- Email: [email protected]
Recent trends in intimate violence: Theory and intervention
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 249 – 251 www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth
Introduction
Recent trends in intimate violence: Theory and intervention ☆ This is the first of two special issues which summarize the work of a study group on “Recent Trends in Intimate Violence Theory and Intervention,” co-hosted by the University of Haifa & New York University in 2006. The study group participants were academics and practitioners from Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom, who came together to share and discuss their knowledge and current understanding of intimate partner violence (IPV) in a period of transition, change and controversy. It is appropriate that Children and Youth Service Review has provided a platform for this work on IPV. The family is recognized as the most significant socializing agent for children and youths and the locus of important learning, both in the normative and deviant domains. The devastating impact of family violence on children's physical and mental health is firmly established. Furthermore, it has been shown that living in such environments increases children's sense of loss, estrangement from their own home territory and their inability to envisage the future. Their resources for exploring the world are drained, and their ability to leave home is substituted by attempts to escape from it. They are children without a childhood (Eisikovits, Winstok, & Enosh, 1998). As the field of IPVemerges from its initial fervor, in which commitments and emotions often had priority over empirical evidence, there seems to be growing concern about prevalent theoretical assumptions and the effectiveness of intervention modalities. It appears that many interventions are driven more by ideology than by knowledge utilization (Dutton & Corvo, 2006) and seem to be ineffective (Gondolf, 2004). Basic assumptions underlying public policy and social intervention in the field were unfounded. All the articles in this special issue evaluate previously unquestioned assumptions that guided earlier research, with a critical eye toward expanding our understanding of the complexities of IPV. In the first article in this issue, Straus challenges the widely held beliefs among many IPV researchers who argue that violence against partners in marital, cohabiting and dating relationships is perpetrated almost entirely by men and that when women assault their partners, the phenomenon has a different etiology than male-perpetrated assaults. He does so while still acknowledging that women are injured at higher rates than men, thus not discounting the relevance of gender. In this study, Straus used a large cross-national sample of university students from 32 nations. Consistent with previous findings, the present study provides a solid evidence base to replace the widespread assumption that most partner violence is male-only, with the assumption that it could also be mutual or female-only. Such findings further imply the need to revisit the single causal “patriarchal system” based model with a multi-causal one, and instead of considering exclusive male-dominance as the major risk factor, acknowledging dominance by either party as one of many risk factors that need attention. That is, it is possible to move beyond a narrow definition of “patriarchal” as literally maledominated, to a recognition that the history of patriarchy has taught both men and women the message of the domination of some by others. Dominance can be viewed as a gendered, i.e., masculine, attribute without necessarily being the domain of only men. One's gender often denotes one's relative power in relationships and may determine consequences of violence within relationship, but not always. Ehrensaft identifies a much broader web of etiological factors and their interactions at play than previously considered. She argues that personal, interpersonal, situational, social and cultural factors need to be taken into account; that early family influences such as witnessing violence and parenting practices, play an important role in perpetuating intimate partner violence over time. This article argues that findings challenging the widespread conceptions, such as ☆
The Editors of this special volume are listed in alphabetical order and have each made an equal contribution to the writing of this introduction.
