A Social Problem in the Field of Clinical Psychology - Coursework Example

Introduction D. G. Dutton (2006) in his book, “Rethinking Domestic Violence” analyzed psychological and psychosocial theories in an attempt to find explanations for intimate partner violence. Upon examining individual neurological, behavioural and psychiatric hazard factors, he recapitulated that perpetuators of intimate partner violence were affected by either one or more of these features - neuroanatomical factors, personality disorders, chaotic or insecure attachment, neurobiological factors, developmental psychopathology, post-traumatic symptoms or cognitive distortions. Thus, he established a very core relationship between psychological variables and intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence constitutes not just physical and sexual violence but also entails in its ambit emotional and to some extent financial abuse, all of which leave a very severe impact on its victim. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) approximated that in 2008, intimate partner violence comprised 22% of all violence against females and 5% of all violence against males in the country (Truman, 2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (Black, et al., 2011) estimates that nearly half of the (48.4%) females and (48.8%) males in the United States have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Another study by BJS (Catalano, Smith, Snyder, & Rand, 2009) states that intimate partners killed an estimate of 1,640 females and 700 males in 2007, about 14% of all the homicides in the country. Given the serious consequences of intimate partner violence and its very close relationship with clinical psychology the author deems it fit to select the said topic for this paper. In the course of this paper the author will attempt to reveal to the reader different psychological perspectives that seek to explain intimate partner violence. Review of Literature While thinkers of different thought processes like, socio-cultural, feminist and social learning, have come up with a variety of explanations for intimate partner violence, only psychological and psychosocial theories have been able to provide enlightenment into this area with the least amount of speculation and assumptions. These theories not only provide a very clear explanation of perpetuator behaviour but also have the strongest research backing. In a study on violent husbands, Holtzworth-Munroe et al., affirmed that husband’s who are perpetuators of violence, “evidence more psychological distress, more tendencies to personality disorders, more attachment/dependency problems, more anger/hostility, and more alcohol problems than nonviolent men” (Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smutzler, & Sandin, 1997). In a bid to ascertain this connection between psychological risk factors and intimate parnter violence, the author reviews five research articles from peer-reviewed journals in this paper. The first article to be reviewed for this purpose is authored by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) and attempts to develop a typology of male batterers which would allow for a methodical examination of how each batterer differs from a nonviolent man, thus increasing the current understanding of marital violence and identifying the diverse principal processes which promote violence. Such a typology they propose would also help in matching patient to treatment, thereby increasing therapy effectiveness. By reviewing existing typologies the authors identified three major descriptive dimensions used by earlier theorists to differentiate subtypes. The first being, “severity of marital violence”, the secong being, “generality of the husbands violence” and the third being, “batterers psychopathology or personality disorders, or both”. On the basis of the review they suggested three possible subtypes of batterers – family only, dysphoric/borderline, and generally violent/antisocial. To better explain the proposed variations between these three subtypes, they presented the following table: Table 1: Proposed Subtypes of Male Batterers: How They Differ on the Descriptive Dimensions Dimension Family-only batterer Dysphoric/borderline batterer Generally violent/ antisocial batterer Severity of marital violence Low Moderate-high Moderate-high Psychological and sexual abuse Low Moderate-high Moderate-high Generality of violence Extra familial violence Low Low-moderate High Criminal behavior, legal involvement Low Low-moderate High Psychopathology/personality disorder Personality disorder None or passive/dependent Borderline or schizoidal Antisocial/psychopath Alcohol/drug abuse Low-Moderate Moderate High Depression Low-Moderate High Low Anger Moderate High Moderate Delsol, Margolin, & John (2003) challenge the three-group typology given by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) on martially violent men. For the purpose of their study, they recruited 181 married couples from two-parent families, living within a large, ethically diverse, urban community. They found that on the basis of the three dimensions proposed – severity of martial violence, generality of violence and psychopathology – the three types of intimate partner violence perpetuators instituted in this research were the family-only batterer, the medium-violence batterer and the generally violent-psychologically disturbed batterer. While the first two groups showed low to nil personality disorder or psychopathological problems accompanied by low to high levels of substance abuse, the last group, i.e., generally violent-psychologically disturbed batterer demonstrated, “high levels of psychological distress such as depression, borderline and antisocial personality features”. Men within this group reported three times more, incidences of negative life events as compared to the two other groups. This group also reported high levels of violence not just with the intimate partner but also outside the family environment. Adding to these findings, the research by Chase, OLeary, & Heyman (2001) contextualizes intimate partner violence within the reactive-proactive typology model. They define reactive violence as, “responses to (accurately or inaccurately) perceived threats or frustrations in the context of high affective - physiological arousal and minimal cognitive processing”. Proactive violence, on the other hand is symbolized as, “planned, methodical, and goal-oriented behavior that is enacted in a context of minimal-to-decreasing emotional and physiological arousal”. Taking from the earlier given typology they theorized that family-only batterers and medium-violence batterers engage mostly in reactive violence whereas the generally violent-psychologically disturbed batterers engage in a more proactive form of violenec. Taking 60 married partner-violent men as their sample they sought to study the group differences between reactively categorized and proactively categorized partner-violent men. They found that on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, the reactive group members as compared to the proactive group were showing a higher level of dependent personality traits and lower levels of antisocial, aggressive-sadistic, and psychopathic personality traits. Also, reactive group members were found to have high levels of anger but low levels of dominance over their partners, as compared to proactive group members. Towards the end of their study Chase, OLeary, & Heyman (2001), carefully suggest that anger management-based treatment, addressing aggressogenic automatic assumptions and perceptions maybe a good treatment plan for reactive partner-violent men, while, structured cognitive behavior treatments focusing on changing the contingencies of violence maybe suggested for proactively partner-violent men. In addition, George (2003) in his study, ‘Demystifying medicine: Alcohol and domestic violence’ looks at the role of mental health conditions in anger reactions among alcoholic domestic violence perpetrators. He found that among 38% of respondents there was an existing trait of generalized anxiety, 50% showed antisocial personality disorder, while 44% showed signs of major depression and 83% borderline personality disorder. D. G. Saunders (1992) uses his classification derived from cluster analysis of 165 men undergoing assessment for a treatment programme for abusive men, to develop clear intervention strategies to help these men. He classifies men engaged in intimate partner violence into three categories - family-only aggressors, generalized aggressors and emotionally volatile aggressors. He recommends that the family-only aggressor, be administered assertiveness training focussing on the communication aspects. Such men he states, suppress their feelings and hence need to be given a space to convey anger and other emotions and at the same time be made to understand their assertive rights. The generalized aggressors he states may require help in, “uncovering and healing his psychic wounds from childhood, stopping his alcohol abuse, and improving impulse control through cognitive restructuring”. The emotionally volatile aggressor according to Saunders, requires help with expressing emotions in non- aggressive ways. Critical Analysis Though these researches establish a clear linkage between psychological conditions and intimate partner violence perpetration all of these studies and some others that the author researched are conducted among groups of men. Men have been taken as subjects to study conditions that affect violence perpetration and thus classify the subgroups. However, given the current statisics, there is increasing evidence to prove that female perpetuated intimate partner violence is on the rise but it is impossible to ascertain whether these studies can be applied interchangeably. Similarly, intimate partner violence and their underlying psychological conditions among lesbian, transexual, gay and bisexual couples is barely researched and given the current lack of data, it remains unfeasible to generalize the findings among different sample groups. Another lacuna that is found in the existing literature on intimate partner violence, is the lack of evidence regarding treatment methods. Although different subtypes are established within the current intimate partner violence offenders there remain few studies which follow the trajectory of their treatment plan. Few authors have suggested different patient-centric treatment plans but their empirical validity is yet to be proven. Research Question Concommitance and covariation of psycho-pathological conditions and intimate partner violence among LGBT couples. Reference Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., et al. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Catalano, S., Smith, E., Snyder, H., & Rand, M. (2009). Female Victims of Violence. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Chase, K. A., OLeary, K. D., & Heyman, R. E. (2001). Categorizing Partner-Violent Men Within the Reactive-Proactive Typology Model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69 (3), 567-572. Delsol, C., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (2003). A Typology of Martially Violent Men and Correlates of Violence in a Community Sample. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 635-651. Duton, D. G. (2006). Rethinking Domestic Violence. Vancouver: UBC Press. George, D. T. (2003). Demystifying medicine: Alcohol and domestic violence. Retrieved February 6, 2013, from National Institutes of Health (NIH): http://videocast.nih.gov/ppt/DM_George_030904.ppt Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116 (3), 476. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smutzler, N., & Sandin, E. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence Part I: Maritally violent versus nonviolent men. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2 (1), 65–99. Saunders, D. G. (1992). Typology of Men Who Batter: Three Types Derived From Cluster Analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62 (2), 264-275. Truman, J. (2011). Criminal Victimization, 2010. BJS. Read More