Domestic violence. The following essay will concentrate on patriarchal-terrorism (Gilchrist et al. 2004) meaning the non-sexual violence of men against their female intimate partners. This kind of aggression was given many names since its social

Introduction

The following essay will concentrate on “patriarchal-terrorism” (Gilchrist et al. 2004) meaning the non-sexual violence of men against their female intimate partners. This kind of aggression was given many names since its “social construction” in the 1970ies (Mehrotra 1999), such as wife-battering, partner or spouse-abuse, family or intimate violence (Straus, 1978, Gondolf, 1988, Gilchrist et al. 2004). Nevertheless, the still most common term “Domestic Violence” (Stanko, 2001, 2004, Hague et al. 2003, Shipway 2004) is used in the following when selected theories of violence in general and Domestic Violence (DV) in particular are presented before a taxonomy of offender-types is introduced and critically evaluated with regard to an appropriate intervention.

Both the extent of Domestic Violence and the risk of serious injuries are high in the UK (Stanko, 2001, Walby & Allen, 2004). One in four women reported physical assault by a current or former partner in their life (Mirrlees-Black, 1999). Nearly, a sixth of all violent crime is domestic (Dodd et al. 2004). In 2001, 2 women were killed every week by their husbands (Stanko, 2001). Around 12, 9 million incidents of Domestic Violence against women occurred in 2003/4 (Walby & Allen. 2004).

As violence-related terms are highly controversial (Berkowitz, 1993), they must be clarified. According to Blackburn (1993: 210), “Violence denotes the forceful infliction of physical injury,” but is only partly committed by aggression which shall be defined as the intentional infliction of harm towards an unwilling object (Geen, 2001, Berkowitz, 1993). Aggression can be divided - although mixed motivations may occur (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) - into instrumental and proactive on the one hand and affective or “hostile” and reactive on the other (Berkowitz 1993, Archer & Browne, 1989, Crick & Dodge, 1996). The latter may correlate with anger (Geen, 2001) being viewed by Novaco (1978) as an affective stress reaction to provocations. This reaction is composed by a combination of arousal and cognitive labelling as anger.

Recently, the “traditional” assumption that anger causes aggression (Anderson & Bushmann 2002) has been questioned. Berkowitz (2003) assumes that anger plays several causal roles in aggression, such as reducing inhibitions, maintaining aggressive intention over time, priming aggressive scripts and energising behaviour by increasing arousal levels.

Contrarily, hostility is a more permanent negative attitude of resentment, mistrust or even hate (Buss, 1961, Blackburn 1998). On the other hand, aggressiveness refers to a disposition toward becoming aggressive (Blackburn, 1998). However, an act of aggression – defined by Blackburn (1998) as an Individual’s intentional, goal-directed performance– does not have to be connected with a violent disposition. Hence, dispositional and situational factors as well as acquisition, instigation and maintenance of aggression should be distinguished.

Psychological explanations of general aggressive behaviour

According to some Psychobiologists (Rada, Laws & Rellner 1976, Archer 1988, Moyer, 1981), testosterone-levels are connected with aggressiveness by sensitising the aggression-controlling neural circuits whilst others hold a frontal-lobe dysfunction responsible (Miller et al. 1997, Lau & Phil, 1996).

Sociobiologist Wilson (1975) stresses the evolutionary element in assuming that aggression is applied to support the reproduction of the own genes or those of close relatives – a dubious hypothesis, as most homicides occur intrafamilially (Wolfgang, 1958).

Lorenz‘s (1996) instinct theory views aggression as a result of progressive accumulation of specific energy. As a genetic necessity for vertebrates‘ ritualised defence of territory, it is

discharged when triggered by specific internal stimuli

Kutash (1978) also relies on a psycho-dynamic aggressive drive, but pretends that only those suffering from ego-weakness and lack of self-control are predisposed to an uncontrolled break-out of impulsive violence.

Dollard et al.’s (1939) Frustration-Aggression-Hypothesis relates aggression with previous frustration yielded by external barriers thwarting the goal-directed activity of the later perpetrator. If the source of frustration cannot be attacked because of feared negative consequences, alternative targets are chosen, according the principle of displaced aggression or scape-goating (Hovland and Sears 1940). Berkowitz (1989, 1990, 1993) reformulates this hypothesis in stressing the aversively-stimulated cognitive process. His Cognitive Neoassociation Theory proposes that aversive events such as frustration or provocation produce negative affects, which stimulates cognitive, emotional and physiological responses. High-order cognitive processes include anger-producing attributions, fear or both, which suppress or enhance fight or flight-tendencies. Frustration as one type of provocation increases the level of arousal and leads to the situational trigger of aggression.

In contrast to those approaches neglecting sociocultural, instrumental and dispositional concerns, Bandura’s (1976) „complete“ approach refers to social learning as the origin of aggressiveness. The determination of this is either deliberately or inadvertently received through family or sub cultural peer-influences, the mass media or direct experience. Instigators are modelling influences, aversive treatment and incentive inducements, related with anticipated positive consequences and instructional or bizarre symbolic control. Researches confirmed that individuals behave more punitively after observing aggression (Bandura, 1973).

A higher anger rate enhances the eliciting power of modelling influences as well as cultural justifications or victim’s “invitation” to attack (Berkowitz, 1970). Furthermore, aversive treatment creates a general state of emotional arousal which discharges a broad range of behaviour selected according to the relative effectiveness of learned responses (Bandura, 1973). Aggressive responding is maintained by reinforcement-control such as social status reward and self-reinforcement. The latter refers to self-reward, self-punishment, its neutralisation by moral justification, euphemistic labelling, displacement of responsibility and victim-blaming (Bandura, 1976). Hence, social learning theory includes both instrumental and hostile aggression by presenting individual‘s acquisition of aggressiveness and his construction of the social world.

On the other hand, Novaco (1978) and other cognitive theorists (Levey and Howells, 1990) focus on the cognitive perception of anger influenced by internal and external factors and their behavioural responses. Hence, according to attribution theorists, anger derives from specific causal attributions (Ferguson and Rule 1983, Weiner, 1986) and is influenced by the judgement of aversion, which depends on individual values, self- esteem and moral development (Kohlberg, 1981). Situational analysis has outlined the instigation of angry violence by verbal or physical provocation (Monahan & Klassen 1982). Thus, the aggressor’s situational attribution is crucial (Luckenbill, 1977). Studies such as Gouze’s (1997), Dodge & Tomlin’s (1987) or Lochman et al.’s (1989) prove the reciprocal, cyclical link between aggressiveness and social competence established by attributing hostile motives to others (Crick & Dodge 1994).

Appropriately, Dodge (1980) brings up hostile attributional biases resulting from defective cognitive processes misinterpreting others’ behaviour and selecting one’s own behaviour from the learned repertoire. Similarly, Huesmann (1998) relates individuals’ reaction to their available scripts defining guide behaviour according to memory-concepts. After selecting a script, the chosen role is performed. So, consisting normative beliefs are established by being retrieved and become chronically accessible (Guerra et al. 1994).

Hence, aggression inhibitions may be overridden, reinforced by social justification of violence and victim blaming (Bandura, 2001). Whilst some populations openly accept certain forms of aggression as legitimate or at least acceptable (Nisbett & Cohen 1996), some subcultures use them to gain excitement, inner-group-status or to express refusal of social conditions (Wolfgang & Ferracutti, 1967). Both are often related with masculinity (Messerschmidt, 1993).

Similarly, interactive approaches concentrate on social relationships of violent offenders towards their environment. Aggression is treated by Felson (1978) as an instrument for impression management. and by Tedeschi & Felson’s (1994) social interaction theory as socially influenced in order to produce a change in the behaviour of the target. Even hostile aggression may contain such a goal, especially if related to perceived threats of unwarranted high- self-esteem or narcissism (Baumeister et al. 1996).

General theories include several approaches. As an example, Anderson & Bushman (2002) focus on knowledge structures containing perceptual and personal schemata next to behavioural scripts. Whilst the latter influence perceptions at multiple levels, the propensity to crime depends on personality traits and attitudes, developed by social learning or genetic predisposition. Accordingly, longitudinal studies (Olweus 1978; 1984, Weiner, 1989) have outlined the developmental consistency of dispositional aggressive patterns. Such findings have justified a concentration on personality traits (Buss & Durkee, 1957; Eyseneck, 1977; Spielberger et al. 1983). Hence, Megargee (1966) distinguishes undercontrolled offenders who are disposed toward weak inhibitions and responding regularly aggressively from overcontrolled ones whose strong inhibitions result in violence only in cases of intensive anger arousal. Contrarily, Barrat (1994) views a combination of high impulsivity and anger as the most powerful antecedents of aggression whilst Caprara et al.’s (1994) study unveiled that irritability, emotional susceptibility and dissipation-rumination predict aggressiveness. Additionally, personality disorders such as Psychpopathy or Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) have been detected frequently among violent offenders (Powis, 2002).

However, according to Farrington (1991a, 2001), persistent (violent) perpetrators act predominantly in a versatile way as committing crimes is only one symptom of life-course-persistent antisocial behaviour rooted in childhood and increasing into adulthood. Relevant risk-factors are said to be hyperactivity-impulsiveness-attention deficit, low intelligence, convicted family members, poor parental supervision including harsh or erratic discipline, parental conflict, low family income, poor housing, large family-size, delinquent friends, high delinquency rate at school as well as high crime neighbourhoods (Farrington 2001). Especially negative intrafamilial childhood experiences have been connected with later aggressiveness (Powis, 2002). Longitudinal studies show also a strong continuity from childhood and adolescent antisocial behaviour to later partner abuse across the individual life course which provides conceptual evidence that the causes for Domestic Violence may be the same as for general crime (Capaldi & Clark, 1998; Farrington, 1994; Giardano et al. 1999; Magdol et al. 1998).

A selection of Domestic Violence theories

Despite the supposed coherence between General and Domestic Violence, many specific explanations of the latter exist according to the longstanding conviction that intimate aggression is a unique phenomenon (Moffitt et al. 2000).

Daly and Wilson’s (1989) evolutionary approach makes the male’s sexual proprietary claim responsible. Others (Tornhill & Tornhill 1992) stress the societal attitude, which is attached to cultural norms not only tolerating, but also condoning or extolling aggression (Straus, 1978). Accordingly, feminist approaches view intimate violence as a tool for ensuring men’s domination over women influenced by patriarchal cultural values (Dobash & Dobash 1992; Brownmiller, 1975; Yllö 1993). On the other hand, the prevalence of intimate violence between homosexual couples (Cruz & Firestone, 1998; Girshick, 2002) and the fact that many men do not offend proposes the influence of individual and micro-societal factors (Gilchrist et al. 2004). However, a cultural and situational consideration of men’s inability to accept (feared) loss of authority is required (Dobash & Dobash, 1979, 1992; Birns et al. 1994). Additionally, messages about masculinity animate toughness and emotional distance, which leads to a lack of communication (Cohen, 1990). Albeit violent men seem to be predisposed toward a high commitment to their relationships, they underestimate their partner’s care (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. 1994), which supports situational attributions including victim-blaming (Burt 1983; White & Kowalski 1998). Gil (1978) evaluates Domestic Violence as mainly rooted outside the family, but discharged within it because of the informality and the lower risk for punitive sanctions. Goode’s (1971) exchange theory whereupon intrafamilial violence is used to maintain family’s inner order supports this rational-choice perspective (Stephenson, 1992). Gelles & Cornell (1990)’s resource exchange theory makes unpleasant factors such as low wages, poor housing, isolation and alienation at work responsible for frustration or structural stress. Those are violently discharged at home, where, especially if the partner is economically or emotionally dependent (Russell, 1990), the risk of (in-)formal punishment is low, but (immaterial) benefits such as securing the power-position are high.

Domestic violence has often been evaluated as an instrument to remedy men’s low self-esteem as a result of a low-status position (Straus et al. 1988; Walker, 1979; Johnston, 1988). On the other hand, Straus et al.’s (1988) observation that the level of violence rises according to the level of woman’s subjugation indicates that high self-esteem leads to violent patronising (Baumeister et al. 1996). Accordingly, Salmivalli (2001) argues that only inflated, narcissistic self-esteem is linked with violent offenders. Moreover, a study of Bushman & Baumeister (1998) distinguishing self-esteem, a cognition, and narcissism, an emotion of self-love, revealed that only narcissism interacted ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Multicausal theories combine some approaches mentioned above.

Hence, ecological models include several levels of explanatory factors such as individual, micro, meso, exo, and macro systems (Edleson & Tolman 1992) in order to develop a necessary multi-level theory (Gilchrist et al., 2004). White & Kowalski (1998) propose a contextual developmental model by a meta-theoretical framework, which integrates specific theories.

Nevertheless, the most common approach seems to be the (general) social learning theory (Schultz 1960; Gayford, 1975; Steinmetz, 1977; Geen, 2001). The intergenerational transmission of Domestic Violence could be traced in studies of Straus & Gelles (1990) and Kalmuss (1984) whereupon inappropriate problem-solving strategies of the childhood are carried out in adulthood (Harrower, 1998). This effect is mediated by ineffective parenting methods such as strict, inconsistent parental discipline (Capaldi & Clark, 1988, Simons et al. 1995) and macro societal conditions (Gilchrist et al. 2004).

Reitzel-Jaffe & Wolfe’s (2001) study substantiated that experiencing or witnessing intrafamilial abuse predisposes later aggressiveness. Accordingly, Stith et al.’s (2000, HMO) meta-analysis suggested that growing up in an abusive family correlated positively with getting involved in a violent intimate relationship.

Characteristics of Domestic Violence Offenders

Comparative studies of non-violent and domestic-violent men confirm the latter’s exposure to violence in childhood (Magdol et al. 1998; Kunitz et al. 1995; Simons et al. 1995). Over two thirds of domestic violence perpetrators have suffered from some type of child maltreatment in their family of origin (Dutton, 2000; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2000)

Furthermore, a high prevalence of chronic alcohol and substance abuse among batterers exists (Roberts 1988; Tolman & Bennet 1990; Bushman 1997). A neuropsychological study, comparing batterers with non-batterers traced the first’s lower cognitive flexibility and impairments in executive control functioning (Cohen et al., 1999). Accordingly, they tend to be poor problem solvers unable to cope with stress (Allen et al., 1989).Also, DV-perpetrators tend toward high levels of interpersonal dependency jealousy, general violence acceptance along with poor attachment and impulse-control (Kane et al., 2000; Gilchrist et al. 2004; Dutton, 1995).

Maiuro et al. (1988) found out that domestic perpetrators tend toward higher anger and depression rates than a non-violent control group. Whilst they assume that depression activates anger, others regard depressive symptoms as a consequence of the social stigma associated with the “outing” as batterer (Saunders, 1992). Personality analyses comparing the relation between partner abusers and general offenders from the Dunedin birth cohort (Silva and Stanton, 1996) showed that both share a strong propensity for Negative Emotionality – a low general tolerance level when exposed to negative emotions such as anxiety and anger, a tendency to break down under stress and to perceive the world as threatening -, but only general crime was related to low self control (Moffitt et al. 2000).

Nevertheless, impulsivity (Bersani et al. 1992), aggressiveness (Hamberger and Hastings 1991) and hostility (Barnett et al. 1991) correlate positively with incidences of both partner and general violence. Boyle & Vivian (1996) tried to distinguish spouse-specific and generalised anger/hostility. Their whole clinical DV-sample (236 men) reported higher levels of generalised and spouse-specific anger, aggression/hostility, depressive symptomatology and lower spouse-specific assertiveness than the general violent comparison group. Thus, anger itself is just one factor in a complex system (Gondolf & Russell, 1986, Tolam & Saunders, 1988). According to Dobash & Dobash (1992), the significance of anger is outweighed by other factors such as patriarchal beliefs in conservative sex roles, feelings of entitlement, general acceptance of violence against women as well as a need for control and power. This is confirmed by findings from Stith & Farlay, (1993), Russel & Hulson, (1992), Sugarman & Frankel (1996). However, psychologists still focus on anger as a predictor of domestic violence. Whilst supported by high anger measurements among DV-perpetrators (Dutton, 1995, Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997), intervention-programs’ concentration on anger (Neidig & Friedmann 1984, Saunders 1989, Howells & Day 2003) neglects both the difference between hostile and instrumental violence and the heterogeneity of DV-offenders. Hence, recent research has focused on personality traits in order to develop a typology (Holtzworth-Monroe & Saunders, 1996), which may be extraordinarily important for an appropriate intervention (Dutton et al. 1997).

A Typology of Domestic Violence Offenders

After first steps undertaken by Faulk (1974) and Elbow (1977) who distinguishes between ‘controllers’, ‘defenders’, ‘approval seekers’ and ‘incorporators’, Hamberger & Hastings (1986) created an empirically based typology of batterers categorised by (1) narcissistic-antisocial (2) schizoidal-borderline and (3) passive dependent-compulsive personality disorders.

Similarly, Gondolf’s (1988) cluster analysis separates sociopathic, antisocial and typical batterers.

Referring to Megargee (1966), the study of Hershorn & Rosenbaum (1991) showed that over-controlled hostile men committed Domestic Violence less frequently, whereas under-controlled husbands tended to act more generally and frequently aggressively.

Saunders (1992) relied again on a trimodal set of patterns divided into family-only, over-controlled (57%), emotionally volatile, impulsive (17%) and generally violent, instrumental (26%) perpetrators. The last group, violent in and outside the home, reported severe abuse-victimisation as children, but low levels of depression and anger. The impulsive offenders had the highest depression and anger rates. The first type - the least likely to have experienced child abuse and to be violent outside the home - scored highest on social desirability bias, but did not differ from the over-controlled on anger and depression or from either group in jealousy.

Holzworth-Munroe & Stuart (1994) theoretical typology also follows the tripartite approach. They first labelled the emotionally volatile impulsive batterers (25%) as Borderline/Dysphoric (BD) who – as a consequence of parental abuse or rejection - were supposed to experience high levels of anger and to attach fearfully. They shall commit moderate to severe violence, be disposed toward moderate impulsivity and suffer from Borderline-Schizoid personality disorder, high rates of depressions, anger and substance abuse.

The instrumental, Generally Violent/Antisocial batterers (GVA) (25%) were supposed to resemble other antisocial aggressive groups and to suffer from antisocial personality disorder or Psychopathy as well as frequent alcohol/drug abuse. They also should have experienced high levels of family-of-origin-violence, and association with deviant peers. Their attachment style may be dismissing as they tend toward low social skills, hostile attitudes towards women and a general acceptance of violence. They exercise more instrumental violence outside the home and experience moderate levels of anger.

Thirdly, family only batterers (FO) (50%), evidence the lowest level of risk factors and psychopathology. They engage in low levels of violence and moderate levels of anger and commonly exhibit low levels of the risks factors mentioned above. Their attachment style should be either secure or preoccupied.

Those attachment styles relate to Bartholomew and Horowitz’s theory (1991) whereupon persons with positive internal models of both self and others display a secure attachment. Those with a negative self-, but positive model of others exhibit a preoccupied attachment, seek recognition and tend to get attached closely, sometimes to the detriment of this relationship. Individuals with a negative model of others and a positive model of self are dismissing in their attachment, denying their need of intimacy. The last group attaches fearfully, holding negative models of both self and others.

Holtzworth-Munore & Stuart’s (1994) taxonomy has been largely confirmed by several US- studies.

So, Hamberger et al. (1996) cluster-analysis of the personality disorder scores of 833 treated batterers identified three main clusters. The non-pathological group with the lowest levels of violence, anger and substance abuse resembled the FO-group. The passive-aggressive-dependent group with the highest levels of depression were the most likely to have been abused as child and came close to the BD-group whereas the antisocial batterers, comparable to the GVA-group, assaulted mostly people outside the home.

Langhinrichsen et al. (2000) could place more than 75% of their batterer-sample in that typology and discovered that BD-batterers had more suicidal proneness than others, whereas GVA-batterers were identified as the most violent men.

