Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them.

Abstract

Previous typologies of male batterers, including typologies developed by means of rational-deductive and empirical-inductive strategies, are reviewed. On the basis of this review, 3 descriptive dimensions (i.e., severity of marital violence, generality of the violence [toward the wife or toward others], and psychopathology/personality disorders) that consistently have been found to distinguish among subtypes of batterers are identified. These dimensions are used to propose a typology consisting of 3 subtypes of batterers (i.e., family only, dysphoric/borderline, and generally violent/antisocial). A developmental model of marital violence is then presented, and the previous literature is reviewed to examine how each batterer subtype might differ on variables of theoretical interest. Finally, some of the methodological limitations of previous typology research are reviewed, and suggestions for future work are offered.Marital violence is a serious problem in the United States. Data from the 1985 National Family Violence Survey indicated that one of eight husbands carried out at least one violent act toward his wife and 1.8 million wives were beaten by their husbands during the year of the study (Straus & Gelles, 1988). The costs of this problem are staggering in terms of marital dissatisfaction, psychological and physical health problems, and negative effects on the children of such marriages (e.g., McDonald & Jouriles, 199 l;Sonkin, Martin, & Walker, 1985). Although data indicate that both husbands and wives engage in violence (e.g., O'Leary et al., 1989;Straus & Gelles, 1988), husband violence has consistently been found to have more detrimental effects than wife violence; for example, wives are more likely than husbands to suffer severe physical injuries and depressive symptomatology (Cascardi, Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992;Stets & Straus, 1990).Recent evidence suggests that, when one is trying to understand husband-to-wife violence, studies examining the husband may be the most productive line of inquiry. After reviewing the available data, Hotaling and Sugarman (1986) concluded that "men's violence is men's behavior. As such, it is not surprising that the more fruitful efforts to explain this behavior have focused on male characteristics" (p. 120). Similarly, examining the marital interactions of violent couples, Boeke and Markman (1992) found that "most of the differences between couples were due to differences between the abusive and nonabusive husbands" (p. 13). Such findings suggest that researchers should focus their attention on violent husbands.Researchers studying maritally violent men have often Amy Holtzworth-Munroe and Gregory L. Stuart, Department of Psychology, Indiana University.We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and feedback.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405. treated batterers as a homogeneous group, averaging scores on measures of i...

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

“…The overlap we found between IPV, same-sex aggression and controlling behavior also relates to typology studies that have suggested that IPV can be part of a more generally aggressive interpersonal style (e. g., Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;LanghinrichsenRohling, 2010). This is further supported by studies of bullying suggesting that it shares similar risk factors to IPV perpetration.…”

High testosterone levels and sensitivity to acute stress in perpetrators of domestic violence with low cognitive flexibility and impairments in their emotional decoding process: A preliminary study

“…Our data must be considered together with previous reports related to mental health that were assessed qualitatively by trained researchers, the objective reports obtained by SCL-90 scores, and the participants' court records to assess any history of violence. We suggest that endocrine, psychological, and neuropsychological specific biases should be included in the "family-only" (FO) type, as proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994), for individuals whose violent behavior is confined to the home. IPV perpetrators normally behave in a nonaggressive way in non-domestic contexts.…”

Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach

“…Moreover, it has been suggested that typologies will also help identify different etiological mechanisms of partner violence (Gottman et al, 1995;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). Therefore, it seems only natural that the typology approach has drawn a great deal of attention from researchers in the area, particularly from clinicians.…”

“…Rather, we discuss some of the major and most influential typologies in the field. For such reviews, the reader is referred to Cavanaugh and Gelles (2005), Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994), and HoltzworthMunroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, and Stuart (2003). Second, we outline a dyadic model of couples aggression and the ways that such a model may be more helpful in conceptualizing the development of the behavior over time, including issues of persistence and desistance.…”