Taking Responsibility

Abstract

Domestic violence is a significant social issue with serious implications for victims, families, and the wider community. The present research seeks to investigate specific characteristics that influence the propensity to behave violently. This first stage of a research-based evaluation identifies key differences between men attending a group work intervention program and the general community in terms of gender equity beliefs, self-esteem, personal mastery, and psychological distress. These findings not only provide valuable information for the provision of intervention services but also form a basis that future research may build on in evaluating the effectiveness of such programs.

Men building better relationships: A scoping review

“…Thirteen articles (eight Australia, three United Kingdom and two Canada) detailed programs addressing men's behaviour change in partner relationships. Five studies reported characteristics of IPV prevention programs; [39][40][41][42][43] three examined the perspectives and attitudes of men in DV programs; [44][45][46] three discussed specific strategies for working with men; [47][48][49] one described a community-level DV prevention program aimed at boys and men; 50 and one article differentiated relationship violence subtypes to make recommendations for tailoring men's programs. 51 Men accessed programs via self-referral or third party referrals by counsellors, social workers and family courts mandating attendance at a DV or IPV program.…”

“…39 Program attendees age ranged 20 through 50 years old. 39,[41][42][43][44][45][46] The programs included a mix of attendees at diverse points in terms of trying to build skills towards saving the relationship, navigating separation and/or divorce, or maintaining access to their child[ren].…”

“…45,46,48 Listening to the stories of other men elicited self-awareness, helped alleviate shame and fear and prompted feelings of empathy for partners amongst attendees of the Taking Responsibility program. 44 That said, hindering such benefits and heightening attrition were negative chats amongst attendees on breaks or outside the scheduled group meetings. 44 Poor program completion rates relating to similar issues were reported by Bowen et al 40 A review examining male IPV subtypes highlighted the fit of specific program components for men experiencing situational couple violence to address their inability to resolve conflicts and poor communication patterns.…”

“…44 That said, hindering such benefits and heightening attrition were negative chats amongst attendees on breaks or outside the scheduled group meetings. 44 Poor program completion rates relating to similar issues were reported by Bowen et al 40 A review examining male IPV subtypes highlighted the fit of specific program components for men experiencing situational couple violence to address their inability to resolve conflicts and poor communication patterns. 51 Distinct from the rigorous emotion regulation training required for men classified as anti-social and borderline/dysphoric IPV, for men in situational couple violence, learning about healthier relationships, changing dysfunctional interaction patterns and developing effective communication skills were recommended.…”

Outcomes and Recidivism in Mandated Batterer Intervention Before and After Introducing a Specialized Domestic Violence Court

“…While reducing violence is a key outcome, evaluations of BIP programs that use standardized clinical measures generally conclude that the programs effectively increase a batterer’s personal control and responsibility for his actions (Bowen, Gilchrist & Beech, 2008; Feder & Forde, 2000; Tutty, Bidgood, Rothery & Bidgood, 2001), reduce stress/trauma symptoms (Bennett, Stoops, Call, & Flett, 2007; Buttell & Pike, 2003; Tutty et al, 2001), decrease depression and anger (Barrera, Palmer, Brown, & Kalaher, 1994; Hamberger & Hastings, 1988; Huss & Ralston, 2008), and improve self-perception/esteem (Broady, Gray, & Gaffney, 2014; Lee et al, 2004). Assessing the reliability of the self-reports through the use of social desirability or lie scales is also common (DeHart, Kennedy, Burke, & Follingstad, 1999).…”