Tweed & Dutton (1998) separated two groups of which one was labelled instrumental and resembled Holtzworth-Munroe’s & Stuart’s GVA-group whilst the impulsive one came close to the BD-group.

Dutton (1998) described three profiles of abusive personalities. First, the over-controlled abuser tends to suppress his anger caused by frustrations and provocations in everyday life until it erupts in an episode of violence against a suitable target such as his partner.

This may confirm Zillmann’s (1983) excitation transfer theory: If arousing events follow each other in a short period of time, arousal from the first incident is attributed to the following and increases the anger which may be extended over a long period of time if a conscious attribution-process precedes.

The second type is the generally violent psychopathic abuser committing violence mostly instrumentally.

Thirdly, the borderline offender who is mostly not conspicuous outside the family creates a three-stage circle of violence. He builds up hostility towards his partner as he has a marked tendency to blame others for his problems as a result of an insecure or fearful attachment following a history of parental neglect and/or abuse in childhood. He also experiences feelings of personal inadequacy and shamefulness, which reinforces aggressiveness (Tangney et al. 1992). Therefore, the borderline-personality developed an incomplete sense of self, exacerbated by feelings of depression and anger. His ego-weakness leads to the seeking of a close intimate relationship in order to reassure and comfort him, but any partner-reaction, which can be attributed as provocative may lead to an outburst of aggression. Consequently, he shows his remorse through a display of affection, begs for forgiveness – and the cycle repeats itself.

Holzworth-Munroe et al.’s (2000) test of Holzworth-Munroe & Stuart’s (1994) typology could identify four clusters of violent men of which three corresponded to the predicted types. The 4th cluster – low-level antisocial – was lying between the FO and GVA-groups and viewed to be akin to the originally proposed FO group. Accordingly, this group along with the FO and GVA-offenders was seen as following along a continuum of anti-sociality, as distinct from the BD-perpetrators. Those resembled the GVA in their high scores of impulsivity, hostile attitudes toward women and acceptance of violence, but scored the highest on a set of variables such as fear of abandonment, preoccupied fearful attachment, dependency and jealousy.

Gondolf & White’s (2001) follow up-study concentrating on offenders with high recidivism rates (approximately 20% of batterer-program participants) discovered that 60% of the 580 participants showed no serious personality disjunction, but 11% suffered from primary psychopathic disorder. When applying a broad concept embracing secondary Psychopathy such as avoidant-borderline personality continuum and APS, the figure was 54%. Hence, a significant proportion displayed psychopathological tendencies.

A recent UK-Study (Gilchrist et al. 2003), tested 336 domestic violence offenders on probation psychometrically. 60% had consumed alcohol prior to the offence. Appropriately, 61% had a history of alcohol-abuse. 28% were depressed according to file information. The most frequently cited situational context was jealousy (29%). 50% reported violence in their family of origin. 54% had been previously convicted for a violent crime but 71% had also a previous conviction for a non-violent offence

A high rate of 39% was identified – using the MCMI-III (Millon 1994) and the same classification system as Gondolf and White (2001) - as having a severe personality dysfunction. 53% had the highest elevation for Borderline, 39% for Paranoid and 8% Schizoid.

17% scored higher than the mean Novaco Anger Score (NAS), which indicates a general elevated anger-level. Taking attachment styles into consideration, 7% were secure, 43% fearful, 27 preoccupied and 23% dismissing. Furthermore, an elevated external locus of control, the belief in an external- instead of self-dominated life, was measured.

Altogether, 4 Clusters were developed.

The first, named “low Pathology” (12%) had the lowest scores on the MCMI-III clinical scales, except for Narcissism. Their profile appears to be similar to the FO-type (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart 1994). Those men reported the lowest frequency of physical abuse and witnessing intrafamilial violence in childhood . Being the least troublesome teenagers, they had the lowest scores for the NAS.

In Contrast, the following clusters scored highly on Psychopathology-Factors:

Cluster 2, the Borderline-Emotionally-Dependent (28%), scored highest on Interpersonal Dependency factors and Borderline as well as Major Depression, suicidal tendencies and anxiety. Additionally, those offenders exhibited significantly lower Narcissistic scores, but the highest frequency of physical and sexual abuse in childhood. They had fearful attachment styles and the lowest self-esteem, but the highest anger-scores.

Cluster 3, the Narcissistic (13%), showed significantly higher Narcissistic scores, high self-deception and impression-management but low macho attitudes. They attached less fearfully and preoccupied than the other high pathology clusters. This group, also identified by Gondolf and White (2001), resembles Holtzworth-Munore & Stuart’s (1994)

GVA-type.

Finally, Cluster 4, “Antisocial”, with 47% the largest group, also corresponds the GVA-offenders. The highest antisocial scores along with the highest alcohol- and drug-dependency were measured. This group was disposed toward high Macho-Attitudes factors, but the lowest perspective-taking scores. 54% reported having been in trouble for bad school behaviour and were more likely to have been previously convicted.

Similarly to Holtzworth-Munroe et al.’s (2000) study, Cluster 2 stood out distinctly from other DV-offenders by high levels of interpersonal dependency and anger next to a low level of narcissism, self esteem, external locus of control and a high rate of fearful attachment.

Controversially, the Antisocial, Narcissistic and Low-Pathology clusters evidence similar characteristics on a general antisocial line (Holtzworth-Munroe et al. 2000).

Conclusive Evaluation and suggestions for intervention

The presented typologies are only restrictedly comparable as study-methods, i.e. sample size, classification-systems and the existence of comparison groups, differ. As an example, Gilchrist’s et al. (2003) study only referred to DV-offenders on probation. A control group was missing. Furthermore, the MCMI-III is insufficient to diagnose personality disorders exactly as its personality descriptions are rather dimensional than categorical (Sonkin & Liebert, 2002). To identify Borderline and Psychopathic offenders, the additional use of the Oldham-inventory (Oldham et al. 1985) and the PCL-R (Hare, 1991) is proposed. Besides, Psychopathy has to be separated from APD (Shipley & Arigo 2001), especially with regard to intervention (Hare, 1998, 2000).

Besides, analysing DV-offenders’ disposition of violence, one should keep in mind that an aggressive disposition facilitates aggression, but is neither necessary nor sufficient to commit a violent act (Blackburn, 1998). The actual situational context – determined by proximal contributions and pre-existing attributions - must be taken into consideration. Hence, instrumental and hostile violence can occur despite or because of dispositions.

To summarise, the following triable offender-taxonomy, integrating a so far lacking attachment on theories, is proposed:

First, the family only offender does not tend toward general violent traits. Instead, according to the principles of cognitive neoassociation (Berkowitz, 1993), he seeks a convenient target after specific situations of frustration such as in the work-place. More situational than dispositional variables dominate his aggression which is facilitated by the rational-choice-approach of the source exchange theory (Gelles & Cornell, 1990). The relatively low risk inhibiting domestic violence compared to external, inter-male aggression is supported by sociocultural patriarchal attitudes towards women viewed as a scapegoat (Dobash & Dobash 1992). Aggression is committed mostly affectively, but also instrumentally in cases where the women try to escape the traditional scheme so that the male retains a moderate degree of self-esteem.

