TYPOLOGIES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDERS
One Size Does Not Fit All
“Who are these guys?”
Several decades of research in the field of determining different types of domestic violence offenders have yielded valuable insights into how and why domestic violence takes place. The research has been conducted almost exclusively on adult, male, heterosexual offenders and should not automatically be applied to domestic violence offenders who are adolescent, female, or gay. We now know that the men who commit these acts have a wide variety of motivations, triggers for aggression, personal histories, and personality styles, and they operate in different kinds of relationships.
What follows is simply a brief review of the research—it is not intended to be comprehensive for all the different research and theories in this field. In the years of developing The STOP Program, fourth edition, I have particularly found the research of Michael Johnson (2008) and Johnson and Ferraro (2000) at Penn State University and Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) and Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, and Stuart (2000) at Indiana University to be invaluable. Their research and contributions of several other researchers are included in this review.
Similarities
Although we now know domestic violence offenders are different from each other, it is important to first summarize the factors that they have in common. The research (on straight adult males) tells us that they:
Hold attitudes that evaluate the use of force less negatively
Distort causes and consequences of behavior
Assume greater partner negative intent
Are less able to use reasoning
Have higher levels of arousal in response to conflict
Have higher generalized anger/hostility
Label many forms of negative affect (hurt, jealousy, fear) as anger
Are more likely to be unemployed
Are more likely to abuse substances
Are more likely to have witnessed family violence as a child
In other words, if you took 1000 straight adult male domestic violence offenders and compared them with 1000 straight adult male nonoffenders, as a group they would show significantly higher levels of all of these characteristics. Of course not every offending individual will show these elevations, but collectively they will.
Typologies And Differences I
Research by Johnson (2000, 2008) has indicated that there are distinctly different profiles among perpetrators of domestic violence. The research identifies the “intimate partner terrorism” category (formerly known as “patriarchal terrorism”) as representing profiles with a very different set of motivations, personality type, and quality of relationship than profiles in the “situational couple violence” category (formerly known as “common couple violence”).
INTIMATE PARTNER TERRORISM
“Intimate partner terrorism” describes domestic violence in which the primary abuser is almost always male, the abusive behavior is usually more frequent and severe, and the primary abuser systematically “coercively controls” their partner. The distinguishing feature of intimate terrorism involves a general motive to control. The controlling behaviors of intimate terrorism often involve emotional abuse that can gradually alter victims’ views of themselves, their relationships, and their place in the world. This pattern of psychological abuse results in victims who become demoralized and trapped in abusive relationships.
SITUATIONAL COUPLE VIOLENCE
“Situational couple violence” describes domestic violence that is initiated equally by women and men and that is not characterized by a pattern of coercive control. There are many triggers for intimate partner violence (attachment threats, substance abuse, extreme stress, bidirectional psychological aggression, etc.) that can generate abuse even without any patterns of coercive control.
Typologies And Differences II
Holtzworth-Munroe (2000) identified four types of male domestic violence offenders. The categories are based on frequency, severity, and generalization of violence, as well as key personality variables (such as antisocial traits, anger, depression, anxiety, jealousy, and fear of abandonment).
GENERALLY VIOLENT AGGRESSOR (GVA)
GVA batterers have had early experiences that increase the risk of developing positive attitudes toward violence and negative attitudes toward women while failing to develop social skills in intimate or nonintimate situations. Their relationship violence is simply a part of their general pattern of violent and criminal behavior. They
are generally antisocial and more likely to engage in instrumental violence;
tend to be violent across situations and with different victims;
are more generally belligerent;
are more likely to abuse substances;
are more likely to have a criminal history;
are more likely to have been the victim of child abuse;
are more likely to have witnessed spouse abuse;
are limited in their capacity for empathy and attachment;
hold extremely negative attitudes toward women and conservative views of relationships;
have a high pattern of inflicting psychological and sexual abuse;
have a history of high association with deviant peers;
have attitudes supportive of violence.
Items on the Millon Adult Personality Inventory (Millon, Millon, Davis, & Grossman, 2006) that contribute to the GVA category include the following:
I got in trouble as a teenager.
I have used illegal drugs.
I have done impulsive things that have got me in trouble.
Punishment doesn’t stop me from getting in trouble.
FAMILY-ONLY (FO)
The use of physical aggression emerges as a result of poor partner-specific communication skills, dependence on and preoccupation with the partner, and mild problems with impulsivity. These men
show little or no significant evidence of psychopathology;
have mild social-skill deficits;
are moderately dependent and jealous;
have a passive and passive-aggressive style;
have overcontrolled hostility: a tendency to suppress emotions and withdraw and to later erupt into violence after long periods of unexpressed but seething rage;
exhibit acts of abuse that are generally less severe than xx;
generally feel remorse about their actions;
are least likely to be violent outside the home;
are the least psychologically abusive;
have the most liberal attitudes toward women (when compared with other types);
show low levels of anger, depression, and jealousy, but high levels of “impression management”;
are least likely to have been abused as children.
LOW LEVEL ANTISOCIAL (LLA)
LLA is the category, generated by the research, for men whose characteristics overlap the GVA and FO categories. These men do not meet the full criteria for GVA, but they have enough GVA characteristics that they cannot be appropriately classified in the FO group. This category does not have a set of descriptive criteria independent of the two categories above.
BORDERLINE/DYSPHORIC (BD)
Emotionally dysphoric/borderline domestic violence offenders, when confronted with relationship conflicts, typically perceive them as threats of abandonment. Lacking the skills to resolve such conflicts, they impulsively use physical aggression to express their distress and intense anger. These men
exhibit high scores for psychopathology, impulsivity, and aggression;
experienced parental rejection and child abuse;
are emotionally volatile;
tend to be violent only within their family;
are more socially isolated and socially incompetent than other batterers;
exhibit the highest levels of anger, depression, jealousy, and fear of abandonment;
find ways of misinterpreting their partners and blaming their partners for their own mood states;
have prominent depression and feelings of inadequacy;
were severely abused as children.
Items on the Millon Adult Personality Inventory (Millon, Millon, Davis, & Grossman, 2006) that contribute to the BD category include the following:
I create situations where I then feel hurt or rejected.
I will do something desperate to prevent abandonment.
Being alone frightens me.
Most people think poorly of me.
Why do we care about the typology research? Because we used to believe that there was only one type of abuser and only one type of relationship that generated and maintained intimate partner violence. We have always known that the worst and most profoundly damaging violence is committed by men who are driven by a need for power and control—we now know that only a minority of abusive men are so motivated. One reason domestic violence treatment has been more effective over the years is that we are no longer trying to fit square pegs into round holes, and another is that we are more adept at understanding the multiple different stories that lead abusive men into our groups and programs.
Even when we focus on universal themes of relationship dysfunction and abusive behavior, a broader understanding of the multiple motivations for intimate partner violence helps us match intervention to individual.