0190-7409/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.001
250
Introduction
those contradicting the assumption that only males are aggressive, have largely been overlooked or discounted. Such limitations produced and maintained programs that seem to be ineffective. Ehrensaft proposes opening the field to ideas that have already been established in other fields of inquiry. She focuses on encouraging scholars to adopt a developmental viewpoint of IPV. Developmental theories emphasize the dynamic aspects of social problems. In this context, IPV is a social problem evolving from a set of early etiological factors and continues to evolve over time. Attempts to isolate the conduct of men from that of women in violent conflicts is not only unfounded, but it also limits our ability to use more complex units of analysis in the study of IPV. One example is an interactional unit of analysis examining the actions taken by the parties and their effect on the development of conflict escalation to violence in intimate relationships. A major objection to this unit of analysis is related to its perception as supportive of the related view that “it takes two to tango,” thus obliterating women's so-called moral advantage and attributing some responsibility and blame for violence to them as well (Winstok, 2007). The price of “defending” this ideology is quite dear for the women themselves, since it renders all victims of violence helpless, and even worse, produces a biased body of knowledge that has little value in formulating guidelines for their protection. Conflicts need to be examined as occurring between intimate partners rather than between gender representatives. The strength of such an approach still permits a consideration of the role gender plays without tying it explicitly to the behavior of men versus women. Two other articles in this issue take this perspective using an interactionist unit of analysis. One is by Winstok and Eisikovits, and is based on qualitative data, and the other is by Winstok — a theoretical essay. The proposition underlying them both is to shift the focus of intimate relationship research from the violent behavior to the dynamics of escalatory conflicts. Winstok and Eisikovitz examine the underlying mechanism of the formation, development and termination of interpersonal conflicts in intimate relationships, whereby men use violence against women. The findings indicate that both partners' motivation and control elements regulate the developmental course of the escalatory conflict. In Winstok's essay, he proposes definitional, theoretical and operational frameworks as a first step in the study of escalation of conflicts in intimate relationships. Grauwiler's qualitative research findings reveal a vital drawback of the theoretical and practical body of knowledge. She argues that the voices of women affected by IPV are absent from the literature on domestic violence, and that this cohort includes women who may or may not choose to seek helping systems. This may be an indication of the chasm between what we know or should know, as well as evidence of the failure to substantiate current policy and practice with empirically based findings. And yet, establishing this body of knowledge and using it is not a matter of semantics, but has implications on the quality of life for those who are already hurt and suffering. The reports of women interviewed expose a rather grim situation, detailing a lack of professionalism, the prevalence of misinformation, rigid requirements and misuse of the available services. Hoyle's work examines the potential pitfalls of a risk management approach to family violence. This field, dealing with probabilities, must be anchored, more than anything else, in grounded theory. Yet again, as in Grauwiler's findings, there appears to be a gap between knowledge and practice. The main purpose of risk assessment and management is to improve the protection of and interventions for families experiencing violence and to target interventions at those who present the highest risk. Hoyle argues that the development of risk assessment and risk management and the targeting of resources on high-risk family violence cases require a more strategic approach. Approaches lacking an empirical basis that view gender as an exclusive risk factor, or views ignoring interactional factors based on the same grounds, may have biasing implications on risk evaluations. This in turn will destabilize the basic balance between various interrelated factors, such as: deprivation of liberty, safety of all parties, availability of resources and reduction of quality of life for perpetrators and their children. Finally, as much as attempts to force specific gender perceptions on the study of violence in intimate relationships are problematic, ignoring these aspects is no less dangerous. Let there be no doubt that dismissing the effect of gender on various aspects of violence in intimate relationships is highly misleading. White et al. address dual perpetration of sexual and physical aggression in intimate partner relationships. Their approach suggests a strategy for addressing the complex issue of gender-based violence. The authors argue that the use of both sexual and physical aggression by the same perpetrator in intimate relationships represents a unique form of intimate partner violence that warrants further theoretical and empirical examination. The article also provides preliminary empirical evidence demonstrating that men who dual-perpetrate represent a distinct group. By addressing dual perpetration from a developmental perspective as a unique phenomenon, we can better understand the etiology of violence in intimate relationships. Doing so would more clearly differentiate the correlates of three kinds of IPV: sexual violence, physical violence, and dual perpetration. This is an important step for researchers moving forward to reduce the chances of erroneous conclusions based on the
Introduction
251
unacknowledged inclusion of dual perpetrators in studies focusing exclusively on sexual perpetration or physical perpetration. Throughout the years, the discourse on violence in intimate relationships has rendered this body of knowledge conservative and resistant to facts and new ideas. It seems that for some participants, scientific truths often became neglected in favor of promoting and defending their position and social agenda. While some may regard viewing violence in intimate relationships as both a social problem and an acceptable and effective means of promoting a specific social agenda. Promoting a social agenda the latter is often performed on behalf of worthy causes. Such activities cannot be detached from facts or selectively tied to them for this purpose. This special issue that comprises works presented in a study group is aimed mainly at emphasizing and promoting awareness and agreement among scholars and practitioners regarding the limitations of the body of knowledge on violence in intimate relationships, relocating the facts into the center of discourse and encouraging openness to fresh ideas. References Gondolf, W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A difficult task showing some effects and implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 605−631. Dutton, D. G., & Corvo, K. (2006). Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 457−483. Eisikovits, Z., Winstok, Z., & Enosh, G. (1998). Children's experience of interparental violence: A heuristic model. Children and Youth Services Review, 6, 547−567. Winstok, Z. (2007). Toward an interactional perspective on intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 348−363.
Zvi Eisikovits Zeev Winstok The Center for the Study of Society, University of Haifa, Israel Peggy Grauwiler* Linda G. Mills Center on Violence and Recovery, New York University, United States ⁎Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected].
Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 249 – 251 www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth
Introduction
Recent trends in intimate violence: Theory and intervention ☆ This is the first of two special issues which summarize the work of a study group on “Recent Trends in Intimate Violence Theory and Intervention,” co-hosted by the University of Haifa & New York University in 2006. The study group participants were academics and practitioners from Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom, who came together to share and discuss their knowledge and current understanding of intimate partner violence (IPV) in a period of transition, change and controversy. It is appropriate that Children and Youth Service Review has provided a platform for this work on IPV. The family is recognized as the most significant socializing agent for children and youths and the locus of important learning, both in the normative and deviant domains. The devastating impact of family violence on children's physical and mental health is firmly established. Furthermore, it has been shown that living in such environments increases children's sense of loss, estrangement from their own home territory and their inability to envisage the future. Their resources for exploring the world are drained, and their ability to leave home is substituted by attempts to escape from it. They are children without a childhood (Eisikovits, Winstok, & Enosh, 1998). As the field of IPVemerges from its initial fervor, in which commitments and emotions often had priority over empirical evidence, there seems to be growing concern about prevalent theoretical assumptions and the effectiveness of intervention modalities. It appears that many interventions are driven more by ideology than by knowledge utilization (Dutton & Corvo, 2006) and seem to be ineffective (Gondolf, 2004). Basic assumptions underlying public policy and social intervention in the field were unfounded. All the articles in this special issue evaluate previously unquestioned assumptions that guided earlier research, with a critical eye toward expanding our understanding of the complexities of IPV. In the first article in this issue, Straus challenges the widely held beliefs among many IPV researchers who argue that violence against partners in marital, cohabiting and dating relationships is perpetrated almost entirely by men and that when women assault their partners, the phenomenon has a different etiology than male-perpetrated assaults. He does so while still acknowledging that women are injured at higher rates than men, thus not discounting the relevance of gender. In this study, Straus used a large cross-national sample of university students from 32 nations. Consistent with previous findings, the present study provides a solid evidence base to replace the widespread assumption that most partner violence is male-only, with the assumption that it could also be mutual or female-only. Such findings further imply the need to revisit the single causal “patriarchal system” based model with a multi-causal one, and instead of considering exclusive male-dominance as the major risk factor, acknowledging dominance by either party as one of many risk factors that need attention. That is, it is possible to move beyond a narrow definition of “patriarchal” as literally maledominated, to a recognition that the history of patriarchy has taught both men and women the message of the domination of some by others. Dominance can be viewed as a gendered, i.e., masculine, attribute without necessarily being the domain of only men. One's gender often denotes one's relative power in relationships and may determine consequences of violence within relationship, but not always. Ehrensaft identifies a much broader web of etiological factors and their interactions at play than previously considered. She argues that personal, interpersonal, situational, social and cultural factors need to be taken into account; that early family influences such as witnessing violence and parenting practices, play an important role in perpetuating intimate partner violence over time. This article argues that findings challenging the widespread conceptions, such as ☆
The Editors of this special volume are listed in alphabetical order and have each made an equal contribution to the writing of this introduction.
0190-7409/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.001
250
Introduction
those contradicting the assumption that only males are aggressive, have largely been overlooked or discounted. Such limitations produced and maintained programs that seem to be ineffective. Ehrensaft proposes opening the field to ideas that have already been established in other fields of inquiry. She focuses on encouraging scholars to adopt a developmental viewpoint of IPV. Developmental theories emphasize the dynamic aspects of social problems. In this context, IPV is a social problem evolving from a set of early etiological factors and continues to evolve over time. Attempts to isolate the conduct of men from that of women in violent conflicts is not only unfounded, but it also limits our ability to use more complex units of analysis in the study of IPV. One example is an interactional unit of analysis examining the actions taken by the parties and their effect on the development of conflict escalation to violence in intimate relationships. A major objection to this unit of analysis is related to its perception as supportive of the related view that “it takes two to tango,” thus obliterating women's so-called moral advantage and attributing some responsibility and blame for violence to them as well (Winstok, 2007). The price of “defending” this ideology is quite dear for the women themselves, since it renders all victims of violence helpless, and even worse, produces a biased body of knowledge that has little value in formulating guidelines for their protection. Conflicts need to be examined as occurring between intimate partners rather than between gender representatives. The strength of such an approach still permits a consideration of the role gender plays without tying