The GVA-offenders were disposed to intrafamilial violence and criminal peers in childhood (Farrington, 2001). Here, Domestic and General Violence are motivated by the same features. According to Social- Learning and Script-Theories (Bandura, 1976; Huesmann, 1998), violence is seen as an appropriate, sub cultural instrument of control. Disposing over a high level of anger, this under-controlled type has general hostile and aggressive traits combined with masculinity, narcissism and low moral development, which facilitate hostile attribution, victim-blaming and jealousy as situational triggers. Aggression is discharged mostly instrumentally, but also affectively within the family as a part of a general anti-sociality or even Psychopathy expressed in versatile criminality.

Thirdly, the borderline abuser restricts himself mostly to family-only violence, albeit his dispositional factors differ broadly from the first group. Because of severe childhood physical or psychical abuse, he is prone to shamefulness, low self-esteem, insecurity leading to fearful attachment and tends to be overcontrolled (Dutton, 1998). Tending to victim-blaming, he initiates a circle of violence, which leads to irregular but intensive eruptions of violence.

This type may be in need of a long-term term clinical therapy. DV-intervention-programs are not appropriate in case of general violence-proneness (Olson & Stalans 2001) and not sufficient where high personality-disorder-scores are involved (Blackburn, 1996). Those offenders constitute a subgroup with a high likelihood of treatment failure and recidivism (Dutton et al. 1997. Borderline-offenders not in need of clinical treatment also require a different intervention approach as they not benefit from group work (White & Gondolf 2000) and are more likely to leave the program (Hamberger et al. 2000). Hence, individual cognitive therapy may be most suitable (Gilchrist et al., 2003).

On the other hand, others are not in need of a specific therapy, as a third desists from wife assault without treatment (Dutton et al. 1998). The latter group largely consists of FO-offenders who, socially integrated, once labelled publicly as abusers may be deterred from re-offending. FO-perpetrators might also be reached by pro-feminist programs such as CHANGE (Dobash et al. 2000). Offenders with narcissistic traits could benefit from cognitive therapy focusing on increasing behavioural responsibility and decreasing cognitive distortions (Gilchrist et al. 2003). For them and for court-mandated offenders, motivational-enhancement strategies should precede intervention (Bowen & Gilchrist, 2004).

A combination of cognitive-behavioural and psycho-educational approaches (Mullender & Burton 2000) might work for non-pathologic GVA-offenders.

As numerous studies have proven the role of alcohol, an abstinence-therapy should be included.

Consequently, as far as DV-intervention programs are appropriate, their assessment must take offenders’ heterogeneity into consideration and target individual weaknesses. Single approaches – such as anger management– are therefore insufficient (Gilchrist et al. 2004), Thus, Andrew & Bonta’s (1994) Criminogenic-Principle providing multiple targets for intervention such as dependency, narcissistic traits or psychopathology (Gilchrist et al. 2003) seems promising as long as the dynamic risk factors are determined in a careful psychometric testing which should take offender’s social environment into consideration.

Hence, the recently initiated Duluth-Project (Bilby and Hatcher, 2004) focusing on challenging attitudes associated with domestic violence, teaching social skills and enhancing victim empathy may work with FO-offenders, and less severe GVA-offenders, but cannot break BD-offenders’ internalised pathological circle of violence or prevent recidivism of versatile antisocial offenders.

Moreover, both a good basis of evidence such as produced in the Home Office Crime Reduction Programme (Stanko, 2004) and multi-agency approaches such as the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (Diamond et al. 2004) are indispensable to determine appropriate intervention.

References:

Allen, K., Caslyn, D.A., Fehrenbach, P.A. and Benton, G. (1989). A study of interpersonal behaviours of male batterers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 79-89.

Anderson, C.A. and Bushman, B.J. (2002). Human Aggression. Annual Review of Psychology 53 (2), 27-51

Andrews, D.A. and Nonta, J. (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Vancouver: Anderson Publishing Co.

Archer, J. (1988). The Behavioural Biology of Aggression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Archer, J. and Brown, K.D. (1989). ‘Concepts and approaches to the study of aggression,’ in J. Archer and K.D. Browne (Eds.). Human Aggression: Naturalistic Approaches, pp. 3-24. London: Routledge.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1976). Social Learning Analysis of Aggression. In Ribes-Inesta, E. and Bandura, A. (Eds.). Analysis of Delinquency and Aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 203-232.

Bandura A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An Agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1: 26

Barratt, E. S. (1994). ‘Impulsiveness and aggression,’ in J. Monahan and H. J. Steadman (eds). Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp.61-79

Bartholomew, K. and Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.

Barnett, O.W., Fagan, R.W. and Booker, J.M. (1991).Hostility and stress as mediators of aggression in violent men. Journal of Family Violence, 6, 217-41.

Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L. and Boden, J.M. (1996).Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.

Berkowitz, L. (1965). ‘The conception of aggressive drive: some additional considerations,’ in L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2 New York, Academic Press.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59- 73.

Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: a cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45, 494- 503

Berkowitz, L. (1993). Pain and aggression: some findings and implications. Motivation and Emotion, 17, 277- 293.

Berkowitz, L. (2003). ‘Affect, aggression and antisocial behaviour,’ in R.J. Davidson, K Scherer, H.H. Goldsmith (Eds.). Handbook of Affective Sciences. New York/Oxford UK: Oxford University Press., pp. 804-823.

Bersani, A., Chen, H.T., Pendleton, B.F and Denton, R. (1992). Personality traits of convicted male batteres, Journal of Family Violence, 7, 123-134.

Bilby, C. and Hatcher, R. (2004). Early Stages of the Development of the Integrated Domestic Abuse Program (IDAP): Implementing the Duluth Domestic Violence pathfinder. Home Office Online-Report 29/4. . Access 01.01.2005.

Blackburn, R. (1993).The Psychology of Criminal Conduct: Theory, Research and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley.

Blackburn, R. (1996). Mentally Disordered Offenders. in Hollin, C.R. (Ed.).Working with Offenders. Psychological Practice in Offender Rehabilitation. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., pp.119-149.

Blackburn, R. (1998). ‘Psychopathy and the contribution of personality to violence,’ in T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith and R. Davis (Eds.).Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal and violent behaviour. New York: Guildford, pp. 50-68.

Borduin, C.M. (1999). Multisystemic treatment of criminality and violence in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 242-49.

Bowen, E. and Gilchrist, E. (1994). Do court- and self-referred domestic violence offenders share the same characteristics? A preliminary comparison of motivation to change, locus of control and anger. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 279-294.

Boyle, D.J. and Vivian, D. (1996). Generalised versus spouse-specific anger/hostility and men'’ violence against intimates. Violence and Victims, 11 (4), 293-317.

Browne, K. and Howells, K. (1996). ‘Violent Offenders. in Working with Offenders. Psychological Practice,’ in Hollin, C.R. (Ed.). Offender Rehabilitation. Chichester: Wiley, pp-188-210.

Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York: Simon and Schuster

Burt, M.R. (1983). Justifying personal Violence: A Comparison of Rapists and the General Public. Victimology, 8 (3-4), 131-150.

Bushman, B.J. (1997). ‘Effects of alcohol on human aggression: validity of proposed explanations,’ in D .Fuller, R. Dietrich, E Gottheil (Eds.). Recent Developments in Alcoholism: Alcohol and Violence,. New York: Plenum, pp-227-243.

Bushman, B.J. and Baumeister R.F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75, 219-29

Buss, A.H. (1961). The Psychology of Aggression. New York: Wiley

Buss, A.H. and Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343-9.

Capaldi, D.M. and Clark, S. (1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression towards female partners for young at-risk-males. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1175-88.

Caprara, G.V., Babaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C. and Perusini, M. (1994). Individual differences in the study of aggression. Aggressive Behaviour, 20, 291-303.

Cohen, D. (1990). Being a Man. London: Routledge

Cohen, R., Rosenbaum, A., Kane, R., Warnken, W., and Benjamin, S. (1999). Neuropsychological correlates of domestic violence. Violence and Victims, 14(4), 397-411.

Crick, N:E. and Dodge, K.A.. (1996). Social information processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. How do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development, 67, 1004-1014.

Cruz, J.M. and Firestone, J.M. (1998). Exploring Violence and Abuse in gay Male Relationships. Violence and Victims, 13, 159-173.

Daly, M. and Wilson. M. (1989). Homicide and cultural evolution. Ethnology and Sociobiology, 10, 99-110.

Diamond, A., Charles, C. and Allen, T. (2004). Domestic Violence and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships: findings from a self-completion questionnaire. Online Report 56/04, London: Home Office. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr5604.pdf
Access: 01.01.2005.

Dobash, R.E. and Dobash, R.P. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press.

Dobash, R.E. and Dobash, R.P. (1992). Woman, Violence and Social Change. London: Routledge.

Dobash, R., Dobash, R., Lewis, R. and Cavanagh, K. (2000). Changing Violent Men. London, Sage.

Dodd, T., Nicholas, S., Povey, D. and Walker, A. (2004). Crime in England and Wales 2003/2004. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/04. London: Home Office

Dodge, K.A. (1980). Social cognition and children’s aggressive behaviour. Child Development, 53, 620-635

Dodge, K.A. and Tomlin, A.M. (1987). Utilisation of self-schemas as a mechanism of interpretational bias in aggressive children. Social Cognition, 5, 280-300.

Dollard, J., Doob, L.W., Miller. N.E., Mowrer, O.H. and Sears, R.R: (1939). Frustration and Aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dutton, D.G., Bodnachrchuk, M., Kropp, P.R., Hart, S.D. and Ogloff, J. (1997). Wife Assault treatment and criminal recidivism: An 11-year follow up. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 41, 9-23.

Dutton, D.G. (1995). The Domestic Assault of Women. Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Dutton, D. G. (1998). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships.

New York: Guilford Press.

Dutton, D. G. (2000). Witnessing parental violence as a traumatic experience shaping the

Abusive Personality. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 3(1), 59 –

67.

Edleson, J.L. and Tolman, R.M. (1992). Intervention for Men Who Batter: An ecological approach. California: Sage.

Elbow, M. (1977). Theoretical considerations of violent marriages. Social Casework, 58, 515-26.

Eyseneck, H.J. 1977. Crime and Personality. Third Edition. London: Paladin.

Farrington, D. (1991). Antisocial personality from childhood to adulthood. The Psychologist, 4, 389-394.

Farrington, D. (1994). ‘Childhood, Adolescent, and adult features of violent males,’ in L. Rowell Huesmann (Ed.). Aggressive Behaviour: Current perspectives. New York: Plenum Press.

Farrington, D. (2001). ‘The Need for a Co-ordinated Program of Cross-National Comparative Longitudinal Research,’ in Traverso, G.B. and Bagnoli, L.: Psychology and Law in a Changing World. New Trends in Theory, Research and Practice. London: Routledge.

Faulk, M. (1974). Men who assault their wives. Medicine, Science and the Law, 14, 180-3.

Felson, R. (1978).Aggression as impression management. Social Psychology, 41, 205-213.

Ferguson, T.J. and Rule, B.G. (1983). ‘An attributional perspective on anger and aggression,’ in R.G. Geen and E. Donnerstein (Eds.).Aggression: Theoretical and Empirical Reviews. Volume 1:Theoretical and Methodological Issues. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-74.

Gayford, J.J. (1975). Wife battering: A preliminary survey of 100 cases. British Medical Journal, 1, 194-197.

Geen, R.G. (2001). Human Aggression. 2nd edition. Buckingham, PA. Open University Press.

Gelles, R.J. and Cornell. C.P. (1990). Intimate Violence in Families, 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA. Sage.

Girshick, L.B. (2002). Women to Women Sexual Violence. Does she call it Rape? Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Giardano, P., Millhollin, T.J.., Cernkovich, S.A., Pugh, M.D., and Rudolph, J.L. (1999). Delinquency, identity, and women’s involvement in relationship violence. Criminology, 37, 17-40.

Gil, D.G. (1978). ‘Societal Violence in Families,’ in: Eekelaar, J.M. and Katz, S.N. (Eds.). Family Violence. An international and interdisciplinary study. Toronto. Butterworths, pp. 14 - 33

Gilchrist, E., Johnson, R., Takriti, R., Weston, S., Kebbell, M. and Beech, A. (2003).Domestic Violence Offenders: Characteristics and offending related needs. Home Office Study 217. London: Home Office.

Gilchrist, E. and Kebbell, M. (2004). ‘Domestic Violence: current issues in definitions and interventions with perpetrators in the UK,’ in J. Adler. (ed.) Forensic Psychology. Concepts, debates and practice. Devon: Willian Publishing.

Gondolf, E.W. (1988). Who are those guys? Towards a behavioural typology of men who batter, Violence and Victims, 3, 187-203.

Gondolf, E.W. and White, R.J. (2001). Batterer program participants who repeatedly reassault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16 (4), 361-380.

Gondolf, E.W. and Russell, D. (1986). The case against anger control treatment programs for batterers. Response, 9, 2-5.

Goode, W.J. (1971). Force and Violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 624-636.

Gouze, K.R. (1987). Attention and social problem solving as correlates of aggression in pre-school males. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 181-97.

Guerra, N.G:, Huesmann, L.R. and Hanish, L. (1994). ‘The role of normative beliefs in children’s social behaviour,’ in N. Eisenberg (Ed.). Social Development. Newbury Park, CA. Sage, pp. 140-58.

Hague, G., Mullender, A., and Aris, R. (2003). Is anyone listening? Accountability of women survivors of domestic violence. London: Routledge.

Hamberger, L:K. and Hastings, J.E. (1986). Personality Correlates of men who abuse their partners: A cross-validation study. Journal of Family Violence, 1, 323-341.

Hamberger, L.K., Lohr, J.M., Bonge, D. and Tollin, D.F. (1996). A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions of abuse. Violence and Victims, 11(4), 277-291.

Hare, R.D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revisted. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Hare, R.D. (1998). ‘Psychopaths and their nature: Implications for the mental health and criminal justice system,’ in T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, and R.D. Davids (Eds,). Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal and violent behaviour. New York: Guilford, pp. 188-212.

Hare, R. D. (2000). Presentation to ‘Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Implications for the Prevention of Violence’, conference 17-19 November, Vancouver, reproduced in Annex 4 of MacLean report: A Report of the Committee on Serious Violent and Sexual Offenders, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, pp. 134-135.

Harrower, J. (1998). Applying Psychology to crime. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Hershorn, M., and Rosenbaum, A. (1991). Over-vs. undercontrolled hostility: Application of the construct to the classification of maritally violent men. Violence and Victims, 6, 151-158.

Hollin, C.R. and Howells, K. (1989).An introduction to concepts, models and techniques. In K. Howells and C.R. Hollin (Eds.).Clinical Approaches to Violence. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 3-24.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A. and Stuart, G.L. (1994). Typologies of male batteres: Three subtypes and the differences among them‘, Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 476-497.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Smutzler, N., Bates, L., and Sandin, E. (1997). ‘Husband violence: Basic facts and clinical implications,’ In W.K. Halford, and H.J. Markman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marriage and couples interventions. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 129-156.

Holtzworth-Munore, A. and Saunders, G. (1996). Introduction: Men Who Batter: Recent History and Research. Violence and Victims, Vol. 11 (4), 273-276.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meeham, J.C., Heron, K., Rehman, U. and Stuart, G.L. (2000). (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68 (6):1000-1019.

Hovland, C.J. and Sears, R.R. (1940). Minor studies in aggression: VI. Correlation of lynchings with economic indices, Journal of Psychology, 9, 301-10.

Howells, K. and Day, A. (2003). Readiness for anger management: clinical and
theoretical issues, Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 319-337.

Huesmann, L.R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behaviour, 14, 13-24.

Huesmann, L.R. (1998). ‘The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behaviour,’ in R.G. Geen, E. Donnerstein E, (Eds). Human Aggression: Theories, Research and Implications for Policy. New York: Academic, pp. 73- 109.

Johnston, M.E. (1988). ‘Correlates of early violence experience among men who are abusive toward female mates,’ in G.T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J.T. Kirkpatrick and M.A. Straus (Eds.), Family Abuse and its Consequences: New Directions in Research. Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, pp. 192 – 202.

Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family 46, 11-19.

Kane, T.A., Staiger, P.K. and Ricciardelli, L.A. (2000). Male domestic violence, attitudes, aggression and interpersonal dependency. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(1),16-29

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The meaning and measurement of moral development. Cambridge, UK: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain.

Kunitz , S.J., Levy, J.E., McCloskey, J. and Ruben Gabriel, K. (1998). Alcohol dependence and domestic violence as sequel of abuse and conduct disorder in childhood. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(11), 1079-1091.

Kutash, S.B. (1978). 'Psychoanalytic Theories of Aggression', in I.L. Kutash, S.B. Kutash., and L.B. Schlesinger (eds.), Violence: Perspectives on Murder and Aggression. California: Jossey-Bass.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. Schmutzler, N. and Vivian, D. (1994). Positivity in marriage: the role of discord and physical aggression against wives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 69-79.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Huss, M.S., and Ramsey, S. (2000). The clinical utility of batterer typologies. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 37-54.

Lau, M.A. and Phil, R. O. (1996). Cognitive Performance, monetary incentive, and aggression. Aggressive Behaviour, 22, 417-30.

Levey, S. and Howell. K. (1990). Anger and its management. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 1, 302-327.

Lochman, J.E., Lampron, L.B. and Rabiner, D.L. (1989). Format Differences and salience effects in the social problem-solving assessment of aggressive and non-aggressive boys. Journal of Child Psychology, 18, 230-6.

Lorenz, K. (1996). On Aggression. London: Routledge

Luckenbill, D.F. (1977). Criminal Homicide as situated transaction. Social Problems, 25, 176-186.

Magdol. L., Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A. and Silva, P.A. (1998). Developmental antecedents of partner abuse: A prospective-longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 375-389.

Maiuro, R., Cahn, T., Vitaliano, P. Wagner, B. and Zegree, J. (1988). Anger, hostility and depression in domestically violent versus generally violent assaultive men and non-violent control subjects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56:17-23.

Megargee, E.I. (1966). Undercontrolled and overcontrolled personality types in extreme antisocial aggression. Psychological Monographs, 80 (3), 611-617.

Mehrotra, M. (1999). The social construction of wife abuse: Experiences of Asian Indian women in the United States. Violence Against Women, 5(6), 619-640.

Messerschmidt, J. W. (1993). Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptuatlization of Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Miller, B. L., Darby, A., Benson, D. F. and Miller, M.H. (1997). Aggressive, socially disruptive and antisocial behaviour in frontotemporal dementia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 150-154.

Millon, T. (1994). Millon Clinical Multitaxial Inventory- III: Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Mirrlees-Black, C. (1999). Domestic Violence: findings from a new British Crime Survey self-completion questionnaire. Home Office Research Study 191. London: Home Office.

Moffitt, T.E., Krueger, R.F., Caspi, A. and Fagan, J. (2000). Partner Abuse and General Crime: How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology 38(1), 199-232.

Monahan, J. and Klassen, D. (1982). ‘Situational approaches to understanding and predicting individual violent behaviour,’ in M.E. Wolfgang and N.A. Weiner (Eds.), Criminal Violence, Beverly Hills, CA. Sage.

Moyer, K. (1981). ‘Biological substrates of aggression: Implications for control,’ in P.F. Brain and D. Benton (Eds.). The Biology of aggression. Alphen an der Rijn: Sijthoff and Noordhoff.

Mullender, A. and Burton, S. (2000). Reducing Domestic Violence—what works? Women survivors’ view. One of a pack of 12 briefing notes. Crime Reduction Research Series No. 4. London: Home Office

Neidig, P. and Friedman, D.H. (1984). Spouse abuse: A treatment program for couples. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Nisbett R.E. and Cohen D. (1996). Culture of Honour: The Psychology of Violence in the South. Boulder, CO: Westview

Novaco, R.W. (1978). ‘Anger and coping with stress,’ In J.P. Foreyt and D.P. Rathjen (Eds.). Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. New York, Penguin, pp.135-173.

Oldham, J., Clarkin, J., Appelbaum, A., Carr, A. Kernberg, P., Lotterman A., and Haas, G. (1985). ‘A self-report instrument for Borderline Personality Organisation,’ in T.H. McGlashan (Ed.). The Borderline: Current empirical research. The Progress in Psychiatry Series (p. 1-18). Washington, DC. American Psychiatric Press.

Olweus, D. Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington: Hemisphere, 1978

Olweus, D. (1984). ‘Development of stable aggressive reaction patterns in males,’ in R.J. and D.C. Blanchard (Eds.). Advances in the Study of Aggression. Vol.1. New York: Academic Press.

Powis, B. (2992). Offenders’ risk of serious harm: A literature review. RDS Occasional Paper Number 81. Home Office: London.

Rada, R.T., Laws, D.R. and Kellner, R: (1976).Plasma testosterone levels in the rapist, Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 257-268.

Reitzel-Jaffe, D. and Wolfe, D.A. (2001) Predictors of relationship abuse among young men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16 (2), 99-115

Roberts, A.R. (1988). Substance Abuse among men who batter their mates, Journal of Substance Abuse treatment, 5, 83-87.

Russell, D. (1990). Rape in Marriage. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

Russel, R. and Hulson, B. (1992). Physical and psychological abuse of heterosexual partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 457-473.

Salmivalli, C. (2001), Feeling good about oneself, being bad to others? Remarks in self-esteem, hostility and aggressive behaviour. Aggression and Violent Behaviour 6, 375-393

Saunders, D.G. (1989). ‘Eclectic Approaches in Working with Men who Batter,’ in P.L. Caesar and L.K. Hamberger (Eds.). Treating men who batter. Theory. practice. and programs. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.

Saunders, D.G. (1992). A typology of men who batter: Three types derived from cluster-analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 264-275.

Schultz, L.G. (1960). The Wife Assaulter. Journal of Social Therapy, 6, 103-12.

Shipley, S. and Arrigo, B.A. (2001). The Confusion over Psychopathy (II): Implications for Forensic (Correctional).Practice. in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(4), 2001, 407-420

Shipway, L. (2004). Domestic Violence. A handbook for health professionals. London: Routledge.

Silva, P.A. and Stanton, W. (eds.). From child to adult: The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. Auckland, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Simons, R.L., Wu, C., Johnson, C. and Conger, R.D. (1995). A test of various perspectives on the intergenerational transmission of domestic violence Criminology, 33(1), 141-171.

Sonkin, D. and Liebert, D. (2002). The assessment of court-mandated perpetrators of domestic violence. Journal of Trauma, Aggression and Maltreatment. Volume 6 Number 2, pp 3-36.

Spielberger , C.D., Jacobs, G.A., Russell, S. and Crane, R.S. (1983). ‘Assessment of anger: the state-trait anger scale,’ in J. Butcher and C.D: Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment, Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum, pp. 159-187.

Stanko, E.A. (2001). The Day to count: Reflections on a Methodology to Raise Awareness About the Impact of Domestic Violence in the UK’. Criminal Justice 1(2), 215-26.

Stanko, E.A. (2004). Reviewing the evidence of hate. Lessons from a project under the Home Office Crime Reduction Programme. Criminal Justice 4 (3):277-286.

Steinmetz, S. K. (1977). The cycle of violence. New York: Praeger.

Stith, S.M. and Farley, S.C. (1993). A predictive model of male spousal violence. Journal of Family Violence, 8, 183-201.

Stith, S.M., Rosen, K.H., Middleton, K.A., Busch, A.L., Lundeberg, K. and Carlton, R.P. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 640-654.

Straus, M.A. (1978). ‘Wife-beating: How Common and why?,’ in J.M. Eekelaar and S.N. Katz: Family Violence, an international and interdisciplinary study. Toronto. Butterworths, pp. 34-49.

Straus, M.A. , Gelles , R.J. and Steinmetz, S. K. (1988). Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. Beverly Hills, CA. Sage.

Sugarman, D.B. and Frankel, S.L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife assault: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 13-40.

Tangney, J.P., Wagner, P. Fletcher, C. and Gramzow, R. (1992).Shame into anger? The relation to shame and guilt to anger and self-reported aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 669-75.

Tedeschi, J.T. and Felson R.B. (1994). Violence, Aggression, and Coercive Actions. Washington, DC. American Psychological Association.

Tolman, R.M. and Bennett, L. (1990). A review of quantitative research on me who batter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(1), 87-118.

Tolman, R.M. and Saunders, D.G. (1988). The case for the cautious use of anger control with men who batter, Response, 11(2), 15-20.

Tornhill, R. and Tornhill, N.W. (1992). The evolutionary psychology of men’s coercive sexuality. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 15, 363-421.

Tweed, R.G. and Dutton, D.G: (1988). A comparison of impulsive and instrumental subgroups of batteres. Violence and Victims, 13(3), 217-230.

Walker, L.E. (1979). The Battered Women. New York: Harper and Row.

Walby, S. and Allen, J. (2004). Domestic Violence, sexual assault and stalking. Findings from the British Crime Survey. Home Office Research Study No. 276. London: Home Office

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer.

Weiner, N.A. (1989). ‘Violent Criminal Careers and “Violent Career Criminals,’ in N.A. Weiner and M.E. Wolfgang (Eds.).Violent Crime: Violent Criminals. London: Sage, pp. 35 – 138.

White, J.W. and Kowalski, R.M. (1998). ‘Violence against women: An integrative perspective,’
in R.G. Geen and E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Perspectives on human aggression. San Diego, CA. Academic Press, pp. 205-29.

White, R.J. and Gondolf, E.W. (2000). Implications of personality profiles for batterer treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 467-488.

Wolfgang, M.E. (1958). Pattern in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia, PA.University of Pennsylvania Press.

Wolfgang, M.E. and Ferracutti, F. (1967). The Subculture of Violence: Towards an Integrated Theory in Criminology. London: Travistock.

Wright, B.E., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E. and Silva, P.A. (1999). Low self-control, social bonds, and crime: Social causation, social selection or both? Criminology. 37, 479-514.

Yllö, K.A. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power and Violence. In R.J. Gelles and D.R. Loseke (Eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence. Newbury Park, CA. Sage, pp. 47-62.

Zillmann D. (1983). ‘Arousal and aggression,’ in R.G. Geen, E. Donnerstein E. (Eds.) Aggression: Theoretical and Empirical Reviews, Vol. 1. New York: Academic. New York: Academic pp. 75- 102.