The purpose of this article is to describe the rationale and methods of couple-based interventions designed to treat and prevent intimate partner violence. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral individual and couple risk factors for violence are reviewed, as are therapeutic concerns regarding the use of conjoint treatment. Current conjoint treatments that are intended to reduce the incidence of abusive behavior among couples in which one or both partners have engaged in forms of psychological and/or mild to moderate physical aggression, do not engage in battering or severe violence, and desire to improve their relationships and stay together are described. We focus on our Couples Abuse Prevention Program (CAPP) that compares the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral couple therapy procedures and treatment as usual at a university-based couple and family therapy clinic. Outcomes from the CAPP project and evaluations of the other programs demonstrate the potential of judiciously applied conjoint interventions for aggressive behavior in couple relationships.

This study examined effects of cognitive-behavioral couple therapy (n = 25 couples) and a variety of systems-oriented couple therapy models (n = 30 couples) in reducing negative attributions and degrees to which decreases in negative attributions were associated with improvements in other aspects of relationship functioning. Couples seeking treatment at a university clinic and experiencing psychological and/or mild-to-moderate physical abuse completed 10 weekly sessions. Attributions, relationship satisfaction, psychological abuse, communication, and negotiation were assessed before and after treatment. Women and men in both treatments exhibited decreased negative attributions, which moderated increases in satisfaction and decreases in negative communication, as well as increases in positive communication for men. The findings reinforce the importance of modifying negative attributions when intervening to reduce abuse.

BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent public health problem that affects millions of families. Much of what is known about IPV comes from quantitative studies that often "count" acts of IPV without exploring in depth the circumstances surrounding the violence, thereby leaving critical questions unanswered; existing qualitative studies tend to focus solely on women’s perspectives. There is a dearth of dyadic qualitative research exploring the context of IPV in families with children, thus hindering the development of effective interventions for families experiencing IPV.MethodsSeven heterosexual couples were recruited from a University-based family therapy clinic to participate in qualitative interviews. Couples were eligible if they had experienced severe verbal or any physical aggression during the past 4 months; had ≥ one child living in the household; were English-speaking; and were ≥ 18. Each individual was interviewed separately. Key topics explored included specific types of violence used by men and women; primary triggers and the context surrounding aggressive disagreements; degree to which the child(ren) were exposed; and perceived consequences for adults and children.ResultsAll couples listed household responsibilities and parenting as key IPV triggers. Couples with infants reported that parenting disagreements were particularly heated, with women using aggression due to frustration about their partners’ lack of support. Couples also described substance use, wanting to be heard, and prior violence histories as triggers or as the background context for IPV episodes. Children were present during IPV and often intervened in conflicts involving severe violence. Parents’ perceptions of the effects of IPV on their children ranged from minimal to major emotional distress, with men describing more significant impact than women.ConclusionsWhen describing acute triggers, parents most commonly mentioned that arguments were instigated by concerns about the division of household labor and parenting, a finding that may have significant implications for intervention development; this was particularly notable for parents of infants. Our findings emphasize the need for innovative programs that help parents cope with the stresses of raising a family as well as programs that directly address the consequences of IPV for children.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1324) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract