Profile Changes in Male Partner Abuser After an Intervention Program in Gender-Based Violence

Abstract

Gender-based violence is a phenomenon deeply rooted in social, cultural, psychological, and educational factors. To comply with social demands, Government agencies have promoted numerous development plans to reduce this kind of violence. The measures taken by the Spanish Government include preventive and educational measures as well as direct intervention with the victims and aggressors. This study is based on a Spanish psychological intervention with men convicted of gender-based violence. The study supports current evidence of male perpetrators as well as analyzing the effectiveness of these intervention programs. The results of the study indicate that the aggressors of gender-based violence present personality disorders, such as the compulsive behavior, and the results of intervention program indicate that the users obtain higher scores in social skills and empathy and lower scores in romantic jealousy and anger.

Keywords

aggressor gender-based violence profile psychological intervention

Introduction

Gender-based violence is not a new phenomenon in human behavior, but the interest, visibility, and studies about this type of violence did not begin until the end of the 19th century. The global estimates published by the World Health Organization (2013) indicates that around one of every three (35%) women in the world has suffered physical and/or sexual violence from a partner or sexual violence by third parties at some point in her life. The majority of these cases are violence inflicted by their partner. Across the world, almost one third (30%) of women who have had a relationship admit to having suffered some form of physical and/or sexual violence from their partner at some point in their lives. The estimates of prevalence of gender-based violence between partners range from 23.2% in high-income countries to 24.6% in the Western Pacific region, 37% in the Eastern Mediterranean region, and 37.7% in the South-East Asian region. In the European Union, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014) determined that 62 million European women experienced physical and sexual violence on any occasion, one third of the female population, and one in five (22%) is a victim of this type of crime by their partner.

As marked by the Special Eurobarometer (2017), it emphasizes the need to work on equity measures between men and women, combat violence in this area, and protect the victims. This social problem affects all countries, cultural groups, and societies. In the results of Macro-survey of violence against women (Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad, 2015), women more than 16 years of age living in Spain stated that 8.4% had suffered sexual violence, 10.7% had suffered physical violence, 11.2% had suffered economic violence, 13% had suffered physical or sexual violence, 22.8% had suffered emotional psychological violence, and 26.4% acknowledged having suffered psychological violence of control. Ultimately, these data show the high rate of violence that exists in our society. At the national level, in Spain, it is obtained that the number of women victims of gender-based violence in 2017 amounts to 158,217 women. These data show the need to continue intervening in this field. Even if interventions with victims are essential, over the years, the need to simultaneously interact with the aggressors has been increasing. The omission of this intervention may increase the probabilities of recidivism of aggressors towards future partners. Therefore, it is equally important to intervene with both victims and aggressors (Llamas, 2013).

The intervention programs with aggressors of gender-based violence began to develop in Spain in the 1990s, but it was not until the publication of the Organic Law 1/2004 that they were required to be implemented in a more exhaustive way. According to Scott, King, McGinn, and Hosseini (2011), the intervention programs with men convicted of gender-based violence are part of the change that has taken place in our society in recent years. These programs revealed that the problems of violence against women are no longer a private matter but a public and society problem that must be answered in a multifaceted way. The intervention program for men convicted of gender-based violence in alternative measures (PRIA-MA) is the most used at the legal level and focused on men who have committed crimes of gender-based violence (Secretaría General de Instituciones Penitenciarias, Ministerio del Interior, 2015).

Actually, a typical profile of aggressor in partners and many variables do not exist. For this, it is essential to have knowledge as accurate as possible about their psychological characteristics, personalities, skill deficits, and so on. In this way, the interventions can be adapted and adjusted as concise as possible to the profile of the users of the intervention program, making the intervention more specialized for them and reducing the risk of recidivism. For this, there is a need to continue studying and investigating in the different variables that influence sexist behavior.

