The Control Motive and Marital Violence

Felson, Richard B.; Outlaw, Maureen

doi:10.1891/088667007781553964

Cited by 105 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Large-scale national surveys conducted in the United States and have measured the extent of CCV in the general population (Felson & Outlaw, 2007;Jasinski, Blumenstein, & Morgan, 2014;Laroche, 2005). The latest of these surveys identified 36% of female IPV victims to have experienced CCV compared to 35% of male victims.…”

Section: Differential Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Armenti²,

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, the judicial system response to violence between intimate partners, or intimate partner violence (IPV), typically mandates that adjudicated perpetrators complete a batterer intervention program (BIP). The social science data has found that these programs, on the whole, are only minimally effective in reducing rates of IPV. The authors examined the social science literature on the characteristics and efficacy of BIPs. More than 400 studies were considered, including a sweeping, recently conducted survey of BIP directors across the United States and Canada. Results of this review indicate that the limitations of BIPs are due, in large part, to the limitations of current state standards regulating these programs and, furthermore, that these standards are not grounded in the body of empirical research evidence or best practices. The authors, all of whom have considerable expertise in the area of domestic violence perpetrator treatment, conducted an exhaustive investigation of the following key intervention areas: overall effectiveness of BIPs; length of treatment/length of group sessions; number of group participants and number of facilitators; group format and curriculum; assessment protocol and instruments; victim contact; modality of treatment; differential treatment; working with female perpetrators; working with perpetrators in racial and ethnic minority groups; working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) perpetrators; perpetrator treatment and practitioner–client relationships; and required practitioner education and training. Recommendations for evidence-based national BIP standards were made based on findings from this review.

show abstract

Section: Differential Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Armenti²,

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in an empirical study by Graham-Kevan and Archer (2008) of shelter residents, male and female students, and male prisoners, control accounted for significant proportions of the variance in the use of physical aggression for many other subtypes of perpetrators, including those thought to be perpetrating situational couple violence. Similarly, using data from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), Felson and Outlaw (2007) concluded that husbands and wives differ mostly in the types of controlling behaviors they are engaged in, rather than in their overall amount of controlling behavior. The extent to which researchers and clinicians may have to be able to reliably differentiate control as a situation-specific motivation for violence as opposed to control as a general and underlying relationship pattern in order to determine subtype membership awaits continued study.…”

Section: Challenge #2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Controversies Involving Gender and Intimate Partner Violence in the United States

Langhinrichsen‐Rohling

2009

Sex Roles

266

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper summarizes five challenging ongoing controversies involving gender and U. S. intimate partner violence (IPV) (i.e., gender symmetry of perpetration; utility of typologies; understanding bi-directionally violent couples; violence motivations and self-defense, and treatment effectiveness). Reviewed evidence support three central theses that: 1) there are subtypes of IPV; 2) women are as involved as men with some but not all subtypes of IPV, and 3) recognition of these gender-related challenges will improve policy, treatment, and working models of IPV. Within this paper, a dyadic culture-family-attachment-skill deficit model of IPV is conceptualized and three types of bi-directionally violent couples are named and described (dyadic dominance, dyadic dysregulation, and dyadic couple violence). Practice and policy implications of these advances are articulated.

show abstract

“…Bates and GrahamKevan (2012) found that men and women were equally likely to be categorized as intimate terrorists. Other studies indicate that control and controlling aggression are characteristic of both sexes (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005;Felson & Outlaw, 2007;Graham-Kevan, 2007;GrahamKevan & Archer, 2009). Furthermore, Hines (e.g., Hines & Saudino, 2003;Hines, Brown, & Dunning, 2007;Hines & Douglas, 2010) has described the severe physical and psychological effects that male victims of IPV suffer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Testing predictions from the male control theory of men's partner violence

Bates

Graham‐Kevan

Archer

2013

Aggressive Behavior

118

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to test predictions from the male control theory of intimate partner violence (IPV) and Johnson's [Johnson, M. P. (1995). Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 282-294] typology. A student sample (N ¼ 1,104) reported on their use of physical aggression and controlling behavior, to partners and to same-sex non-intimates. Contrary to the male control theory, women were found to be more physically aggressive to their partners than men were, and the reverse pattern was found for aggression to same-sex non-intimates. Furthermore, there were no substantial sex differences in controlling behavior, which significantly predicted physical aggression in both sexes. IPV was found to be associated with physical aggression to same-sex nonintimates, thereby demonstrating a link with aggression outside the family. Using Johnson's typology, women were more likely than men to be classed as "intimate terrorists," which was counter to earlier findings. Overall, these results do not support the male control theory of IPV. Instead, they fit the view that IPV does not have a special etiology, and is better studied within the context of other forms of aggression. Aggr. Behav. 40:42-55, 2014.

show abstract

The Control Motive and Marital Violence

Cited by 105 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Controversies Involving Gender and Intimate Partner Violence in the United States

Testing predictions from the male control theory of men's partner violence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About