The proactive–reactive classification of intimate partner violence offenders: A multi‐method approach to classification

Abstract

Background Men who commit violence against an intimate partner differ in their motives. Classifying the proactivity of men's partner violence may reveal important differences that could be treatment targets. Aims To examine the differences between proactive and reactive partner violence based on coded descriptions of past violent events. Method Community cohabiting couples reporting intimate partner violence were recruited via advertisements. Men and women were independently interviewed about past male‐to‐female violent events. The narratives of a male perpetrator and a female victim were coded using a Proactive–Reactive coding system, yielding three categories of violence: reactive, mixed proactive/reactive and proactive. The three categories were compared for differences in personality disorder features, attachment, psychophysiological reactivity during a conflict discussion task, and a self‐ and partner report of men's proactive and reactive aggressive tendencies. Results The results revealed a 54% classification agreement between perpetrator and victim reports. No differences were found on personality or attachment measures between the groups regardless of gender of the reporter. Reactive violence was related to a tendency to self‐report more reactive aggression and higher heart rate reactivity during a laboratory conflict discussion compared to the group reporting both proactive and reactive violent incidents. Conclusion This study suggests that a coding system for intimate partner violence can be applied to community volunteers, and it is a reliable report and valid. However, there are discrepancies when the coding is based on the perpetrator or victim reports.

Differential Treatment Response of Proactive and Reactive Partner Abusive Men: Results from a Laboratory Proximal Change Experiment

“…Men coded as proactive were more domineering than were reactive perpetrators. In a replication and extension of Chase et al (2001) study, Babcock et al (2023) found behavioral differences proactive and reactive batterers consistent with Chase et al’s findings. In addition, based on men’s and women’s reports of men’s past violent incidents, reactive batterers exhibited greater heart rate reactivity during a conflict discussion as compared to proactive batterers ( Babcock & Kini, 2023 ).…”

“…Furthermore, although interventions have attempted to reeducate batterers about the inappropriateness of patriarchal attitudes and beliefs (the Duluth model) or modify dysfunctional thought patterns (CBT), clinicians rarely address the couples’ dysfunctional communication patterns that are implicated in violent incidents. Although it is politically challenging to implement research on couples’ interventions among court mandated IPV offenders ( Babcock et al, 2017 ), this study provides preliminary evidence that perpetrators can learn and apply new communication skills, and, when they do, it has a positive impact on their emotions, behavior, and physiology. Teaching reactive men to accept influence from their partners and proactive men to edit out the negative tone from conversations appears to have positive short-term impacts.…”

“…For the incident to be coded as proactive, meeting any of the roactive criteria was sufficient to label the incident as being proactive. In order for the incident to be coded as reactive, the incident had to meet the reactive criteria, without exhibiting any signs of proactive behavior ( Babcock & Kini, 2023 ; Chase et al, 2001 ). In this study, proactivity was examined on a continuum: if neither incident evidenced proactivity, it was coded a 0; if one incident, was coded as 1; if both incidents were coded as proactivity, proactivity was scored as 2.…”

“…One way to improve outcomes may be to match treatment strategy to different types of perpetrators. Researchers have proposed a variety of different typologies over the decades to classify men who batter women on common characteristics, such as personality disorder features, ( Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994 ; Saunders, 1992 ), heart rate reactivity ( Gottman et al, 1995 ), and proactive-reactive violence ( Babcock et al, 2023 ; Chase et al, 2001 ; Walters, 2020 ). The proactive-reactive dichotomy attends to antecedents and motivations for violence, capturing the context in which the violence occurs.…”

Differences among perpetrators of intimate partner violence utilizing proactive versus reactive aggression

“…Scholars have begun to explore the heterogeneity of IPV perpetrators (Babcock et al, 2023;Chase et al, 2001;Lee et al, 2018;Ross & Babcock, 2009), and the dichotomy between impulsive and premeditated aggression has emerged as one of the most promising categories of this type of behavior. In short, a reactive-proactive typology has been empirically and theoretically supported (Martinez & Blasco-Ros, 2005).…”