey (Taylor & Mouzos, 2006) found that the extent to which an individual was supportive of violence against women was best predicted by his or her “gender equity score.” High support for gender equity indicates that a person believes women should possess the same rights, roles, and opportunities in society as men. A similar, nationwide study, the National Community Attitudes to Violence Against Women Survey (McGregor, 2009), also found that the two strongest predictors of being in any way permissive of violence against women were low gender equity scores and being male. Respondents
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2615
Broady et al.
who were categorized as scoring in the “low” range of gender equity scores were significantly less likely to consider any given action to be violent. For example, while 94% of respondents (male and female) with high gender equity scores considered forcing a partner to have sex as always being an example of domestic violence, only 70% of those with low gender equity scores held the same view. The results of these large-scale surveys suggest that the more support a person has for gender equity, the more likely they are to consider that certain behaviors are always examples of domestic violence (e.g., forcing a partner to have sex, yelling abuse, controlling a partner by denying them money). As such, these results provide further support for the idea that traditional and patriarchal gender attitudes can be associated with views that are more permissive of violence against women. However, it is not a Black and White case of low gender equity support corresponding to support for violence and high gender equity support corresponding to opposition to violence against women. Rather, higher support for gender equity simply correlates to an increased likelihood that an individual will consider a certain action to be an act of domestic violence.
Self-Esteem Research exists to suggest that self-esteem is related to an individual behaving violently or abusively toward their partner. Duplantis, Romans, and Bear (2006) argued that research on the relationship between self-esteem and domestic violence is ambiguous, and point out that very little research has examined the relationship between a client’s level of self-esteem and rates of dropout from counseling programs. This suggests that significant complexities exist in the relationship between self-esteem and the behavior of perpetrators of domestic violence. A number of authors have theorized about the relationship between selfesteem and violent behavior. For example, Gilligan (2000) asserted that the aggression is often associated with feelings of humiliation and negative selfevaluations. Alternatively, Walker and Bright (2009) identified contrasting theories that suggest higher levels of self-esteem increase the risk of violent behavior, particularly when such high self-esteem is not supported by any evidence that the individual in question is successful. In these cases, it is argued that any threat to the self-concept is taken more seriously and violence is a medium by which superiority may be asserted. However, Walker and Bright (2009) argued that if the self-esteem of men using violence appears to be inflated, this is in actual fact covering low self-esteem. They argue that if they were genuinely secure in themselves, they would not be vulnerable to
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2616
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(14)
threats to their self-concept. This viewpoint is supported by Salmivalli (2001), who suggests that violent perpetrators display falsely inflated selfesteem when the problem is really their low self-esteem. Through a systematic review of literature, Walker and Bright (2009) found that a majority of studies suggested that low self-esteem was a risk factor for violent behavior. This relationship was supported by the seven largest studies reviewed, including the only two studies that used a longitudinal cohort design. However, while some sampled populations of violent perpetrators, a majority of these studies were conducted using samples of American university students, so the generalizability of findings to a wider population may be questioned. The systematic review conducted by Walker and Bright (2009) ultimately suggested that the most robust finding is that of low self-esteem being related to violent behavior. However, this relationship appears to be more robust among student populations than it is in forensic populations. Regardless, Walker and Bright (2009) still concluded that there is sufficient evidence to determine that low self-esteem is more strongly associated with violence and aggression than high self-esteem.
Mastery Mastery can be defined as “the extent to which people see themselves as being in control of the forces that importantly affect their lives” (Pearlin, Menaghan, Lieberman, & Mullan, 1981, p. 340). This concept is becoming increasingly more central to current understandings of domestic violence and interventions. For example, the Minimum Standards for Men’s Domestic Violence Behaviour Change Programs in New South Wales (NSW Government Attorney General & Justice, 2011) insist that perpetrators of family and domestic violence are held accountable for their actions. Furthermore, a central tenet of many intervention programs (e.g., the Duluth Model) is that accountability is placed on those who commit violent acts. As such, the extent to which individuals have control or mastery over their circumstances, environments, and actions holds great significance, and is specifically addressed within the current intervention program. Feelings of powerlessness have been argued to characterize men who have been abusive, particularly as such behavior often involves a component of attempting to overpower and control intimate partners (Rosenbaum & Leisring, 2003; Walker & Knauer, 2011). In such instances, men use controlling behaviors directed at their partners to alleviate their own feelings of powerlessness (Petrik, Petrik-Olson, & Subotnik, 1994; Ronel & Claridge, 2003; Rubenstein, 2001; Walker & Knauer, 2011). Among a sample of 52 male
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2617
Broady et al.
