Men's Gendered Constructions of Intimate Partner Violence as Predictors of Court‐Mandated Batterer Treatment Drop Out

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the meaning men make of their violence toward intimate partners and to examine if and how these meanings and constructions of violence predicted who drops out of batterer treatment prior to program completion. We used both qualitative and quantitative data collected from 154 men court-mandated to participate in a batterer intervention program. The qualitative findings indicated that the men in this sample minimized and denied responsibility for the violence they used towards their intimate partners while simultaneously rationalizing and justifying their violent behavior. Such findings provide insight into how denial and minimization and, more broadly, men's constructions of masculinity might predict their tendency to drop out of batterer treatment. Furthermore, building upon our qualitative findings, logistic regression analysis revealed that men who were lower income, no longer intimately involved with the women they abused, and who reported lower levels of physical violence and higher levels of hostility were more likely to drop out of the batterer treatment program.

A Community Psychology of Men and Masculinity: Historical and Conceptual Review

“…Furthermore, her study shows that perceived racism in healthcare mediates the relationship between discrimination experiences and medical mistrust. Catlett et al (2010) examine participation in a batterer intervention program in a sample of African American men. Qualitative findings reveal that men minimize and deny responsibility for their partner violence, and furthermore suggest that the men's constructions of masculinity are linked to dropping out of batterer treatment.…”

Recidivism risk reduction assessment in batterer intervention programs: A key indicator for program efficacy evaluation

“…A second change identified, although more moderate, is the participants' perceived severity of IPVAW. Awareness of the severity of IPVAW, along with a high level of responsibility assumption, are particularly relevant if we take into account that a large proportion of IPVAW offenders do not consider the behavior which cause their conviction to be a crime and define their own behavior as "normal" or "acceptable" (Cattlet et al, 2010;Lila, Gracia, & García, 2010). A third change identified is in the risk of recidivism reduction.…”

“…Men condemned for IPVAW tend to show a lack of responsibility assumption (Henning & Holdford, 2006;Lila, Oliver, Galiana, Catalá, & Gracia, 2014). These men frequently deny and minimize their violent behavior, blaming the victims for provoking this behavior (Cattlet, Toews, & Walilko, 2010;Gracia, 2014;Gracia & Tomás, 2014). The majority of BIPs acknowledge the importance of making offenders aware of their responsibility for the violent behavior (Lila, Gracia, & Herrero, 2012;Scott & Strauss, 2007).…”

Desconstruindo expectativas de gênero a partir de uma posição minoritária: como dialogar com homens autores de violência contra mulheres?

“…O fracasso do diálogo nesta cena converge com outras observações e experiências no campo: os participantes, assim como muitos homens na sociedade, resistem com êxito à compreensão do ponto de vista moral de mulheres que não se comportam de acordo com as expectativas de um homem 17,18 . A cena ilustra a legitimidade sociocultural desta resistência -sustentada até pelo discurso psiquiátrico que, historicamente, patologizou as mulheres que não se adequavam ao seu papel de gênero.…”

“…A maioria dos homens autores de violência contra mulheres não se responsabiliza por seus atos espontaneamente 17 , resiste aos esforços dos facilitadores para levá-los a expressar empatia e fragilidades 16 , e não adere a intervenções que exigem que assumam outros discursos 18 . Altas taxas de abandono sustentam os resultados artificialmente positivos dessas intervenções: muitas vezes, apenas os participantes que cumprem o "tratamento" prescrito são avaliados, usando os homens que desistem como grupo controle 19 , como se esses abandonos não fossem também resultados da intervenção; ou ainda, avalia-se o efeito das intervenções em função da "dose" de tratamento recebida 20 , o que permite novamente desconsiderar o abandono enquanto resultado negativo.…”