Motivational Interviewing as a Pregroup Intervention for Partner-Violent Men

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of a pregroup motivational intervention for domestic abuse perpetrators. Men presenting for treatment at a community domestic violence agency (N = 108) were assigned to receive either a two-session intake using the techniques of motivational interviewing (MI) or a structured intake (SI) control. All participants were then referred to a cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) program in groups homogeneous with respect to intake condition. The motivational intake led to more constructive in-session behavior during the early phase of group CBT, greater compliance with group CBT homework assignments, higher late session therapist ratings of the working alliance, and more help seeking outside of the domestic violence program. No significant effects of intake condition were found on session attendance, self-reports of readiness to change abusive behavior, or client reports of the working alliance. Partner reports of abusive behavior outcomes during the 6 months after group CBT revealed a marginal effect favoring the MI condition on physical assault. The findings suggest that motivational interviewing can increase receptivity to partner violence interventions.

Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs: A Proposal for Evidence-Based Standards in the United States

“…Among the more promising findings have been for psychoeducational programs that incorporate an MI component. MI significantly predicts increased motivation and responsibility taking among partner violent men as well as a stronger client-facilitator alliance and lower recidivism rates (Mbilinyi et al, 2011;Musser et al, 2008;Woodin & O'Leary, 2010). MI techniques also have been significantly correlated with group cohesion, which in turn is correlated with increased motivation as well as reduced rates of recidivism (Alexander, Morris, Tracy, & Frye, 2010;Taft et al, 2003).…”

“…(p. 1) Such concerns are, to some extent, valid, but the danger to victims is unlikely to be with the modality per se but rather the therapist's skills set and competence, and whether or not a client acquires early on the necessary emotion management skills with which to stop their abuse, Murphy and Eckhardt (2005) argue that individual treatment can hold perpetrators more accountable in comparison to group treatment, particularly those groups that are too large or led by poorly trained facilitators who are unable to prevent negative role modeling and reinforcement. So far, the only outcome studies to have been published on individual psychotherapy have focused on the effectiveness of MI techniques delivered in the one-on-one format but only for a short number of sessions (Crane & Eckhardt, 2013;Crane, Eckhardt, & Schlauch, 2015;Kistenmacher & Weiss, 2008;Mbilinyi et al, 2011;Murphy, Linehan, Reyner, Musser, & Taft, 2012;Musser, Semiatin, Taft, & Murphy, 2008;Woodin & O'Leary, 2010). (The empirically demonstrated effectiveness of MI is discussed in an upcoming section.)…”

Evaluación cualitativa de un programa de intervención psicológica con hombres violentos dentro de la pareja

“…En este sentido, deberán mejorarse las estrategias que aumenten la motivación, la alianza terapéutica y la adherencia de los hombres al tratamiento (Dia, Simmons, Oliver y Cooper, 2009;Maiuro y Murphy, 2009;Musser, Semiatin, Taft y Murphy, 2008;Taft y Murphy, 2007) en un contexto que inicialmente puede quedar definido como no terapéutico (Cirillo, 1994).…”

Dialogues in Partner Abusive Clients’ Group Treatment: Conversational Tools Used by Counselors With Differently Motivated Clients

“…In several recent studies, the method of Motivational Interviewing has been proposed as offering an approach more tailored to individual needs, and also as supporting co-operation with clients in their desire to change (see e.g., Hettema, Steele & Miller, 2005). Such a method might also be applied to work with partner-violent client populations and included among the main tools used in these interventions (cf., Murphy & Maiuro, 2009;Musser, Semiatin, Taft & Murphy, 2008;Schumacher et al, 2011;Stuart, Temple & Moore, 2007). …”