1 / 39

Intimate Partner Violence, Types and Risk

Intimate Partner Violence, Types and Risk. Prof. Liz Gilchrist Psychology Glasgow Caledonian University. Some Assumptions. Domestic Violence interventions patriarchy and ‘dysfunctional masculinity’ key underlying features in abusive relationships

tamasine-mitsuyama
Download Presentation

Intimate Partner Violence, Types and Risk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Intimate Partner Violence, Types and Risk Prof. Liz Gilchrist Psychology Glasgow Caledonian University

  2. Some Assumptions • Domestic Violence interventions • patriarchy and ‘dysfunctional masculinity’ • key underlying features in abusive relationships • Empirical work –need sophisticated understanding, • individuals deficits NOT the causal factor in DV, • But can contribute to and shape the abusive patterns • and affect RISK • Heterogeneity • is being acknowledged • Interventions • need to match need, learning styles of different individuals • Should focus on highest risk groups • Need to know who they are/what they do

  3. What we Know About DV/IPV • 45% of all female homicide victims were killed by a present or former male partner (compared to 8% of male victims) and on average 2 women per week are killed by a partner/ex-partner (Criminal Statistics, 1997). • Repeat victimisation is likely, half of all victims of domestic violence are involved in incidents more than once, (British Crime Survey 1996) • Risk appears to differ by sub-group • Anti social batterers have been identified as posing risk of most severe violence • Borderline/emotionally volatile/expressive offenders as posing the most immediate risk of more frequent violence ( Sonkin, Martin, & Walker, 1985)

  4. Predicting Lethality • Previous domestic violence: • between 64% and 71% of domestic femicides were preceded by domestic abuse, • in the UK 60% of homicide offenders used violence against a previous female partner and 59% had used violence against the partner they then killed, • Witnessing domestic violence • 40% of wife killers witnessed domestic violence in their family of origin, • Not being married: • violence is more common in common-law relationships than formal marital relationship, UK data suggests 57% of victims were in a ‘tenuous’ relationship with their killer (dating or co-habiting) • Separation: • Australian data: 45% of women murdered had left their killers or were in the process of leaving. (53% within a month of separation & 91% within one year )

  5. Risk & Risk of Lethality • Jealousy: • the majority of wife murderers are recorded as being preceded by claims of sexual infidelity, • Stalking: • Stalking behaviours are indicative of risk as 91% of attempted femicide victims reported experiencing stalking behaviour. • Knives: • Most women in the UK were killed with a sharp implement but the methods varied from beating (29%, to stabbing (30%) and strangulation (32%) • Canadian and US data (e.g. Campbell, 1995) • recent escalation of the severity and/or frequency of assaults, • serious previous assault, • credible threats to partner combined with access to a weapon (knife), • threats of suicide by perpetrator or threats to kill, • forced sex , • extreme male dominance, • acceptance of violence, • jealousy, • violence towards children, others, pets • extensive destruction of property. • (Data from Aldridge & Browne, 2003 and Dobash & Dobash,Cavanagh & Lewis, 2005)

  6. Range of Abuses and level of control • Victim/survivor studies identify a range of abuses • experienced by the partner as being controlling, restricting their movements and choices, (Pence & Paymar, 1984, Gilchrist et al 2004) • Key feature - power and control, i.e. the violence is functional and gains rewards • 72% of UK batterers fit this antisocial and narcissistic profile (Gilchrist, Johnson, Takriti, Weston, Beech, & Kebbell, 2003). • 28% perpetrators different profile • still be experienced as controlling, but may feel/look different to perpetrator and victim/survivor? The Wheel of Power and Control

  7. Sub-groups of DV Offender • US work suggests that DV offenders are not a homogenous group, several typologies • Saunders (1992) 3 types: family-only, emotionally volatile and generally violent • Tweed & Dutton (1998) 2 types, instrumental & impulsive • Holtzworth- Munroe et al (2000) 4 types: family only, low-level antisocial, generally violence, borderline/dysphoric • UK appear to show similar groups to US • These groups may evidence different need • And different risk

  8. Abusive Personality Type • Dutton ( 1998) identifies one sub-group of batterer similar to the borderline/dysphonic • As an abusive personality type • Suggestion that their abuse is linked to early attachment issues, possible issues around abusive childhood doing more than disrupting learning and providing inappropriate role models • Affects stability of sense of self • Attachment rage • Wrongly identifying negative internal states to external causes – particularly blaming adult intimate partner • Dysphoric Batterer • Cyclical phases (Lenore Walker’s cycle of violence) • Ambivalence to wife/partner • •     Attachment: Fearful/angry • •     MCMI: Borderline

  9. Psychopathic Batterers •     Violence inside and outside home •     History of antisocial behaviour (car theft, burglary, violence) •     High acceptance of violence •     Negative attitudes - supportive of violence •     Usually victimized by extreme abuse as a child •     Low empathy •     Associations with criminal marginal subculture •     Attachment: Dismissing •     MCMI: antisocial, aggressive-sadistic • “Vagal Reactors.” autonomic suppression • focus attention on the external environment: the wife/antagonist.

  10. Different types of Perpetrator Table 1: Four Clusters of Offender Identified and size (%)

  11. Ecological Validity? • Duluth model was based on victim/survivor experiences – strong ecological validity • Perpetrator Typologies based more on perpetrator data • Highly likely perpetrators do not self report abusive patterns accurately • Much perpetrator focussed work has not taken the cultural context into account • Rarely does the victim/survivor voice inform ‘typologies’ • For ecological validity • the patterns and profiles of the sub-groups MUST make sense to victim/survivors • Also must be of some benefit to practitioners • If possible increase women’s safety, inform us about RISK

  12. Table 3: types of abuse reported by type Data from Partners

  13. Antisocial/Narcissistic Blame, deny “He used to say it was my fault, he used to say ‘you brought it on yourself, it’s your fault ‘cos your thick... he used to say ‘I didn’t hit you as hard as you’re saying, you’re stupid, you’re out your mind’” Borderline/emotionally volatile Apologise “There would be tears and everything ‘I’m really, really sorry, I love you very much, I didn’t mean to do it’”. “He used to say it wouldn’t happen again, and he was sorry, and he knew it was all his fault Minimising, Denying and Blaming

  14. Antisocial/Narcissistic (instrumental behaviour?) “He’d wreck the lounge, he’d throw things in temper, he didn’t have to hit me,” “If we had an argument he’d look at me in a certain way and say to me ‘shut up ‘cos you know what I’m like’... Borderline/emotionally volatile Not reported by the partners Intimidation

  15. Antisocial/Narcissistic (instrumental behaviour?) Constant Abuse “He kept putting me down and everything, he never once said a nice thing about me. If I made a nice meal, he’d never say it was nice, or if I made a real effort to get dressed up or anything, he never once said I looked nice.” Borderline/emotionally volatile Only abusive at the time of the assault “If we had an argument I mean he would start like using, you know like slagging me off really”. Emotional Abuse

  16. Antisocial/narcissistic “It’s just every time he’s had a drink that’s it. Like if he has spirits then I know, you know….if he just has lager he’s okay, but when he has whisky that’s the worst, you know. He’s alright if has like just a couple of vodkas, I know, if he has vodka I know he’ll just come home and go to sleep, but when he has whisky then it send him, you know”. Borderline/emotionally volatile “I think maybe I made my husband both feel insecure and it came out in violence”. “I sort of like said that he was like his Dad and that upset him ‘cos his Dad was violent when he was younger and abusive towards him, so maybe I had contributed to it a little bit by saying that, that might have like triggered him off a little bit”. Attributions

  17. Antisocial/Narcissistic “There’s always drink involved, when he’s sober there’s no problem whatsoever, I never actually saw him being violent when he wasn’t drunk”. Borderline/Emotionally Volatile “It’s all jealousy with him you see, it’s about other men and me, that’s what, that’s what G’s got a temper about, it’s always about other men”. “Just jealousy, he didn’t want me to go out”. (Borderline/Emotionally Volatile) Attributions

  18. High self esteem Less external locus of control High social desirability  MCMI: antisocial,narcissistic Previous research suggests Violence is more deliberate or instrumental Violence inside and outside home Victim/Survivor Data Not very controlling with money, but jealous of working Always Emotional Abuse Uses Male privilege Only Isolates partner if affects him Will Threaten/attempt suicide Minimises by blaming & , denying Uses looks, smashes property, and the children to intimidate Blames violence on drink Anti-social Offender from both perspectives

  19. High levels of anger, External locus of control Fearful Attachment MCMI: Borderline Depression Drugs and alcohol Previous research suggests Violence is more impulsive. Cyclical phases High levels of jealousy Violence, predominantly/exclusively in intimate relationship Victim/Survivor data Very controlling over money Only abusive at time of assault When helpful it is to control partner e.g. shop not let her out Stops partner going out, friends, family, Threatens to kill kids, family, smash property to control partner Not generally intimidating Minimises by apologising Argues and is emotionally abusive irrespective of children Blames violence on jealousy and her behaviour Borderline Offender from Both Perspectives

  20. What does this mean in terms of risk?

  21. Existing Risk Assessment Scales Navy FAP Victim & Offender -reoffend Evaluation 2002-03 Risk & Safety & safety (FA, MP, health) (Stith, Milner) Mosaic DV (20) (deBecker) Computerized/Victim (criminal Evaluation underway justice) - lethality risk system DVSI (Williams & Houghton) Offenders (criminal justice) Predictive validity short – reoffending 80% (Williams, ’03) SARA (Kropp et al) Offender (criminal justice) - Evaluation published reoffending most & best data reof Best w/perp. psych. PSI (Duluth) Victim & offender - both Process evaluation (advocates & criminal justice) (CDC) - no outcomes K-SID (Gelles) Victim & offender - reoffend Some evaluation data (advocates & criminal justice) Danger Assessment Victim- Lethality (Advocates, Evaluation continuing (Campbell) Health Care)

  22. Dobash et al Study (2007) • Compared lethal and non-lethal violence against intimate female partner • Compared • data from their ‘Violent Men’ Study (n= 122) - non lethal violence against partner • data from the ‘Murder in Britain ‘ study (n= 106) – lethal violence against partner • Key question • ‘Is non-lethal violence always a precursor to lethal violence?’

  23. Dobash Findings • Men who kill are more conventional • Less DV, alcohol issues in family of origin, better education, employment and less offending • 41% of lethal violence did not involve previous violence to this partner (but often violence to previous partner) • MORE LIKELY to be possessive, jealous & separated • LESS likely to be drunk at time of offence • More use of instruments and knives in lethal events (8.25% v. 75.5%) and more sexual violence in lethal (0% v. 16%) • Challenges the notion of simple progression from domestic abuse to domestic homicide • Ref: Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh & Medina-Ariza (2007) Lethal and Nonlethal Violence Against an Intimate partner Violence Against Women, 13:4, 329 - 353

  24. Belfrage & Rying Study (2004) • Swedish study of all spousal homicide cases between 1990 and 1999 • Compared intimate partner homicide (n= 164) with all other homicides (n= 690) • Police data, forensic reports, Police examinations of the suspects, all forensic psychiatric examinations, inc. PCL-SV • Key questions: • What risk factors are of particular importance when assessing risk for spouse violence? • Can we identify certain batterer typologies or are all men equal risk?

  25. Belfrage & Rying concerns Half of all women murdered by their partners are never physically abused prior to the homicide (p123) Considered that psychopathic traits would be high on lethal group Generally psychopathy and anti-social lifestyle predictive of spouse assault recidivism (Grann & Wedin, 2001, p130) Belfrage & Rying (2004) Characteristics of Spousal Homicide Perpetrators Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 14, 121 – 133.

  26. Belfrage & Rying Findings • Spousal homicide • Often in the context of separation, high level of jealousy • Less likely to be drunk at time of offence (44% v. 61%) • Strangulation was twice as common (21% v. 11%) • Less criminal record (61% v 72%) • Four times as many more suicides (24% v. 6%) • Psychopathy rare (mean 11.7 less than average) • Depression and other psychiatric disorders high • More dysphonic/borderline profile • Assault (and re-assault) - Anti-social profile • Murder – Borderline/Dysphoric profile

  27. So who is a Lethal Risk? • Dobash study • ‘conventional men’, high levels of jealousy, • They challenged progression across groups • Fits with Holtzworth –Munroe research which suggested that the sub-groups of IPV men remained the same over time • Belfrage & Rying • High jealousy, separation, mental health issues not psychopathic • Suggest this fits the borderline/dysphoric group better

  28. Implications • for Intervention • Lack of indicators of increasing risk may not mean that the risk is not lethal • Some RISK MARKERS and OFFENDER PROFILES as important as previous behaviour • Threats of suicide, access to weapons, sexual assault must be taken seriously • For Research • Need to do further study on lethal violence (parole work) • To explore precursors to lethal IP violence • and ID RISK MARKERS to alert us where there is no pattern

  29. DANGER ASSESSMENT (Campbell ‘86)http://www.son.jhmi.edu • Developed in 1985 to increase battered women’s ability to take care of themselves (Self Care Agency; Orem ‘81, 92) • Interactive, uses calendar - aids recall plus women come to own conclusions - more persuasive & in adult learner/ strong woman/ survivor model • Intended as lethality risk instrument versus reassault (e.g. SARA, K-SID) - risk factors may overlap but not exactly the same

  30. DANGER ASSESSMENT (Campbell ‘86, ‘95; Campbell et. al., 2001) • 15 items yes/no plus calendar • Shows pattern - frequency & severity of past year • Aids recall • Summative, no cutoff • 10 samples of 2251 battered women • Internal consistency = .60-.86; test-retest .89-.94 • Construct validity: convergent w/CTS & ISA (r = .55-.75); discriminant group

  31. Danger Assessment – Independent Predictive Validity Studies - Reassault • Women’s perception of danger stronger predictor than any of the 10 DA items available in criminal justice records – (Weisz, Tolman, & Saunders, 2000) • Heckert & Gondolf (’02; in press) N = 499 – DA- 66% sensitivity but 33% false positives - Women’s perception of risk PLUS DA best model (over SARA & K-SID) but women’s perception of risk by itself not quite as good as DA • Williams & Houghton (in press) – DA factors (not all available) comparable or slightly better than SARA & DVSI - N = 1465 criminal record check reoffending & 125 victim reports

  32. DANGER ASSESSMENT ITEMS COMPARING ACTUAL & ATTEMPTED FEMICIDE SURVIVORS (N=493) & ABUSED (WITHIN PAST 24 MONTHS) CONTROLS (N=427) (*p < .05) Att/Actual 56% 62% 50% 64% 39% 55% 57% 54% 16% 4.6 Control 24% 18% 10% 16% 12% 23% 14% 24% 22% 2.4 • Physical violence increased in frequency* • Physical violence increased in severity * • Partner tried to choke victim * • A gun is present in the house * • Partner forced victim to have sex * • Partner used street drugs * • Partner threatened to kill victim * • Victim believes partner is capable of killing her * • Perpetrator AD Military History (ns.) • Stalking score*

  33. Nonsignificant Variables of note • Hurting a pet on purpose -10% of attempteds/actual victims vs. 8.5% of controls • BUT – some clear cases of using cruelty to a pet as a threat to kill • WAS a risk for women to be abused (compared with nonabused controls) • AND more risk in attempted femicide sample – perhaps proxies not as knowledgeable about pets – warrants further investigation • Perpetrator military history – 16% actual/attempteds vs. 22% of controls

  34. Comparisons on Cutoffs - Sensitivity

  35. GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR RISK ASSESSMENT IN DV • More sources of information the better – “gold standard” for information is victim – without information from victim, cutoffs for lethality risk problematic – criminal record check important • Perpetrators will minimize perpetration • No actuarial methods for DV, few independent evaluations – use any cutoffs with great caution – DVSI best if criminal justice records only & SARA with psych evaluation • Instrument improves “expert judgment” – but clinician wisdom important also • Never underestimate victim’s perceptions (Weisz, 2000; Gondolf, 2002) but often minimize victimization – therefore victim assessment of risk not enough if low

  36. Future Directions • “Danger Assessment is a Process not a Product” (B. Hart) • Field developing rapidly – watch literature • Differentiating lethality & reoffending risk - different batterer typologies may explain differences (Holtzworth-Munroe) • Strategies for working with victims important – to increase their realistic appraisal and to determine risk factors not available from criminal record checks or from perpetrators never previously arrested – e.g. as part of batterer intervention programs • Assessing safety – protective strategies as well as danger – implications for interventions • Two parallel processes – reoffending risk for criminal justice cases; danger (lethality) risk for victim safety planning

  37. Thank you Prof. Elizabeth Gilchrist , Psychology, George Moore Building, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 OBA. Liz.gilchrist@gcal.ac.uk

  38. What intervention? • There is some evidence that groups have an effect. Two thirds of men completing batterer programmes avoid re-assaulting their partners (Scott, 2004) • distress and jealousy and consequences of abuse, and possibly process-dynamic or cognitive behavioural therapies may be appropriate for borderline personality disorder (Scott, 2004) • Generally violent/anti-social batterers need to be engaged in long term psychotherapy, short term group treatment is not likely to be sufficient (Scott, 2004) • Strongest predictor of future domestic abuse is past abuse (Scott, 2004) and current level of lethality/previous lethality best predictor of future level of violence or lethality (Campbell, 1995). • Some protective factors can be identified, for example, research identifies that despite a violent family histories, men who develop strong attachments to partners, as well as to family and friends were less likely to be violent to their partners (Lackey & Williams,1995)

  39. references • Browne, A. Battered Women Who Kill, The Free Press, 1987.Campbell, J.C. "The Danger Assessment Instrument: Risk Factors of Homicide of and by Battered Women," in Block, C.R. & Block, R.L., Questions and Answers in Lethal and Non-Lethal Violence, National Institute of Justice, June, 1992.Edeson, J.L.& Toman, R.M., Intervention for Men who Batter: An Ecological Approach, 49, Sage, 1992.Hart, B., "Beyond the ‘Duty to Warn’: A Therapist’s ‘Duty to Protect’ Battered Women and Children" in K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, Sage, 1988.. • Sonkin, D.J., Martin, D. & Walker, L., The Male Batterer: A Treatment Approach, Springer, 1985Stordeur, R.A. & Stille, R., Ending Men’s Violence Against Their Partners: One Road to Peace, Sage, 1989. Straus, M.A. & Gelles, R.J., Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction, 1990. • Jacobson, Gottman, Waltz, Rushe, Babcock, Holtzworth-Munroe ( 2000)Affect, Verbal Content, and Psychophysiology in the Arguments of Couples With a Violent Husband Prevention & Treatment, Volume 3, Article 19, posted June 2, 2000

More Related