The Duluth model: A data-impervious paradigm and a failed strategy

Dutton, Donald G.; Corvo, Kenneth

doi:10.1016/j.avb.2007.03.002

Cited by 103 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bates, Graham-Kevan, Bolam & Thornton, in press). Dutton and Corvo (2007) state that the Duluth influenced programs still purport the "gender-political assumptions that male violence is always unilateral and any mention of female violence is 'victim blaming'" (p.661). Consequently these gender politics inhibit asking about female violence and in some settings it is prohibited.…”

Section: Risk Assessment and Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within this model, men's own experience of victimisation is not seen as a risk or causal factor; yet in contrast, women's perpetration is seen as wholly a factor of their victimisation. Dutton and Corvo (2007) describe the "two totally different gestalts for male and female violence" (p.660). Any and all risk factors of men's IPV are dismissed as excuses (Dutton & Corvo, 2006).…”

Section: Risk Assessment and Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other researchers also argue that risk assessment should encompass both perpetrator and victim characteristics (e.g., Kropp, 2009) in order to more fully understand an individual's or couple's risk and intervention need factors. Furthermore, to predict recidivism and effectively assess risk, there is a need to consider whether the context of the home is violent; as Dutton and Corvo (2007) question "…would it not matter if a group-client was returning to a relationship with a violent woman?" (p.662).…”

Section: Recommendations For the Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Current Controversies within Intimate Partner Violence: Overlooking Bidirectional Violence

Bates

2016

J Fam Viol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a wealth of research that details the bidirectional nature of the majority of intimate partner violence (IPV; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Misra, Selwyn & Rohling, 2012). However, there is a tendency for interventions to treat perpetrators and victims unilaterally from a gendered standpoint. The current paper discusses the evidence to date that illustrates the extent of the problem including frequency within several samples, and the severity of outcomes. It further argues that the only way to develop effective interventions is to acknowledge that many perpetrators may also be victims, and the need to understand the context in which the violence occurs.

show abstract

Section: Risk Assessment and Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Assessment and Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recommendations For the Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Current Controversies within Intimate Partner Violence: Overlooking Bidirectional Violence

Bates

2016

J Fam Viol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This fits with a lot of research currently within the field that is calling for more evidence based practice around the use of DVPPs (e.g. Dixon et al, 2012;Graham-Kevan, 2007;Dutton & Corvo, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Therefore, issues with attrition and poor reliability of the instruments used where not acknowledged in Gondolf's evaluation. Dutton and Corvo (2007), in their reply to Gondolf's critique of their 2006 paper, state that "...the burden of disproving efficacy replaces the burden of demonstrating efficacy...counter to the basic principles of evidence-based practice" (p. 664).…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Perpetrator Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs in the United Kingdom

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Usage of any items from the University of Cumbria's institutional repository 'Insight' must conform to the following fair usage guidelines.Any item and its associated metadata held in the University of Cumbria's institutional repository Insight (unless stated otherwise on the metadata record) may be copied, displayed or performed, and stored in line with the JISC fair dealing guidelines (available here) for educational and not-for-profit activities provided that• the authors, title and full bibliographic details of the item are cited clearly when any part of the work is referred to verbally or in the written form• a hyperlink/URL to the original Insight record of that item is included in any citations of the work • the content is not changed in any way• all files required for usage of the item are kept together with the main item file. You may not• sell any part of an item• refer to any part of an item without citation • amend any item or contextualise it in a way that will impugn the creator's reputation• remove or alter the copyright statement on an item.The full policy can be found here. Alternatively contact the University of Cumbria Repository Editor by emailing insight@cumbria.ac.uk. The aim of the current study was to conduct a review of current intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrator provision within the UK. The objective of the review was to explore the characteristics of intervention programs currently within the UK. Using a questionnaire based design we explored characteristics of current programs including program structure, program logistics, facilitator characteristics and facilitator insights around the programs. A number of organisations completed the questionnaire (N = 21) and a review of existing literature was performed to explore the general characteristics of programs being delivered within the UK. Within the sample we found the feminist approach was still influential but that facilitators also reported a need to ensure programs are more inclusive in their service provision to represent the diversity of perpetrators found. An unexpected finding from this study was the resistance of many organisations to engage with the research through an apparent suspicion of the agenda and motivation of the research team. program therefore focused on re-educating partner violent men. Re-education (rather than treatment) was deemed appropriate as men's violence to their intimate partners was understood as not "stemming from individual pathology, but rather from a socially reinforced sense of entitlement." (Paymar & Barnes, ND). Using the "Power and Control Wheel" was central as partner violence was understood as being motivated men's need for power and control over women. Women's aggression was understood as self defensive.The authors of the model omitted to acknowledge the problems that are associated with generalising from such a small and unrepresentative sample (Dutton & Corvo, 2006). Ellen Pence did however write prior to her death "By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivatin...

show abstract

References

2011

The Rehabilitation of Partner‐Violent Men

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Duluth model: A data-impervious paradigm and a failed strategy

Cited by 103 publications

References 42 publications

Current Controversies within Intimate Partner Violence: Overlooking Bidirectional Violence

Current Controversies within Intimate Partner Violence: Overlooking Bidirectional Violence

A Review of Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs in the United Kingdom

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About