The objective of this study is, on the one hand, the description of a psychological profile of aggressors transferred from Penalty Functions and Alternatives Measures services of the City of Justice Valencia to Psicofundación and Psicólogos Sin Fronteras performing the PRIA-MA program as an alternative measure to imprisonment and, on the other hand, the analysis of the results obtained from the intervention. This research is a pilot study that will be replicated in a larger sample, focusing on empathy interventions.

Material and Method

Participants

The participants were 33 men convicted of gender-based violence, transferred by the Correctional Social Services of Valencia to Psicofundación and Psicólogos Sin Fronteras to carry out the PRIA-MA program as an alternative measure to imprisonment or Community Services. Although the study began with 46 users, several users dropped out during the intervention for different reasons (lack of assistance, medical and work reasons, or disruptive behavior). Thus, even if this sample was smaller, it included all participants who attended the whole intervention for the purpose of the study.

Materials

Data collected regarding sociodemographics were variables such as age, nationality, educational level, employment status, and marital status. On the contrary, data related to the criminal history including legal background, type of crime, and conviction for the crime committed were also collected but for ethical issues were not displayed.

Finally, several psychological tests were used, which are described below. It should be noted that the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II (MCMI-II) was only administered before the intervention program was started, whereas the other tests were administered before and after the program.

MCMI-II

Created by Millon (1987), this inventory is used for the assessment of personality and its disorders. It contains 175 items with dichotomous answers (true/false). The different aspects of the pathological personality are collected in 26 scales: four scales of reliability and validity; 10 basic personality scales; three scales of pathological personality; six clinical syndromes of moderate severity; and three clinical syndromes of severe severity.

Social Skills Scale

Made by Gismero (2000), this scale measures social skills and assertive abilities in different contexts. It is composed of 33 Likert-type items of four alternatives (from “I do not identify myself” to “I feel that way”). The instrument has a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .80 for the global scale and .75 for each factor. In our case, the reliability fluctuated between .136 and .708 for the subscales and .851 for the general scale.

State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory

Reported by Spielberger (1999), this inventory measures the anger of a person (trait) as well as the control and expression of it. The questionnaire consists of 15 items related to the Ira-Estado and 10 items referred to Ira-Trait. It also has a third subscale of 24 items related to the form of anger expression (internal anger, external anger, and anger control). The items have a Likert-type response scale that ranges from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). The instrument shows an alpha coefficient of internal consistency of .89 on the Ira-State scale, .82 on the Ira-Trait scale, and .69 for the expression and anger control. In our case, the reliability fluctuated between .481 and .799 for the subscales and .665 for the general scale.

Scale of Romantic Jealousy

Developed by G. L. White (1976), this scale detects the existence of romantic jealousy by one of the partners and if these are a problem in the relationship. The questionnaire consists of six items with five and seven response alternatives on a Likert-type scale. The coefficient of internal consistency of the instrument is α = .89. In our case, the reliability obtained was .753.

Cognitive and Affective Empathy Scale

Made by López-Pérez, Fernández-Pinto, and Abad (2008), the Cognitive and Affective Empathy Scale (TECA) is a global measure of the capacity for empathy from a cognitive and affective approach. It is a questionnaire of 33 items, in which each situation must be scored from 1 to 5 and it has four subscales: (a) adoption of perspectives; (b) emotional understanding; (c) empathic stress; and (d) empathic joy. Cronbach’s alpha is .86 for the global TECA. In our case, the reliability obtained was .867.

Data Analysis

An analytical study was carried out with the collected data, according to the statistical package SPSS v.23.0 (IBM). The analyses performed were means comparisons through Student’s t test for repeated measurements or intra-subjects (inherent to the pre- and post-treatment moments). Also, the effect size was calculated. On the contrary, a cluster analysis was carried out on the profiles of the users. This was developed under the maximum likelihood test and also by examining the cluster size ratio.

Results

Description of the User’s Profile

In Table 1, it depicts a detailed description of the sample, in relation to different descriptor variables and user interest in the analysis.

Table 1.

Description of the Sample Under Study.

	N	%
Age
18-25	4	12.1
26-35	8	24.2
36-50	16	48.4
51-65	5	15.1
Nationality
Spanish	26	78.8
Colombian	2	6.1
Peruvian	1	3
Ecuadorian	1	3
Romanian	1	3
Italian	1	3
German	1	3
Marital status
Married	4	12.1
Separated/divorced	15	45.5
Single	14	42.4
Level of studies
Primary education	9	27.3
Secondary education	10	30.3
High school	6	18.2
Vocational training	6	18.2
University studies	2	6.1
Employment situation
Employee	16	48.5
Unemployed	17	51.5
Number of children
0	10	30.3
1	9	27.3
2	8	24.2
3	3	9.1
4	1	3
5	1	3
6	1	3
Consumption of alcohol
Yes	8	24.2
No	25	75.8
Consumption of drugs
Yes	5	15.2
No	28	84.8
Origin
Substitute measure	15	45.5
CSM	18	54.5

Note. CSM = community service and mediation.

Regarding the background of the users, a minority of them went to the program with a criminal record (39.4%), whereas the rest have no criminal record (60.6%). The majority of these records were due to fights (25%) and drug trafficking (25%), followed by crimes against road safety (19%), kidnapping (13%), robbery (12%), and falsification of documents (6%).

In Table 2, we can observe the types of crimes for which the users of the program were judged and convicted, and the reason for their participation in the program. It is specified that, in many occasions, the sentences of the convicts are for several crimes committed. The most frequent crimes are for threats (20.18%), insults (18.34%), and breaches of a restraining order (17.43%).

Table 2.

Types of Conviction Offense.

	N	%
Threat	22	20.18
Abuse	20	18.34
Brokenness	19	17.43
Pushes	14	12.84
Strikes/punch	11	10.09
Take from the neck or arm	9	8.25
Throw objects	6	5.5
Slap	3	2.75
Bullying	3	2.75
Prohibit the use of furniture	1	0.91
Burn personal items	1	0.91

In the correction of the MCMI-II questionnaire, the answers of three users are discarded as they obtain a flat profile; this means that they do not obtain relevant scores in any of the subscales of the basic personality scale. Interpreting the other results at a general level, it can be seen that a high indicator (x > 75) obtained by the users is a compulsive personality profile (63.63%), and as suggestive indicators (60 < x < 74) we obtained, within the scale of basic personality, a narcissistic (36.36%), histrionic (36.36%), and dependent (30.3%) personality, and within the scale of pathological personality, the paranoid disorder (33.33%). A total of 87.87% of the sample has at least one personality disorder according to the results of this questionnaire. In addition, on average we see that the subjects present 3.6 disorders.

Results of the Pre–Post-Intervention

In the Social Skills Scale (SSS) subscale of expression of anger or disagreement, we found that the scores of the post-moment were higher than the pre-moment and this reached the level of statistical significance, t(32) = 2.27; p < .05; d′ = 0.47, which explains 47% of the effect.

Likewise, statistically significant differences were also found between the pre- and post-moments in the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) scores, specifically in the Ira-Trait subscale, where t(32) = 2.32; p < .05; d′ = 0.30, which explains 30% of the effect.

Concerning romantic love, the post-moment of the intervention (M = 12.63, SD = 6.27) presented lower scores than the pre-moment (M_edia = 14.94, SD = 6.28), t(31) = 2.4; p < .05; d′ = 0.36, which explains 36% of the effect. Note that in this case the degree of freedom is lower because a subject has not responded to the questionnaire.

Regarding the TECA, we obtained in the adoption of perspectives (AP) subscale that the score was around the statistical significance, t(32) = 2.001; p = .054; d′ = 0.47. On the emotional understanding (CE) subscale, the pre–post-moment differences reached the level of statistical significance, t(32) = 2.50; p < .05; d′ = 0.57, which explains 57% of the effect. On the empathic joy (AE) subscale, the mean score increases statistically significantly at the post-moment, t(32) = 2.24; p < .05; d′ = 0.45, which explains 45% of the effect. Regarding the total score of the test, we also obtain significant scores, t(32) = 2.83; p < .01; d′ = 0.57, which explains 57% of the effect.

Finally, we carried out the same cluster analysis completed at the pre-moment, but in this case using the variables of the post-moment, with special emphasis on empathy scores of the users. In this case, two clusters or groups of users were identified. The ratio of the size was 2.22 and the optimal fit (measure of silhouette of cohesion and separation was 0.5). The first cluster represents 69% of the sample and its most important indicators are paranoid disorder, hypomania, psychotic delusions, and psychotic thinking. Although the second cluster represents 31% of the sample, its most important indicators are psychotic thinking, phobic personality, paranoid disorder, and alcohol and drug abuse.

In addition, these two clusters differed in personality. Specifically, the predictors with greater repercussion in these differences were the paranoid personality disorder, the psychotic delirium syndrome, and the hypomania syndrome. Regarding the results obtained by comparing the two clusters with the variables studied, the empathy results stand out, where Group 2 (or Cluster 2) obtaining better results in all the scales of the empathy questionnaire after the intervention, highlighting the great difference in the subscales of empathic joy and empathic stress (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Results of the TECA scale comparing clusters. Two different profiles were identifies (1 and 2).

Conclusion and Discussion

The objectives set for this study have been, on the one hand, to analyze the profile of the users of the program and, on the other hand, to evaluate the changes after carrying out the intervention program for men convicted of gender-based violence.

In this way, it is highlighted that gender-based violence is not just a matter of legality, but a matter of human rights that must be firmly respected and guaranteed by the society we pretend to be. The way to guarantee respect for women’s rights obviously involves reducing (eliminating if possible) drastically the number of women victims of gender-based violence; with this, in addition to the gain at an individual level by the disappearance of suffering, social gains are created (fewer victims of gender-based violence, more equality in society, fewer socioeconomic and socio-health resources, etc.). Therefore, the cycle of violence must be cut, not only in partners, with the empowerment of women, but at the root, modifying the education received by minors in general, beliefs about gender inculcated by society. We especially need to intervene with male members of our society.

As for the second objective of the study, the evaluation of changes after completion of specific intervention program for men punished for violence, we obtained significant results in four tests, which are the SSS, Romantic Jealousy Scale (RJS), STAXI, and TECA. In the SSS, significantly higher scores are obtained in the expression subscale of anger or disconformity after the intervention program. This indicates that, after the intervention, users have more capacity to express anger, justified negative feelings, and disagreements with other people. This ability is important in this population as a person with adequate social skills will defend their rights and express their agreement or disagreement without causing discomfort or psychological damage to other people.

With regard to the RJS, significantly lower scores are obtained at the post-moment of the intervention. This means that the level of jealousy has been reduced in the partnership of the convicts. Pérez-Ramírez, Giménez-Salinas Framís, and Espinosa (2013) in their study also obtained significantly positive changes in this variable with the same population. According to Montes-Berges (2008), cited by Peña-Martín (2015), romantic jealousy has traditionally been associated with mistreatment of women. The presence of jealousy in perpetrators of domestic violence can be understood as a destabilizing factor that favors the repetition of conflict situations with a partner, control behaviors, and obsessional thoughts, among others.

On the contrary, statistically significant differences were found in the STAXI (for the Ira-Trait subscale, specifically these increased at the post-moment). Anger as a trait is defined, according to Spielberger (1991), as “the disposition to perceive a wide range of situations as annoying or frustrating, and to experience an increase in the state of anger” (p. 16). In addition, this author distinguishes three directions of the expression of anger: outward anger, inward anger, and anger control. No significant data are obtained for any of the three directions, so it would be necessary to continue investigating with more samples to be able to specify in which direction the anger is increasing, that is, towards oneself, towards other people, or controlling that anger.

In terms of TECA, significant and higher scores are obtained in the subscales of emotional understanding and empathetic happiness, that is, they show a greater ability to recognize and understand the emotional states, intentions and impressions of others as well as more ability to share the positive emotions of other people. Furthermore, in the subscale of adoption of perspectives, the results approached statistical significance, which may be because the sample is small. The emphasis subscale is the only subscale where no significant differences are observed in the pre–post-moment, although we can see that the average post-moment score is slightly higher than the pre-moment score. Other researchers such as Loinaz (2010) and Boira, López del Hoyo, Tomás-Aragonés, and Gaspar (2013) used the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) to evaluate empathy and obtained higher empathy scores at the end of the intervention program with aggressors.

At the post-moment of the intervention, we obtain two different groups or clusters of users based on the results obtained with the intervention program. The first cluster represents 69% of the sample and its most important indicators are paranoid disorder, hypomania, psychotic delusions, and psychotic thoughts, whereas the second cluster represents 31% of the sample and its most important indicators are psychotic thoughts, phobic personality, paranoid disorder, and alcohol and drug abuse. In addition, it has been observed that, with respect to the results after the intervention of empathy, Cluster 2 has obtained higher scores in the four subscales (adoption of perspectives, emotional understanding, empathic joy, and emphatic stress) as well as in total empathy.

Regarding the research on this topic, we found that, since 2004 these interventions must be developed legally with all those convicted of gender-based violence (Organic Law 1/2004). But nevertheless most studies about this population have focused on studying the aggressors in prison (Echeburúa & Fernández-Montalvo, 2009; Loinaz, Ortiz-Tallo, Sánchez, & Ferragut, 2011) and, then, with men who come voluntarily to the intervention (Boira & Jodrá, 2010; Echeburúa et al., 2009), but not in alternative measures, that is to say, intervention program at the community level. For this reason, it is essential to continue studying and compiling data on men convicted of gender-based violence who carry out the intervention program at the community level.

Interventions with men convicted of gender-based violence have been shown to be effective (Arias, Arce, & Vilariño, 2013; Echeburúa & Fernández-Montalvo, 2009; Loinaz et al., 2011; Pérez-Ramírez, Giménez-Salinas, & de Juan, 2012). Throughout this research, a coincidence has been noted between the profiles indicated by the literature regarding the MCMI-II, more specifically referring to the presence of personality disorders in male abusers (Boira & Jodrá, 2010; Fernández-Montalvo & Echeburúa, 2008) and the most frequent personality disorder in this population, which is compulsive personality disorder (Boira & Jodrá, 2010; Fernández-Montalvo & Echeburúa, 2008; Ruiz & Expósito, 2008). Regarding the reduction of romantic jealousy after the intervention, we obtain a coincidence with the studies of Pérez-Ramírez et al. (2013) and, for the results of empathy, similar results are obtained in Loinaz’s (2010) and Boira et al.’s (2013) research. However, the results are not always consistent, which makes it necessary to evaluate both the treatment programs and the user profiles, so that the interventions can be adapted as concise as possible to the structure of the intervention groups and to the users and, with this, to make the intervention more specialized for them. Accurate knowledge of the aggressor is essential to reduce the risk of the victim and to design rehabilitation treatments (Sarto & Aragonés, 2011).

As limitations to this study, on the one hand, we find that the sample is small and we lose around 30% of the sample eliminating users who did not finish the intervention program. A small sample size leads to a loss of power in hypothesis contrasts, which makes it difficult to obtain significant data and the possibility of generalizing the results. On the other hand, another limitation of the study has been the absence of a control or comparison group to be able to analyze the changes in the users who received the intervention program in comparison with the users who did not receive this intervention. All users are referred from the Court specifically to carry out the intervention program, so it was not ethical to leave some users without intervention to obtain a control group. As this research is a pilot study, it has not been considered necessary to search for a control group, but for subsequent studies we pretend to compare the results of this population with a control group. Insomuch as we do not have a control group in this study, we cannot determine whether the results obtained in this research are different from other populations. Therefore, it is recommended to continue investigating this population and to compare with a comparison group.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Julie van Hoey

Carmen Moret-Tatay

References

Arias

Arce

Vilariño

(2013). Batterer intervention programmes: A meta-analytic review of effectiveness. Psychosocial Intervention, 22, 153-160.

Boira

S. S.

Jodrá

(2010). Psychopathology, characteristics of violence and dropout in male batterers treatment programs: Results of an intervention service. Psicothema, 22, 593-599.

Boira

S. S.

López del Hoyo

Tomás-Aragonés

Gaspar

A. R.

(2013). Efficacy of different treatment modalities in men convicted of intimate partner violence. Anales de Psicología, 29(1), 19-28.

Echeburúa

Fernández-Montalvo

(2009). Evaluation of a treatment program in prisons for men sentenced for committing domestic violence. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 9, 5-20.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey. Main results. Fundamental Rights Agency: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Retrieved from https://cdn.atria.nl/epublications/IAV_B00109561_eng.pdf

Fernández-Montalvo

Echeburúa

(2008). Personality disorders and psychopathy in men convicted for severe intimate partner violence. Psicothema, 20, 193-198.

Gismero

(2000). EHS Social Skills Scale. Madrid, Spain: TEA Publicaciones de Psicología Aplicada.

Ley Orgánica 1/2004 , de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género. B.O.E. nº 313, de 29 de diciembre de 2004.

Llamas

C. F.

(2013). Intervention from social work with men convicted of intimate partner violence in spanish prisons. Revista de Trabajo y Acción Social, 52, 9-30.

10.

Loinaz

(2010). Study of the typologies of aggressors in prisons. Barcelone: Center for Legal Studies and Specialized Training.

11.

Loinaz

Ortiz-Tallo

Sánchez

Ferragut

(2011). Multiaxial classification of men convicted of intimate partner violence in prisons. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11, 249-268.

12.

López-Pérez

Fernández-Pinto

Abad

F. J. G.

(2008). TECA. Cognitive and Affective Empathy Scale. Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones, SA.

13.

Millon

(1987). Manual for the MCMI-II. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

14.

Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. (2015). Macro-survey of gender violence 2011-15. Retrieved from http://www.violenciagenero.igualdad.mpr.gob.es/violenciaEnCifras/estudios/colecciones/pdf/Libro_22_Macroencuesta2015.pdf

15.

Montes-Berges

, (2008). Tácticas para la resolución de conflictos y celos románticos en relaciones íntimas: adaptación y análisis de las escalas CTS2 y CR. Estudios de Psicología, 29, 221-234.

16.

Peña-Martín

J. A.

(2015). Men convicted of gender violence: a descriptive study (Doctoral thesis). Universidad de Málaga, España.

17.

Pérez-Ramírez

Giménez-Salinas Framís

Espinosa

(2013). Efficacy of an intervention programme for court-ordered intimate partner offenders. Psychosocial Intervention, 22, 105-114.

18.

Ruiz

S. A.

Expósito

F. J.

(2008). Intervention with paroled men convicted for couple violence. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 18, 81-89.

19.

Sarto

S. B.

Aragonés

L. T.

(2011). Psychological characteristics and motivation for change in men convicted of intimate partner violence. International Journal of Psychological Research, 4(2), 48-56.

20.

Scott

King

McGinn

Hosseini

(2011). Effects of motivational enhancement on immediate outcomes of batterer intervention. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 139-149.

21.

Secretaría General de Instituciones Penitenciarias, Ministerio del Interior. (2015). Manual for the professional. Intervention program for aggressors of gender violence in alternative measures (PRIA-MA). (Colección Documentos Penitenciarios 10). Madrid: Ministerio del Interior.

22.

Special Eurobarometer. (2017). Gender equality in 2017. European Commission. Retrieved from http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2154_87_4_465_ENG

23.

Spielberger

(1991). Manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

24.

Spielberger

(1999). STAXI-2: State-Trait of Anger Expression Inventory-2: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

25.

White

G. L.

(1976). The social psychology of romantic jealousy. (Doctoral thesis). Universidad de California, Los Ángeles.

26.

World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.