Family-Only Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review

Abstract

This article presents the first systematic review of family-only intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators (as originally proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart). The aims of the present review were to summarize and describe the prevalence of the family-only perpetrator subtype, as well as to investigate what characteristics were associated with perpetrators within this subtype. Electronic literature searches in several databases (e.g., PsychINFO, Web of Science, and PubMed) were carried out. Of the 3,434 studies identified, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria as well as the methodological quality criteria. Thematic analyses were conducted, where several themes and subthemes were identified. The proportion of family-only perpetrators, averaged across sample types, was 47.5%. Drawing on the thematic analyses of the reviewed studies, family-only perpetrators presented as a less violent subtype, displaying several pro-social personality traits, as well as a lower degree of psychopathology. The findings were in line with Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart's predictions. The findings also demonstrated the utility of a 2-fold typology, consisting of a family-only and a generally violent (GV) subtype, as well as the need to reconsider the one-size-fits-all approach to IPV treatment. We also included a discussion of the terminology of the subtypes and propose an adoption of the terms "partner only violent" and "generally violent" subtypes.

Characteristics and recidivism in relation to arrest: differentiating between partner violent perpetrator subtypes

“…Previous studies have established that the GV perpetrators constitute a more violent, high-risk, subtype compared to the PO violent perpetrators. For example, the GV perpetrators have demonstrated higher levels of severe physical and psychological violence, a higher propensity to escalate their violent behaviour, as well as displaying violent attitudes (Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005;Holtzworth-Munroe et al, 2000;Petersson & Strand, 2018). Furthermore, the GV perpetrators have also been found to display more problems related to psychosocial adjustment than the PO violent perpetrators, including more problems with substance use, employment and mental health (Petersson et al, 2019).…”

“…According to Goldstein et al (2016), these results were not surprising for the GV perpetrators as they, due to their antisocial and violent disposition, were hypothesized to be more likely to recidivate regardless of initial violence severity. A possible explanation as to why violence severity was not predictive for the PO violent perpetrators could be that victims of such perpetrators, who are usually exposed to less severe forms of IPV (Petersson & Strand, 2018), may wait with reporting their partner to the police until a more severe incident occurs. Thus, although being reported for severe forms of IPV, given their otherwise less violent disposition and their higher stake in conformity, an arrest could have a deterrent effect making PO violent perpetrators reluctant to recidivate.…”

“…Although a step in the right direction, a growing body of research (e.g. Cantos & O'Leary, 2014;Petersson & Strand, 2018) has questioned the validity of the four-subtype typology advocated by Holtzworth-Munroe et al (2000) and used in the Johnson and Goodlin-Fahncke (2015) study. This four-subtype solution was the result of an attempt to validate Holtzworth- Munroe and Stuart's (1994) proposed typology consisting of three subtypes (i.e.…”

“…In light of this, a recent systematic review concluded that the two most consistently identified subtypes of IPV perpetrators across typology research are the PO violent subtype (resembling the family-only subtype) and the GV subtype (resembling the generally violent/antisocial subtype: Petersson & Strand, 2018). In their review, these two subtypes were found in all 30 studies that were included.…”

Treatment impact on recidivism of family only vs. generally violent partner violence perpetrators

“…When it comes to treatment, several studies have focused on the FO versus antisocial and GV distinction with respect to treatment completion and response (Cantos et al, 2015, Petersson and Strand, 2018, Stoops et al, 2010). Stoops et al (2010) provided some of the first direct evidence that a behavior-based typology can predict both treatment program completion and re-arrest in an urban criminal justice system in Cook County, Illinois.…”