New Approach to Domestic Violence Intervention

It is considered important that anyone expecting to work professionally with domestic violent offenders to enhance self efficacy, be familiar with motivational interviewing approaches in their ongoing work. Therefore this programme assumes that facilitators will utilise motivational interviewing skills when presenting programme material. Motivational enhancement is the process of continually working to ensure that participants are open to new ideas and able to integrate these ideas into their behaviour. Motivational enhancement will be integrated into the design of the session materials.

The programme integrates the principles of adult learning and therefore includes a range of teaching mediums and styles to enhance desirable programme outcomes for participants.

What works in terms of intervention

Programmes have generally developed along the lines of a ‘one size fits all’ model, being based upon psycho-educational approaches. A number of researchers have explored in some depth the question of ‘Are men who are violent the same’ and increasingly attention has been given to the question of differing pathways into violence (see Gondolf, 2002). While the final result (abusive practices directed towards another person) may appear the same behaviourally, understanding the different pathways will assist workers to tailor the programme to individual group members. Effective matching as indicated earlier is one of the key outcomes of effective practice.

There has long been a distinction within the field between instrumental and expressive violence. Instrumental violence refers to violence carried out in the execution of meeting some alternative need, as opposed to expressive violence which has its basis in the regulation of emotion. It is our view that the definitions have been too narrowly defined. It can be argued that the majority of violence is instrumental in that its aim is generally to stop certain behaviour or encourage others. For example, within a family context abusive practices are often used to control a person’s action or stop some form of behaviour. While the person may be reactive (expressively) to a heightened state of arousal, the outcome sought is to regain control (instrumental). Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart (1994) in reviewing the literature, proposed a model for predicting violence severity and whether men will be violent inside or outside the home or both. They argue that three main types of men present in programmes;

• men who are only abusive within a family setting and do not exhibit significant pathology (e.g. depression, anti-social attitudes etc.)
• passive aggressive-dependent men who are very clingy and extremely controlling in close relationships (dysphoric/borderline)
• men who exhibit a number of antisocial characteristics and are engaged in antisocial behaviours such as criminal lifestyles (antisocial).

What is clear from meta-analysis is that non-pathological family-only abusive men had the lowest levels of violence behaviour along with less frequency. Violence tends to be restricted to intimate relationships and overall these men are likely to have had few police contacts. This is not surprising and is backed up by Morris’ research (1996) that indicated that women who were victimized did not tend to access help from formal systems (Courts and/or Police) until they had exhausted their social support systems.

Men with antisocial characteristics were more likely to be violent and abusive both inside and outside the home, had most police contacts and were likely to have alcohol related problems. ‘More generally violent’ refers to violence in public (street, hotels, etc) whereas ‘private violence’ refers to that which occurs within the home or with family members.

Passive aggressive-dependent men had higher frequencies of violent acts and were also extremely abusive. They had moderate alcohol problems but generally few police charges. This may reflect that public violence is more visible than violence that occurs within the home. While not tested in research, it is our contention that men who constantly breach protection orders, harass partners post separation, and are at risk of murder/suicide, would be more likely to fit into this group of men.

There is little doubt that childhood family experiences establish the template for our behaviour in adult life. Early childhood family experiences (i.e., witnessing parental violence, experiencing child abuse in methods of child discipline) has a significant impact on behaviour in adult life. Social learning theory maintains that behaviours such as violence and abuse are reinforced vicariously because it provides short-term effectiveness in managing situations of conflict and recalibrates the maintenance of power and control within intimate relationships. Also this vicarious reinforcement occurs within the wider social context such as school, media, neighbourhood and may predispose men to utilise violence more often than females.

A second factor comprises peer experiences and the level of involvement with delinquent and deviant peers. Bowker (1983) found that men who engaged in frequent and severe marital violence were less likely to make efforts to end their marital violence and spent more time with male peers (i.e., daily contact). Bowker (1983) suggested that these men may be immersed in a subculture of violence with peers who encourage their use of violence.

A number of other factors have been identified. Attachment to other individuals (including dependency on others and empathy for others) is generally viewed as resulting from childhood experiences with caregivers. Secure or insecure cognitive representations of relationships or working models of attachment that one takes into later life are based on these experiences (see Dutton, 1995). It is interesting that men who are ambivalently attached to and preoccupied with their wives (e.g., experiencing pathological levels of dependency, jealousy and fear of rejection) are at risk of engaging in marital violence when threatened with the loss of their relationship. These men are consistently found to be more volatile, experience higher levels of anger and may over-react during interpersonal disputes.

It is most often the case that men who are generally violent and have antisocial personalities feel little remorse and are most likely to externalise blame for abusive behaviour. This is in contrast to family only violent men who feel remorse and are more likely to engage in help-seeking behaviour. Anti-social subtypes score higher on scales of substance abuse, criminal behaviour, alcohol abuse and contact with police.

So what does this mean for practice? Clearly programmes that are based on empathy building are not likely to be as effective for men with anti-social characteristics, whereas programmes that operate from strong cognitive-behavioural approaches are. These men also need to grapple more with their relationship to their peer group who are likely to condone abusive practices as a solution to problem behaviour.

Men who are dysphoric/borderline need careful monitoring and support post separation and may require more individual time outside of the programme hours to manage increased risk. They also require extensive work on managing heightened arousal and safety strategies. Also these men require a strong support team to monitor risk behaviour.