Treating Couples Who Mutually Exhibit Violence or Aggression: Reducing Behaviors that Show a Susceptibility for Violence
- 1.2k Downloads
This work evaluated a psycho-educational, group-based, conjoint treatment for couples experiencing intimate partner violence characterized by mutual low-level physical violence and psychological aggression. The ability of the treatment program to reduce violence between partners was evaluated via a multi-method, multi-informant, multiple time point experimental design. Procedures were completed at four times: baseline/pre-treatment, post-treatment, ~six months post-treatment, and ~12 months post-treatment. At each time point, couples individually self-reported on violence in the relationship and participated in a conflict discussion during which behaviors that show a propensity toward violence (i.e., contempt, belligerence, domineering, anger, and defensiveness) were observed. Results show that the program had no direct impact on self-reported violence. However, the program did impact observed behavior; males in the treatment group showed a significant decline in behaviors that show a propensity toward violence. Although the model for females was not significant, the pattern for females was comparable to that of males.
KeywordsIntimate partner violence Intervention Conjoint treatment
This study was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) (90OJ2022). The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ACF. We also express our gratitude to the following people who helped make this project possible: Robin Dion, Daniel Friend, Dan Yoshimoto, and all of the staff and volunteers at the Relationship Research Institute who worked on the CTAV project.
- Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. (1986). Observing Interactions: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Cunradi, C. B., Caetano, R., & Schafer, J. (2002). Religious affiliation, denominational homogamy, and intimate partner violence among U.S. couples. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 139–151Google Scholar
- Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. (1978) Facial Action Coding System. A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alt.Google Scholar
- Frye, V., Manganello, J., Campbell, J., Walton-Moss, B., & Wilt, S. (2006). The distribution of and factors associated with intimate terrorism and situational couple violence among a population-based sample of urban women in the United. States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1286–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gottman, J. M. (1994). What Predicts Divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Gottman, J. M. (1999). The Relationship Clinic. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
- Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Waltz, J., Rushe, R., & Babcock, J. (2000). Affect, verbal content, and psychophysiology in the arguments of couples with a violent husband. Prevention & Treatment, 3, 1–15.Google Scholar
- Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1998). When men batter women: New insights into ending abusive relationships. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
- Straus, M. A. (1989). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. In M. A. Strauss & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical Violence in American families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
- Straus, M. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Family patterns and primary prevention of family violence. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical Violence in American Families (pp. 507–526). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar