Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Intimate Partner Violence - Coggle Diagram
Intimate Partner Violence
WHO
Intimate partner violence refers to behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours. This definition covers violence by both current and former spouses and partners.
Technology facilitated IPV:
Monitoring and stalking the whereabouts and movements of the victim in real time
monitoring the victim’s internet use
remotely accessing and controlling contents on the victim’s digital device
Repeatedly sending abusive or threatening messages to the victim or the victim’s friends and family
image-based abuse (non-consensual sharing of intimate images of the victim)
publishing private and identifying information of the victim
Effects of IPV
Exposure to IPV is linked to depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol use disorders, homicide, suicide, and self-inflicted injuries.
Leading cause of death, illness and disability for women aged under 45
Homelessness
1 in 4 children are exposed to domestic violence
eating and sleeping disturbances
engage in risk-taking behaviours
feel guilt or blame themselves for the violence etc
Scope of the problem
Worldwide, present in every culture examined, may have evolved as a mate retention strategy
Women aged 15+
Physical, sexual or both (entire world): 26% lifetime, 10% past year
Highest lifetime rates: Oceania – 49%
Lowest rates: Europe and East and Southeast Asia – 18 to 21%
Australia
1 in 4 (23% or 2.3 million) women and 1 in 14 (7.3% or 693,000) men have experienced physical and/or sexual violence from an intimate partner since the age of 15.
23% (2.3 million) of women and 14% (1.3 million) of men have experienced emotional abuse by a current or previous partner.
16% (1.6 million) of women and 7.8% (745,000) of men have experienced economic abuse from a current or previous partner
1 woman is killed on average per week
Theoretical Perspectives on
the Causes of IPV
Evolutionary Theory
Mate retention/paternity uncertainty
Mediated by jealousy/anger
Feminist Theory
Patriarchy (society structured to maintain male dominance)
Violence used to maintain control and gender inequality
Duluth Model
IPV is deliberate and used to gain and maintain control
Male power exerted through physical assault, coercion and threats, intimidation, emotional abuse, use of male privilege, economic abuse, isolation, minimisation, denial, and manipulation through children.
Intervention
Derived from feminist theory.
8 to 36-week psychoeducational (non-therapeutic) program focusing on male power and control and taking responsibility for IPV.
Very popular as a court-mandated “treatment”
Emphasizes male accountability (deliberate choice to aggress) whilst ignoring individual-level contributing risk factors.
Other problems need not be solved to stop the IPV
Criticisms
Doesn’t involve the partner
Often delivered by non-mental health professionals (e.g., activists often with histories of abuse themselves)
Not therapeutic, Delivered in groups
Not more effective than arrest alone
Meta-analysis of 22 studies showed only 5% reduction in offending
Can elicit shame in participants, which can turn into anger
The Big One: Ignores individual aspects of the perpetrator (i.e., “one size fits all” approach)
Social Learning Theory
IPV is learned, often in childhood
Violence is used as a conflict resolution strategy
Ecological Model
IPV caused by interaction between society, community, relationship, and individual factors
Norms (society); poverty (community); job stress (relationship); alcohol use (individual)
Strain and Stress Theories
Social and/or economic stress increase negative affect, which spills over into relationships
Individual versus Situational IPV
Situational IPV
Elicited during conflict (e.g., heated arguments)
Exacerbated by alcohol, financial hardships, parenting pressures
Often involves bidirectional IPV
Anger control interventions may be appropriate (e.g., CBT)
Individual IPV
“Pathological”
Linked to personality disorders like antisocial or borderline or narcissistic
Visible even in the absence of conflict
Using intimidation, isolation, and physical assault to maintain dominance
Cognitive behavioural
therapy (CBT)
typically centered around identifying and challenging distorted cognitions, changing maladaptive behavioral patterns, improving communication skills, and providing tools for enhancing emotion regulation.
Relevant theory and research are used to identify the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes that cause or maintain clinical problems and to formulate interventions to alter or disrupt these processes.
Can address empathy and jealousy
Tackles the hostile attribution bias
Tackles beliefs in the efficacy of aggression
Can address substance use
Incorporates social learning theory (e.g., life histories).
Can be evaluated with RCTs
BUT, often doesn’t take into account many individual factors
Goals
Change IPV-maintaining beliefs and learned thought patterns that lead to IPV
Change emotional and behavioural reactions that lead to IPV
Use life history to increase awareness of anger/jealousy reactions
Lower expected value of aggression (e.g., learn that benefits are short-term and may cause further problems)
erosion of trust and emotional connection, relationship dissolution, legal repercussions, negative effects on children, and experiences of shame and guilt
Change views about women in general and their partner
Evaluate the logic, accuracy and utility of IPV-related beliefs
Increase alternative behaviours: skills for assertiveness, communication skills training, relationship conflict management, problem-solving, healthy communication, and emotion regulation
Often combined with the Duluth model
Efficacy is marginally better than the Duluth model, but still not great.
Better results when addressing substance use and trauma (i.e., individual factors)
Motivating aggressive people to
engage in treatment
Unlike most psychiatric disorders, people who show aggression and anger may not consider excessive anger or aggression to be a problem. Indeed, they may believe that anger is good and useful and may even become hostile towards their therapist
Motivational interviewing.
A collaborative, client-centered counseling style that aims to enhance an individual’s intrinsic motivation to change harmful or unsafe behaviors—whether that’s leaving an abusive relationship, reducing violence, or engaging with support services.
it can be used in some intervention programs to help individuals recognize the impact of their actions, address denial or minimization, and build internal motivation to change violent behavior.
In short, motivational interviewing increases attendance rates, treatment adherence, motivation for change, and reduces aggression with greater effectiveness particularly for participants with low readiness to change and in the early stages of change
I 3 Theory
Instigation
Exposure to something or an event that creates an urge to aggress in most people.
Provocation, rejection
May come from a partner (e.g., an insult; being ignored) or outside the relationship (e.g., conflict with the boss)
Impellance
Person or situation factors that increase the effect of the instigator on anger and aggressive behavioural inclinations or how the instigator is experienced.
Personality traits and disorders
Attitudes toward women and partner
Cognitive, affective, or physiological experiences that are activated during partner conflict.
Incorporates other aggression theories into a meta-theoretical framework
MAIN IDEA: When strength of urge to aggress outweighs the inhibitory ability of an individual, aggression occurs
(Dis)Inhibition
Person or situation factors that increase the likelihood that (or the intensity with which) people will override the effects of instigation and impellance.
Inhibition (e.g., fear of losing one’s partner if violent; fear of being arrested)
Disinhibition (e.g., alcohol; sleep deprivation)