Maritally violent men's heart rate reactivity to marital interactions: A failure to replicate the Gottman et al. (1995) typology.

Abstract

In an attempt to replicate the J. M. Gottman et al. (1995) batterer typology, 58 men who had engaged in moderate-to-severe marital violence in the past year were studied. The sample was split into Gottman et al.'s Type 1 men (i.e., whose heart rates decreased, from baseline, during a marital conflict task) and Type 2 men (i.e., whose heart rates increased). The groups did not differ in the manner predicted on measures of marital violence, antisocial or aggressive-sadistic personality, drug dependence, criminality, general violence, childhood exposure to interparental violence, behavior during marital interactions, or relationship stability. Contrary to expectations, wives of Type 1 men rated their husband as more jealous and angry and reported more marital distress. In the only finding consistent with Gottman et al., Type 2 men scored higher on a measure of dependent personality. Implications for future research are discussed.

The role of psychopathic traits among intimate partner-violent men: A systematic review

“…When psychopathy was used to examine the differentiate among batterer subtypes, psychopathic traits failed to differentiate among traditional batterer subtypes proposed by Gottman et al (1995) and Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994), among both non-convicted Holtzworth-Munroe et al, 2000, 2003Meehan et al, 2001) and convicted (Huss & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2006) samples. However, when other alternative batterer typologies were established, psychopathy proved to be useful to identify a specific batterer subtype characterized by displaying pathologically high anger levels (Eckhardt et al, 2008;Murphy et al, 2007), perpetrating premeditated (Stanford et al, 2008) and proactive IPV (Chase et al, 2001) and repeatedly reassaulting their partners (Gondolf & White, 2001).…”

“…Psychopathy failed to differentiate among batterer subtypes according the traditional batterer typologies. First, both Babcock et al (2004) and Meehan et al (2001) reported that psychopathy was not a useful variable to differentiate between the type 1 and type 2 batterers proposed by Paper Sample Assessment Relevant findings Babcock et al (2004) Couples (N = 102) from community sample a • Target groups: clinical (n = 50) and low (n = 22) level violent men • Control group: non intimate partnerviolent men (n = 30) Target and control groups were created based on both self-and female partnerreports on male-to-female IPV (CTS2): clinical level (at least six minor, two moderate or one severe male-to-female IPV act in the past year), low level (at least one minor o moderate male-to-female IPV act in the past year), and control group (no male-to-female IPV in the past 5 years and no serious violence ever) 100% male (couples) Mean men's age (SD): 32 (9.6) P: SRP-II IPV: CTS2 (self-and female partnerreports)…”

“…Nineteen studies examined the role of psychopathy to establish batterer typologies or differentiate among batterer subtypes using samples composed of non-convicted partnerviolent men (see Table 3; Babcock, Green, Webb, & Graham, 2004;Babcock et al, 2005Babcock et al, , 2008Chase, O'Leary, & Heyman, 2001;Hale, Zimostrad, Duckworth, & Nicholas, 1988;Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart, 2003;Holtzworth-Munroe et al, 2000;Meehan, Holtzworth-Munroe, & Herron, 2001;Theobald et al, 2015;Walsh et al, 2010) and convicted male batterers (see Table 4; Cunha & Gonçalves, 2013;Echeburúa & Fernández-Montalvo, 2007;Eckhardt, Samper, & Murphy, 2008;Fernández-Montalvo & Echeburúa, 2008;Gondolf & White, 2001;Huss & LanghinrichsenRohling, 2006;Lawson, Brossart, & Shefferman, 2010;Murphy, Taft, & Eckhardt, 2007;Stanford, Houston, & Baldridge, 2008).…”

“…Not significant main effect of psychopathy on IPV perpetration through sensitivity to wife's expression of happiness -indirect effect -, β = .19, p = n.s; partial mediation was present. Mediational analysis Meehan et al (2001) Violent couples (N = 58) from Holtzworth-Munroe et al (2000) who had experienced moderateto-severe levels of IPV based on CTS-2 (at least six minor, two moderate or one severe male-tofemale IPV act in the past year) -community sample a Non control group composed by non IPV perpetrators 100% male (couples) Mean men's age: nr P: SRP IPV: CTS-2 (selfand female partner-reports) Violent men were classified as heart reat decelerators (type 1) and heart reat accelerators (type 2) based on heart reat reactivity during the first 2.5 min [type 1 (n = 19); type 2 (n = 39)] and 5 [type 1 (n = 20); type 2 (n = 38)] min of marital interaction. Role of psychopathic traits to differentiate among batterer subtypes: Not significant differences between type 1 and type 2 batterers on psychopathy for 2.5 min reactivity (p = n. s.) and for 5 min reactivity (p = n. s.).…”

Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach

“…Apart from the family only group, these typologies seem to converge in identifying a group of men who are high in general antisocial behavior and a group who may still be elevated in antisocial behavior to some degree, but also show depressive/anxious and borderline personalities. However, at least two studies have failed to replicate the Gottman et al typology (Babcock, Green, Webb, & Graham, 2004;Meehan, Holtzworth-Munroe, & Herron, 2001), and there have been no consistent replications.…”