The purpose of the study was to evaluate the psychosocial predictors of propensity for abusiveness among a large sample of women ordered into a 26-week batterer intervention program (BIP).
Method:
The study employed a nonequivalent, control group design (comparing program completers to dropouts) in a secondary analysis of 485 women.
Results:
Analysis indicated that (1) there were no significant differences between program completers and dropouts on their propensity for abusiveness. (2) There are specific family of origin indicators associated with higher levels of propensity for abusiveness among women batterers. (3) Family of origin indicators leading to increased propensity for abusiveness were significantly different among racial groups.
Conclusion:
These findings reveal characteristics of women batterers, as they relate to the propensity for abusiveness and provide preliminary evidence suggesting exposure to various forms of violence in family of origin helps explain the use of violence by adult women against their intimate partners.
BlosnichJ. R.BossarteR. M. (2009). Comparisons of intimate partner violence among partners in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 2182–2184.
3.
ButtellF.CarneyM. (2005). Do batterer intervention programs serve African American and Caucasian batterers equally well? An investigation of a 26-week program. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 19–28.
4.
ButtellF.CarneyM. (2006). A large sample evaluation of a court-mandated batterer intervention program: Investigating differential program effect for African American and Caucasian men. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 121–131.
5.
ButtellF.CarneyM. (2008). A Large sample investigation of batterer intervention program attrition: Evaluating the impact of state program standards. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 177–188.
6.
ButtellF.PowersD.WangA. (2012). Evaluating predictors of program attrition among women mandated into batterer intervention treatment. Research on Social Work Practice, 22, 20–28.
7.
ButtellF.StarrE. (2013). Lifting the veil: Foundations for a gender-inclusive paradigm of intimate partner violence. In RussellB. L. (Ed.), Perceptions of female offenders: How stereotypes and social norms affect criminal justice responses (pp. 117–132). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
8.
CanonC.ButtellF. (2015). Illusion of inclusion: The failure of the gender paradigm to account for IPV in LGBT relationships. Partner Abuse, 6, 65–75.
9.
CarneyM.ButtellF. (2006). An evaluation of a court-mandated batterer intervention program: Investigating differential program effect for African American and white women. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 571–581.
10.
CarneyM.ButtellF.DuttonD. (2006). Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Journal of Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 108–115.
11.
CarvalhoA.LewisR.DerlegaV.WinsteadB.ViggianoC. (2011). Internalized sexual minority stressors and same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 501–509.
12.
CookT.CampbellD. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing.
13.
DobashR. E.DobashR. P. (1979). Violence against wives. New York, NY: The Free Press.
14.
DobashR. P.DobashR. E.WilsonM.DalyM. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71–91.
15.
DuttonD. (1995). A scale for measuring propensity for abusiveness. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 203–221.
16.
DuttonD.LandholtM.StarzonmskiA.BodnarchukM. (2001). Validation of the propensity for abusiveness scale in diverse male populations. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 59–75.
17.
DuttonD. G.NichollsT. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680–714.
18.
EckhardtC. I.MurphyC. M.WhitakerD. J.SprungerJ.DykstraR.WoodardK. (2013). The effectiveness of intervention programs for perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 4, 196–231.
19.
EhrensaftM. K.CohenP.JohnsonJ. G. (2006). Development of personality disorder symptoms and the risk for partner violence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 474–483.
20.
FelsonR. B. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about violence?Contexts5, 21–25.
21.
GoverA. R.BrankE. M.MacDonaldJ. M. (2007). A specialized domestic violence court in South Carolina: An example of procedural justice for victims and defendants. Violence Against Women, 13, 603–626.
22.
Graham-KevanN. (2009). The psychology of women's partner violence: Characteristics and cautions. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 587–603.
23.
JewellL. M.WormithJ. S. (2010). Variables associated with attrition from domestic violence treatment programs targeting male batterers: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1086–1113.
24.
KernsmithP.KernsmithR. (2009). Treating female perpetrators: State standards for batterer intervention services. Social Work, 54, 341–349.
25.
KronerD. G.WeeksJ. R. (1996). Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Factor structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 323–333.
26.
Langhinrichsen-RohlingJ. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 79–193.
27.
MessingerA. M. (2011). Invisible victims: Same-sex IPV in the national violence against women survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2228–2243.
28.
PaulhusD. L. (1984). Two component models of social desirability responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.
29.
StrausM. A. (2011). Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 279–288.
30.
WinstokZ. (2011). The paradigmatic cleavage on gender differences in partner violence perpetration and victimization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 303–311.