participants in a domestic violence intervention program, Katsigiannis (2006) found that as scores on a mastery scale increased, corresponding scores on a family violence scale decreased. While this correlation was not statistically significant, methodological issues (e.g., small sample size) provide significant limitations. Katsigiannis (2006) suggested that a larger sample size or improved measurement techniques may result in this relationship becoming statistically significant. Previous research therefore suggests that perpetrators of domestic violence are likely to feel they have little control over forces that importantly affect their lives, and indicates that their exhibition of violent behavior may be an attempt to counteract such feelings and regain a sense of control (Umberson, Williams, & Anderson, 2002; Walker & Knauer, 2011).
Psychological Distress Stress is considered to occur when the demands of one’s environment exceed that person’s resources and capacity to manage those pressures (Wheaton, 1999). Research has suggested that the experience of stress, under the above definition, may contribute somewhat to the existence of domestic violence (Felson, 1992; Straus, 1990; Umberson et al., 2002). This contribution may take the form of an interaction with underlying attitudes. That is, when confronted with situations that induce significant feelings of stress, men who hold more traditional gender role attitudes and who are generally more permissive of violent behavior may be more inclined to act in a violent or abusive fashion. This notion has been supported by a number of previous research studies. Generally speaking, psychological issues have been found to be more prevalent among men who have been abusive than non-violent men (Declercq et al., 2012; Gibbons, Collins, & Reid, 2011; Wallinius et al., 2012; Walsh et al., 2010). A number of the psychological issues that have been associated with domestically violent behavior have also been related to one another (e.g., depression, substance abuse disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline personality). It is therefore possible that psychological disorders such as these represent a common risk factor when considering the perpetration of domestic violence (Riggs, Caulfield, & Street, 2000).
Present Study Taken together, this literature suggests that men who behave violently toward their partners are likely to demonstrate the following characteristics: low support for gender equity, low self-esteem, low mastery, and heightened psychological distress. This is not to say that every man who behaves abusively will exhibit these characteristics, but as a population, these tendencies could
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2618
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(14)
reasonably be expected when compared with general community samples. If accurate, this psychological profile points toward significant implications for clinical practice and evaluation. This study therefore initially sought to investigate gender equity attitudes, self-esteem, mastery, and psychological distress among clients commencing a group-based domestic violence intervention program. In doing so, this study aimed to demonstrate the existence of these characteristics within this clinical sample. As the first stage of a longitudinal evaluation of the intervention program, it is important to first establish these baseline measures, particularly in comparison with the general community. By developing a psychological profile of this sample of clients, it will be possible to draw comparisons with the general community and then allow later stages of this project to determine the extent to which the intervention program enabled elements of personal change to be achieved.
Method Participants Men attending a domestic violence group-based intervention program run by Relationships Australia NSW were invited to participate in the research. A total of 85 men from 14 different groups throughout New South Wales agreed to participate. Ages of participants ranged from 21 to 59 years (M = 39.88, SD = 8.48), and a majority (71.8%) identified themselves as having an Australian cultural background. Almost half of participants (44.7%) reported a low range income ($A0-$A599 per week). In all, 31 participants (36.5%) were married and 18 (21.2%) were in de facto relationships. 22 participants (25.9%) were separated from their partners. Direct comparisons between the demographic profile of this sample and those represented in normative studies are not possible, as comparable demographic information is not available.
Surveys Surveys were distributed among group members by a research officer who was not associated with the clinical work of the groups, and group members were assured of the confidentiality of their answers. To obtain baseline measures, these surveys were completed within the first 3 weeks of group attendance. These surveys contained demographic questions, as well as four widely used questionnaires. Participants’ scores on each questionnaire were categorized according to the cutoff scores described by their original authors, as outlined below. The studies with which current results will be compared also
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on March 13, 2015
2619
Broady et al.
utilized these categories, thus enabling direct comparisons between the present findings and normative data. 1. Gender Equity Scale (McGregor, 2009). This research used the Gender Equity Scale that was used in the National Community Attitudes Toward Violence Against Women Survey (NCATVAWS; McGregor, 2009). Participants were required to respond to eight statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Responses were summed to give a total out of 40, which was then converted into a score out of 100 and categorized as high (>90), medium (75-90), or low (