it explicitly to the behavior of men versus women. Two other articles in this issue take this perspective using an interactionist unit of analysis. One is by Winstok and Eisikovits, and is based on qualitative data, and the other is by Winstok — a theoretical essay. The proposition underlying them both is to shift the focus of intimate relationship research from the violent behavior to the dynamics of escalatory conflicts. Winstok and Eisikovitz examine the underlying mechanism of the formation, development and termination of interpersonal conflicts in intimate relationships, whereby men use violence against women. The findings indicate that both partners' motivation and control elements regulate the developmental course of the escalatory conflict. In Winstok's essay, he proposes definitional, theoretical and operational frameworks as a first step in the study of escalation of conflicts in intimate relationships. Grauwiler's qualitative research findings reveal a vital drawback of the theoretical and practical body of knowledge. She argues that the voices of women affected by IPV are absent from the literature on domestic violence, and that this cohort includes women who may or may not choose to seek helping systems. This may be an indication of the chasm between what we know or should know, as well as evidence of the failure to substantiate current policy and practice with empirically based findings. And yet, establishing this body of knowledge and using it is not a matter of semantics, but has implications on the quality of life for those who are already hurt and suffering. The reports of women interviewed expose a rather grim situation, detailing a lack of professionalism, the prevalence of misinformation, rigid requirements and misuse of the available services. Hoyle's work examines the potential pitfalls of a risk management approach to family violence. This field, dealing with probabilities, must be anchored, more than anything else, in grounded theory. Yet again, as in Grauwiler's findings, there appears to be a gap between knowledge and practice. The main purpose of risk assessment and management is to improve the protection of and interventions for families experiencing violence and to target interventions at those who present the highest risk. Hoyle argues that the development of risk assessment and risk management and the targeting of resources on high-risk family violence cases require a more strategic approach. Approaches lacking an empirical basis that view gender as an exclusive risk factor, or views ignoring interactional factors based on the same grounds, may have biasing implications on risk evaluations. This in turn will destabilize the basic balance between various interrelated factors, such as: deprivation of liberty, safety of all parties, availability of resources and reduction of quality of life for perpetrators and their children. Finally, as much as attempts to force specific gender perceptions on the study of violence in intimate relationships are problematic, ignoring these aspects is no less dangerous. Let there be no doubt that dismissing the effect of gender on various aspects of violence in intimate relationships is highly misleading. White et al. address dual perpetration of sexual and physical aggression in intimate partner relationships. Their approach suggests a strategy for addressing the complex issue of gender-based violence. The authors argue that the use of both sexual and physical aggression by the same perpetrator in intimate relationships represents a unique form of intimate partner violence that warrants further theoretical and empirical examination. The article also provides preliminary empirical evidence demonstrating that men who dual-perpetrate represent a distinct group. By addressing dual perpetration from a developmental perspective as a unique phenomenon, we can better understand the etiology of violence in intimate relationships. Doing so would more clearly differentiate the correlates of three kinds of IPV: sexual violence, physical violence, and dual perpetration. This is an important step for researchers moving forward to reduce the chances of erroneous conclusions based on the
Introduction
251
unacknowledged inclusion of dual perpetrators in studies focusing exclusively on sexual perpetration or physical perpetration. Throughout the years, the discourse on violence in intimate relationships has rendered this body of knowledge conservative and resistant to facts and new ideas. It seems that for some participants, scientific truths often became neglected in favor of promoting and defending their position and social agenda. While some may regard viewing violence in intimate relationships as both a social problem and an acceptable and effective means of promoting a specific social agenda. Promoting a social agenda the latter is often performed on behalf of worthy causes. Such activities cannot be detached from facts or selectively tied to them for this purpose. This special issue that comprises works presented in a study group is aimed mainly at emphasizing and promoting awareness and agreement among scholars and practitioners regarding the limitations of the body of knowledge on violence in intimate relationships, relocating the facts into the center of discourse and encouraging openness to fresh ideas. References Gondolf, W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A difficult task showing some effects and implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 605−631. Dutton, D. G., & Corvo, K. (2006). Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 457−483. Eisikovits, Z., Winstok, Z., & Enosh, G. (1998). Children's experience of interparental violence: A heuristic model. Children and Youth Services Review, 6, 547−567. Winstok, Z. (2007). Toward an interactional perspective on intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 348−363.
Zvi Eisikovits Zeev Winstok The Center for the Study of Society, University of Haifa, Israel Peggy Grauwiler* Linda G. Mills Center on Violence and Recovery, New York University, United States ⁎Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected].