Testing the Generalizability of the Event Process Model of Family Violence With an Incarcerated Sample

Abstract

The event process model of family violence (FVEPM) presents a descriptive theory of a family violence (FV) event from the perpetrator’s perspective. Developed in a community setting, the FVEPM is comprised of four interrelated sections and describes three pathways to FV perpetration (Pathway 1: Conflict escalation, Pathway 2: Automated violence, and Pathway 3: Compliance). This study further developed the FVEPM by testing the generalizability of the model and its pathways with an incarcerated sample of eight men with extensive histories of violent and other offending. Event narratives were gathered during individual semi-structured interviews, and were systematically analyzed using grounded theory methods. Overall, findings suggest that the FVEPM and its pathways can accommodate an incarcerated sample. However, several inconsistencies were found: Event narratives were better represented by splitting Pathway 1 into two sub-types, and no event narratives were assigned to Pathway 3. Implications for FV theories and treatment are discussed.

Keywords

family violence intimate partner violence perpetrator offense process model pathways

Family violence (FV) researchers have suggested that FV reported in community samples is qualitatively different to that reported in official (e.g., criminal justice system) statistics, with the latter being more frequent, more severe, and likely to have a different etiology to the former (Dixon & Browne, 2003; Johnson, 2006; Straus, 1997). In New Zealand, however, little research to date has examined the prevalence of qualitatively different types of FV (cf. Gulliver & Fanslow, 2015). Furthermore, although FV perpetrators access treatment through different referral pathways (e.g., self-referral, referral through the criminal and civil court systems), we have little understanding of whether these referral pathways are indicative of differing treatment needs (Morrison et al., 2015). Preliminary research suggests that they might be: When comparing the prevalence and severity of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration in an incarcerated versus non-incarcerated sample, Robertson and Murachver (2007) found that incarcerated men and women perpetrated significantly more physical (p < .001) and psychological (p < .001) IPV and inflicted more injury (p < .001) than their non-incarcerated counterparts. The current study examined whether reported differences in the etiology and nature of FV across community versus incarcerated samples were evident at an event-based level.

Event-Based Research and Offense Process Models

Offense process models offer a useful framework for systematically examining FV events (FVEs). Offense process models are descriptive theories that provide a detailed temporal outline of an offense, including its cognitive, behavioral, contextual, and motivational components (Ward et al., 2006). Grounded in the offender’s perspective, offense process models are typically developed by systematically analyzing offenders’ first-hand accounts of an offense using grounded theory methods (Polaschek, 2016; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Following model development, potential pathways through the offense process model can be examined. Although these pathways are descriptive in nature, they have important theoretical and practical implications in that they may help to identify distinct offending etiologies and treatment needs (Polaschek & Hudson, 2004). For example, in their offense process model of rape (Polaschek et al., 2001), Polaschek and Hudson (2004) described three offense pathways according to offenders’ dominant goals for seeking sexual gratification: to enhance positive mood, to escape negative mood, or to redress harm to the self. These pathways highlighted differences in the offense process (e.g., offense planning, denial and cognitive distortions, coping styles) that suggested the presence of distinct treatment targets.

Ward et al. (1995) were the first to develop an offense process model—of child sexual offending—using grounded theory methods. Offense process models have since been developed for rape (Polaschek et al., 2001), aggravated robbery (Nightingale, 2002), homicide (Cassar et al., 2003), sex offending by women (Gannon et al., 2008), and violent offending (Murdoch et al., 2012). However, despite their demonstrated theoretical utility in other areas of criminal offending, offense process models have rarely been applied to FV.

Drummond (1999) was the first to develop an offense process model of physical IPV, based on the accounts of 10 incarcerated New Zealand European men. The model contained four phases: background factors (e.g., the offender’s upbringing, relationship history, and violence history), offense context/build-up (e.g., victim/offender, relationship, and environmental characteristics), offense (e.g., the sequence of intrapersonal and interpersonal processes leading up to and during the offense), and post-offense (e.g., cognitive, behavioral, and affective processes following the offense). Drummond’s model was progressive as it highlighted the need to consider the dynamic nature of IPV events, including the changing nature of intrapersonal processes (e.g., decreasing cognitive control, escalating anger) and the dyadic interactional sequences preceding IPV perpetration. Nevertheless, it presented some important limitations: It used a small sample, did not examine distinct offending pathways through the model, and did not consider IPV perpetrated by women or non-IPV forms of FV.

With these limitations in mind, Stairmand, Polaschek, and Dixon (2019) developed the event process model of FV (FVEPM).¹ This research extended Drummond’s (1999) model by considering a broader range of FV than that perpetrated by men toward their female partners. The authors (Stairmand, Dixon, & Polaschek, 2019) also examined distinct pathways to FV perpetration. Key features of the FVEPM and its pathways are briefly outlined below.

The Event Process Model of Family Violence

The FVEPM comprises eight interrelated paradigms within four sections, arranged temporally from the most distal to the most proximal factors in relation to the FVE (see Table 1). Section 1 (“Background factors”) contains two paradigms, and describes aspects of participants’ upbringings and early relationship histories deemed relevant to the FVE. Paradigm 1.1 describes participants’ experiences and management of adverse early events (e.g., FV victimization) and their sequelae (e.g., mental health difficulties, failed support seeking). Paradigm 1.2 describes how participants’ exposure to a violent social environment and dysfunctional parenting practices led to the development of their violence-supportive schemas, emotional regulation difficulties, and characteristic use of physical violence.

Table 1.

Overview of the Event Process Model of Family Violence (FVEPM).

Section	Paradigms
1. Background factors	1.1. Experiencing and managing adverse early events
1. Background factors	1.2. Schema development and physical violence use
2. Event build-up	2.1. Dyadic communication and conflict resolution strategies
	2.2. Individual management of relationship stressors and relationship violence
	2.3. Experiencing and managing environmental stressors
3. Event	3.1. Initiation of verbal interaction and conflict escalation
3. Event	3.2. Script activation
4. Post-event	4.1. The aftermath

Section 2 (“Event build-up”) contains three paradigms, and describes participants’ relationships with event victims and the environmental context in which the FVE occurred. Paradigm 2.1 describes participants’ and event victims’ use of discussion- and violence-based communication and conflict resolution strategies to manage—often reoccurring—relationship stressors. Paradigm 2.2 describes participants’ use of individual coping strategies (e.g., support seeking, substance use) to manage relationship stressors and relationship violence in their relationships with event victims. Paradigm 2.3 describes participants’ experiences and management of persistent stressors (e.g., daily parenting responsibilities) and stressful events (e.g., the loss of a loved one) external to their relationship with event victims.

Section 3 (“Event”) contains two paradigms and describes the FVE itself. Paradigm 3.1 describes the extended period of verbal interaction and conflict escalation that often preceded participants’ physical FV perpetration during the FVE. This paradigm describes participants’ cognitions, emotions, and strategy selection, participants’ and event victims’ actions, and contextual factors (e.g., being under the influence of substances) during the FVE. Paradigm 3.2 describes the script activation process (e.g., unconscious cognitive processes, perceptions of acting on auto-pilot) that characterized some FVEs; this process was typically accompanied by participants’ dissociative experiences. Finally, Section 4 (“Post-event”) contains one paradigm and describes the aftermath of the FVE. This paradigm describes post-event processes such as intervention seeking by participants and others, participants’ externally- and self-imposed consequences, and participants’ evaluations of the FVE.

Three main pathways through the FVEPM—comprising 93% of event narratives—were described. A summary of the key features of each pathway is provided in Table 2. Pathway 1 (“Conflict escalation”; 50%) FVEs were characterized by an extended period of conflict escalation—often involving event victims’ use of psychological or physical FV—during which participants experienced escalating anger, violence-supportive cognitions, and a dynamic process of strategy selection. These processes culminated in participants’ physical FV, ranging in severity from a single push to a sustained physical attack involving multiple blows to the event victim’s head and body. These acts were typically reported as uncharacteristic—both in terms of presence and severity—of the participant in their relationship with the event victim, and typically did not result in significant physical injury.

Table 2.

Key Features of Pathways Through the Event Process Model of Family Violence (FVEPM).

Feature	Pathway 1	Pathway 2	Pathway 3
Depleted cognitive and emotional resources	Yes	Yes	Yes
Conflict escalation between participant and event victim	Yes	No	Yes
Escalating anger	Yes	Yes	No
Violence-supportive cognitions	Yes	Yes	No
Script activation/dissociation	No	Yes	No
Strategy (re)selection: Harm intentions only	No	Yes	No
Strategy (re)selection: Compliance intentions only	No	No	Yes
Strategy (re)selection: Both compliance and harm intentions	Yes	No	No
Severity of violence used	Mixed	Severe	Mild

Pathway 2 (“Automated violence”; 25%) FVEs were characterized by participants’ intensely energized emotions upon perceiving a transgression by the event victim, prompting their immediate and script-driven use of physical FV with the unchanging intention of inflicting physical harm. Participants’ physical FV was often accompanied by dissociative symptoms (e.g., memory blanks, depersonalization). Participants typically perpetrated severe physical FV (e.g., strangulation, repeated punches to the head and body) that caused physical injury (e.g., loss of consciousness, a severed limb) to event victims.

Pathway 3 (“Compliance”; 25%) FVEs were characterized by a period of verbal conflict in which event victims attempted to maintain, and participants attempted to end or avoid, the current interaction. Participants’ physical FV was typically preceded by event victims’ use of physical FV toward them, and consisted of single, minor acts (e.g., pushing, physical restraint) that typically did not cause injury to the event victim. All participants reported that their physical FV occurred in the absence of their escalating anger and violence-supportive cognitions, and with the unchanging intention to elicit compliance from—not harm—the event victim.

The Current Study

The FVEPM was developed from the event narratives of 14 men and 13 women completing community-based FV perpetrator treatment programs. Nearly one-half of participants were self-referred, and the overwhelming majority (79%) of mandated participants attended treatment as part of a community-based sentence or order (e.g., a protection order); that is, their FV was not deemed severe enough to warrant a custodial sentence. Furthermore, the majority of participants reported perpetrating isolated or infrequent acts of physical FV towards event victims. However, theoretical and empirical accounts of FV suggest that other patterns of FV perpetration exist; for example, frequent and severe physical FV (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Johnson, 2006). These accounts highlight the need to better understand the range of offending pathways so that all forms of FV can be understood and prevented.

The current study is part of a larger research project in which we developed (Stairmand, Polaschek, et al., 2019) and examined pathways through (Stairmand, Dixon, et al., 2019) the FVEPM with a community-based treatment sample. This study further developed the FVEPM by testing the generalizability of the FVEPM (Stage 1) and its pathways (Stage 2) with an incarcerated sample of men with extensive histories of violent and other offending.²

Method

Participants

Eight men³—ranging in age from 26 to 58 years (M = 35.13, SD = 10.48)—took part in this study. Participants identified as New Zealand Māori (n = 5), Pasifika (n = 2), or as having dual ethnicities (n = 1). At the time of their involvement in the research, all participants were completing a high-intensity treatment program designed for men with extensive histories of violent offending and delivered within one of four Special Treatment Units in New Zealand’s prison system.⁴ Participants were at various stages of program completion, ranging from program preparation to program graduation. Five participants reported a violent index offense, three of which were FV-related.⁵ The remaining three participants reported a drug (n = 2) or theft (n = 1) index offense. All participants reported an unofficial (i.e., not documented by authorities) history of FV perpetration, and all but one participant reported having at least one FV conviction.

Procedure

Participants were recruited directly through the first author’s (MS’s) attendance at one of three group meetings at the Special Treatment Unit. MS then met individually with all potential participants who expressed an interest in being involved in the research. After providing informed consent, participants took part in individual semi-structured interviews in a private treatment room at the Special Treatment Unit. Interviews ranged in length from 62 to 113 min (M = 87 min). Participants were asked to provide a detailed description of a specific FVE in which they had perpetrated FV, as well as any factors they perceived to be important in understanding why the FVE occurred. Other than being asked to describe a FVE they remembered well, participants were given no instructions as to which FVE they should describe. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for later analysis.

Data Analysis

Participants collectively described 13 FVEs in which they used physical (and often also psychological) FV toward an intimate partner (n = 10), child (n = 1), sibling (n = 1), or parent (n = 1). Consistent with our earlier research (Stairmand, Polaschek, et al., 2019), event narratives for FVEs involving any family member as an event victim were included in data analysis. Three participants described one FVE, and five participants described two FVEs; of the second FVEs described, three involved a different event victim to the first. Participants were not explicitly asked about their generalized use of FV; that is, whether they used FV toward partners, children, siblings, and parents. However, three out of eight participants described multiple FVEs involving different family members as event victims (e.g., an intimate partner and a child, an intimate partner and a brother, and intimate partner and a parent). A further three events involving intimate partners were observed by the participant’s children, constituting child abuse and neglect in and of itself. Data analysis was primarily carried out by MS, with regular oversight from the third author (DP). All authors were involved in the original development of the FVEPM and its pathways. Data analysis took place in two discrete stages, as outlined below.

Stage 1: Generalizability of the FVEPM

MS carried out data analysis using NVivo software. As in the initial development of the FVEPM, grounded theory methodology and methods (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) informed data collection and analysis. To allow for iterative periods of data collection and analysis, interviews were scheduled up to 6 days apart. First, MS read each event narrative multiple times to become familiar with the data. Next, MS methodically re-read the event narrative line-by-line to code individual meaning units at the category, sub-category, and below sub-category level. New codes were developed and refined at each level of analysis as required (i.e., when identified meaning units were not captured by existing [sub]categories). MS regularly discussed individual event narratives and coding themes with DP. After coding all 13 event narratives, MS prepared a coding report to identify the frequency with which participants endorsed any code within each paradigm and section of the FVEPM at each level of coding (e.g., category, subcategory). This coding report was used to identify (sub)categories that were not—or were infrequently—endorsed, and (sub)categories that were frequently endorsed yet did not feature in the original development of the FVEPM.

Stage 2: Generalizability of pathways through the FVEPM

Using the coding report from Stage 1, MS examined individual patterns across Section 3 (sub)categories for each event narrative. Comparing these patterns to the pathway descriptions and analysis outlined by Stairmand, Dixon, et al. (2019), MS then identified whether each event narrative could be allocated to one of the three distinct pathways described in the FVEPM development study. As in Stage 1, MS routinely discussed pathway development and allocation with DP.

Results and Discussion

Generalizability of the FVEPM

Overall, analysis of the coding reports suggested that all 13 event narratives were consistent with the phenomena and processes set out in the FVEPM. Of the 55 categories and 99 subcategories comprising the FVEPM, 49 categories and 88 subcategories were identified in participants’ event narratives (see Table 3). The majority (79%) of these (sub)categories were identified in multiple event narratives; more than one-third of categories were identified in 71% of event narratives, and more than two-thirds in 45% of event narratives.

Table 3.

Categories and Subcategories of the Event Process Model of Family Violence (FVEPM) Coded in Participants’ Event Narratives.

Section	Number of categories	Categories endorsed (%)	Number of Subcategories	Subcategories endorsed (%)
1	14	14 (100)	40	34 (85)
2	24	19 (79)	28	24 (86)
3	11	11 (100)	21	21 (100)
4	6	5 (83)	10	9 (90)

Section 1: Background factors

As shown in Table 3, 100% of categories and 85% of subcategories in Section 1 were coded in participants’ event narratives. The six subcategories not coded in event narratives belonged to five individual categories; no meaningful patterns were found regarding the uncoded subcategories. Consistent with the FVEPM, all participants reported being raised in a violent social environment in which they experienced ongoing childhood FV victimization at the hands of their parents and older siblings. Participants’ failed support seeking attempts necessitated their use of emotion- and problem-focused coping strategies to manage their experiences of FV victimization. Participants also described how their violence-supportive schemas, emotion regulation difficulties, and exposure to dysfunctional parenting practices (e.g., avoidance or aggressive management of negative emotions and interpersonal stressors) contributed to their use of physical violence during childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood.

In addition to the experiences described above, participants reported experiences that could easily be accommodated within the FVEPM (e.g., at a level below an existing subcategory), yet were not typically described by the FVEPM development sample. These experiences—including extensive criminal histories, involvement with gangs and antisocial peers, and frequent use of physical violence external to their relationships with event victims—are hallmarks of the “high-risk” FV perpetrator shared by well-known IPV typologies (Carlson & Dayle Jones, 2010; Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005). For example, participants frequently described joining a gang during early adolescence, both as a deliberate coping strategy to avoid ongoing experiences of FV victimization and to foster a sense of belonging and respect not provided in their home environments. In turn, many participants described how their gang involvement increased their exposure to a violent social environment and facilitated their own use of physical violence during adolescence and early adulthood.

Section 2: Event build-up

As shown in Table 3, 79% of categories and 86% of subcategories in Section 2 were coded in participants’ event narratives. All five uncoded categories pertained to an individual’s management of FV victimization in their relationship with the event victim. The absence of these categories reflected that participants typically did not report experiencing ongoing FV victimization from event victims prior to the FVE. However, participants frequently reported using psychological—particularly controlling behaviors—and to a lesser extent, physical FV towards event victims prior to the FVE:

“. . . [physical FV] happened so much within my relationship I actually lost count how much incidents happened. I can’t even count them there was that many times . . . I used to tell her things like I would kill her. I would actually get a knife and just point it at her and pin her up against a wall and just tell her ‘You better not be lying to me or I’ll kill you’”—P30

Participants who did use physical FV consistently reported that this was a characteristic feature of their relationship with the event victim; some attributed this violence to their belief that the event victim’s role as a woman was to serve and obey them. Participants’ accounts of FV in their relationships with event victims were often consistent with the features of a “high-risk” FV perpetrator (e.g., violent and controlling behaviors, frequent and severe IPV perpetration) shared by well-known IPV typologies (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Johnson, 2006), and with Robertson and Murachver’s (2007) findings that incarcerated participants perpetrated more frequent and more severe IPV than non-incarcerated participants. Nevertheless, participants—both those who did and did not characteristically use physical FV toward event victims—also often reported their intentions to refrain from using physical FV. These intentions were typically limited to physical FV, or to physical FV in a child’s direct presence; participants did not understand that psychological FV, or hearing but not seeing FV, were also forms of FV. Interestingly, many participants who reported non-violent intentions also often described readily perpetrating extreme physical violence in other interpersonal—particularly gang—contexts. That is, participants’ non-violent intentions often represented their effortful restraint to behave differently in their relationships with event victims:

“. . . is that what is expected of a [gang member] to do, is to punch your face every time you yell? Cause if it is I’m not that guy, I’m not that person . . . I’ve never did [physical FV] to [event victim]. Never did that to her and I never wanted to do that to her. I’d rather beat the world up than beat my partner up. That’s the way I thought . . . I’m not in this world to dominate my partner you know what I mean?”—P32

“. . . I didn’t even think I’d ever hit [event victim], cause I already knew she’d come from a violent [relationship] . . . I just wanted her to be my girlfriend instead of f**kin my punching bag”—P35

A second key feature of the FVEPM rarely coded in participants’ event narratives pertained to an individual’s experiences (or lack of) environmental stressors in the lead-up to the FVE. Specifically, the FVEPM describes how an individual’s experiences of compounding environmental stressors—and the resulting depletion of their emotional and cognitive resources—may contribute to their uncharacteristic physical FV perpetration during the FVE. Participants’ reported absence of these stressors suggests that their physical FV was either facilitated by singular stressors within the relationship itself, or represented “just another FVE” in an ordinarily violent relationship.

Sections 3 and 4: Event and post-event

As shown in Table 3, 100% of categories and subcategories for Section 3, and 83% of categories and 90% of subcategories for Section 4, were coded in participants’ event narratives. Across both sections, all but two (sub)categories in the FVEPM generalized to participants’ event narratives. Characteristics of the FVE and its aftermath are described in detail in the following section on FVEPM pathways.

Generalizability of the FVEPM Pathways

All but one event narrative could be assigned to one of two FVEPM pathways (see Table 2).⁶ Two-thirds (n = 8) of event narratives fit within Pathway 1 (“Conflict escalation”), and one-third (n = 4) of event narratives fit within Pathway 2 (“Automated violence”). No event narratives fit within Pathway 3 (“Compliance”), because all participants reported features of the FVE (e.g., an intention to harm the event victim, escalating anger, violence-supportive cognitions) that were incompatible with this pathway. The remaining event narrative involved the participant’s pre-planned assault on his brother—a high-ranking gang member—in an effort to enhance his own status within the gang. Although this event narrative shared many features of Pathway 1, the premeditated nature of the participant’s FV—rather than as part of an evolving strategy selected within the context of a FVE—precluded its inclusion in Pathway 1.

Pathway 1

As in the FVEPM development study, Pathway 1 was the most common pathway; it comprised eight FVEs involving seven participants and their intimate partner (n = 7) or child (n = 1). Prior to the FVE, participants varied in the extent to which they used physical and psychological FV toward event victims. Pertaining to the FVE itself, all event narratives were characterized by an initial period of verbal conflict, a dynamic process of strategy (re)selection, and participants’ escalating anger and violence-supportive cognitions as the FVE unfolded (see Table 2). However, two distinct patterns in Pathway 1 FVEs were found: FVEs characterized by mutual escalation by participants and event victims (n = 4), and FVES characterized by solo escalation by participants (n = 4). Re-analysis of event narratives from the FVEPM development sample found that a small number of FVEs from this sample were also characterized by solo escalation. However, this pattern was more prominent, and more frequent, in the current study.

Mutual escalation

Mutual escalation FVEs were consistent with those reported by the FVEPM development sample. Specifically, participants’ initial strategy selection involved their intention to elicit compliance from the event victim in an effort to obtain access to valuable resources and experiences (e.g., solitude, personal belongings). All but one initial strategy involved verbal (e.g., demands)—rather than physical—acts:

“. . . [event victim] wanted to get on the piss but I said to her ‘Nah’ . . . I said to her ‘I’m not getting on the piss’ . . . I had given her some money, I said to her ‘Go get on the piss with your f**kin sister, shut the f**k up and f**k off’”—P31 [FVE 1]

Event victims consistently responded to participants’ acts in a manner that was incompatible with participants’ goals; for example, by refusing to comply with participants’ demands. This prompted participants to escalate the severity of their acts (e.g., from a demand to a contingent threat) or to revise their initial goal (e.g., by shifting from a compliance to a harm intention). This escalatory cycle occurred multiple times during the FVE, culminating in participants’ physical FV perpetration. Participants perpetrated multiple acts of physical FV that typically resulted in injury to the event victim. These acts were often accompanied by participants’ newly informed intentions to physically harm the event victim, as retribution for the event victim’s actions during the FVE:

“. . . [event victim] threw the water in my face and I slapped her in the face. I started walking towards her and she ran out of the shed and I punched her twice in the face and then kicked her in the legs . . . it was like a pride thing, she did that to me in front of my visitors at my house and it was embarrassing for me”—P34

In stark contrast to the FVEPM development study, only one FVE featured physical FV by the event victim. Nevertheless, participants consistently reported perceiving event victims as escalating the interaction using non-physical means (e.g., attempting to prevent the participant from leaving by taking personal possessions off him, taunting the participant):

“. . . I went to go and open up the car door to get into the passenger seat of [third party’s] car and [event victim] had just come up and ripped my wallet out of my hand . . . I said to her ‘Why the f**k are you doing this to me now?’ She was like ‘I f**kin told you you’re not going nowhere”—P36 [FVE 2]

Solo escalation

In contrast to mutual escalation FVEs, four FVEs were characterized by participants escalating the conflict without the victim also doing so. These FVEs were characterized by a relatively short period of escalation during which participants abruptly switched from verbal to physical acts and from compliance to harm intentions. In solo escalation FVEs, participants tended to perceive event victims’ as having violated some form of “golden rule” (e.g., perceived infidelity, causing psychological or physical harm to another family member); a behavior that had not previously occurred within the relationship, and that participants perceived to be intolerable and necessitating action of some kind:

“I’d never [cheat on event victim]. I never did it to her. That’s the thing that, we have our boundaries that we don’t cross and the line in the sand is always drawn . . . I don’t think anything else would’ve made me hit her besides that. That was the number one boundary for me”—P32 [FVE 1]

Following a brief and failed attempt to elicit the event victim’s compliance (e.g., by confessing, apologizing, or otherwise behaving in accord with the participant’s wishes), participants perpetrated physical FV with the deliberate intention of inflicting physical harm on the event victim in retribution for the perceived transgression. Event victims’ roles in these FVEs were limited to refusing to comply with participants’ demands, or attempting to de-escalate the FVE in some way (e.g., by seeking intervention, by attempting to explain their actions to participants). Participants perpetrated single or several acts of physical FV that were nevertheless severe and caused physical injury to the event victim:

“. . . [event victim] slammed the shed door down on my daughter’s head and cut her face open . . . [daughter] come running inside and she goes ‘Papa papa, [event victim] did this’. And all I just seen was red all over her face with a big as gash on the top of her eye . . . I just yelled out to [event victim] ‘Get in here. What happened to her?’ . . . I just seen a little bit of guilt on him, and he said ‘Papa I just, I was only, I was just’ and she’s going ‘It’s him’. And he’s trying to explain himself and I just punched him in the face”—P32 [FVE 2]

Across both types of Pathway 1 FVEs, an interesting feature not reported by the FVEPM development sample was participants’ perceptions that they remained in control of their actions during the FVE. Participants typically reported that they had perpetrated the “right” amount of physical FV for the given situation, and that they had ended their FV when this threshold was reached:

“I knew when to stop . . . I felt like the actions that I was doing warranted her offense. Like if she had crashed into my car I probably would’ve stomped her on the ground. Or if she pushed my Harley over and started stabbing the tyres out I would’ve believed that’s like a $10,000 incident you’ve just caused you’re just gonna get, I’m gonna kick your f**kin face in. That’s what I felt like, so her offense only warranted like a slap and a punch punch and that was it”—P34

Along these lines, participants often reported their positive evaluations of, or indifference to, their FV perpetration. For example, one-half of participants resumed the activities they were engaged in prior to the FVE, as if the FVE had not happened:

“I just went out to the garage and got stoned. I come back inside and started cooking me a munch and she said ‘I’m gonna go get on the piss with my sister, I’ll see you when I see you’. I was going ‘Yeah all good, see you later’”—P31 [FVE 1]

Pathway 2

Pathway 2 comprised four FVEs involving four participants and their intimate partner (n = 3) or parent (n = 1). Similar to Pathway 1, participants varied in the extent to which they used physical and psychological FV toward event victims prior to the FVE. The FVE itself was characterized by participants’ intensely energized emotions following a perceived transgression—including psychological FV—by the event victim (see Table 2). Without any attempt to engage in verbal interaction with the event victim, participants perpetrated severe physical FV with the intention of causing physical harm to the event victim. Participants’ accounts of their FV were consistent with an automated, script-driven process, and with psychological dissociation:

“I couldn’t register anything else in my brain. My brain couldn’t tell me do this or do that, or what else can I do, it just told me this is it and this is how I’m gonna deal with it and this is what I’m gonna do. I couldn’t reason with myself in that moment”—P30

“. . . I can’t explain this experience I had . . . I dunno, it sounds weird saying it but like I felt like I was looking at myself do it, but it wasn’t me”—P31 [FVE 2]

Two participants clearly described the relationship between their FV victimization—both within and prior to their relationship with the event victim—and their physical FV during the FVE:

“. . . [Event victim] said something to me and, I think she was just belittling me in front of everyone around in the mall . . . like belittling me in front of everyone . . . The wound had already been opened I suppose. Already scarred me. It’s bad enough I had to go through shit from all my family, let alone her”—P35 [FVE 2]

“[Describing extensive history of FV victimization by the event victim] . . . that’s what was, fueling what had happened . . . the emotions that were there that had wound up for so many years, and then just didn’t wanna keep living that way. And just, instead of holding it back I was just, I just let it loose, let it go”—P36 [FVE 1]

Participants reported perpetrating typically prolonged and uncharacteristically severe physical FV; the severity and perceived uncontrollability of this FV frightened participants:

“I can’t get that out of my head, that I just snapped . . . I don’t wanna ever experience that feeling again . . . [I] was like a mad man”—P31 [FVE 2]

“That day was a day that I’ll never forget . . . it was real horrific, it was terrifying . . . I was, shocked [my FV] shocked me”—P36 [FVE 1]

In the FVEPM development sample, Pathway 2 was primarily a women’s pathway; participants typically experienced childhood FV victimization as well as chronic FV victimization from event victims. In the current study, Pathway 2 participants infrequently reported experiencing ongoing FV victimization in their relationships with event victims, but consistently described extensive childhood histories of FV victimization. These accounts are consistent with a large body of research reporting an association between childhood FV victimization and dissociative experiences in adulthood (Vonderlin et al., 2018), including more recent research findings that a large minority—22% to 36%—of FV perpetrators with histories of FV victimization have experienced dissociation while perpetrating FV (LaMotte & Murphy, 2017; Simoneti et al., 2000; Webermann & Murphy, 2019). Pathway 2 FVEs were also characterized by more severe physical FV than that described in Pathway 1. This difference in severity is consistent with research findings that FV perpetrators who experienced violence-specific dissociation also perpetrated more severe and frequent FV (Mantakos, 2008; Simoneti et al., 2000).

Implications and Limitations

Overall, the findings suggest that the FVEPM and its pathways do generalize to this incarcerated sample. However, several inconsistencies were found. First, participants described additional features of their upbringings, psychological characteristics, and relationships with event victims that are hallmarks of a “high-risk” FV perpetrator. For example, participants’ relationships with event victims were typically characterized by the absence of ongoing FV victimization from the event victim and more frequent and severe psychological and physical FV perpetration. Similarly, participants often described their extensive criminal histories, involvement with gangs and antisocial peers, and frequent use of physical violence external to their relationships with event victims. Second, participants typically did not report experiencing environmental stressors and their sequelae (e.g., depleted cognitive and emotional resources) in the lead-up to the FVE. Finally, specific to Pathway 1 FVEs, one-half of FVEs were better conceptualized as solo escalation—not mutual escalation—FVEs. These differences provide support for the I³ model (Finkel, 2008) and transactional model of child maltreatment (Cicchetti & Rizley, 1981).

The I³ model (Finkel, 2008) identifies three types of factors commonly associated with IPV perpetration: instigating factors (i.e., factors that trigger a violent impulse), impelling factors (i.e., factors that make an individual more likely to act on a violent impulse), and inhibiting factors (i.e., factors that make an individual less likely to act on a violent impulse). When the strength of instigating and violence-impelling factors are cumulatively greater than the strength of violence-inhibiting factors, IPV perpetration is likely to occur. Similarly, the transactional model of child maltreatment (Cicchetti & Rizley, 1981) organizes factors associated with child maltreatment along two dimensions: those that increase or decrease the likelihood of child maltreatment, and those that are transient or enduring. Within this matrix, four types of factors are evident: enduring factors that increase risk (vulnerability factors), enduring factors that decrease risk (protective factors), temporary factors that increase risk (challengers), and temporary factors that decrease risk (buffers). When the number of factors that increase risk exceeded the number of factors that decrease risk, child maltreatment is likely to occur.

Participants arguably entered the FVE with a high number of violence-impelling (i.e., vulnerability) factors, including childhood FV victimization, routine use of general violence and FV, violence-supportive schemas, and limited conflict-resolution skills. Some of these factors (e.g., extensive criminal histories, involvement with gangs and antisocial peers) were not explicitly accounted for, yet could be accommodated within, the FVEPM. Because participants had a relatively high proportion of impelling versus inhibiting (e.g., non-violent intentions) factors, they required a lower threshold of instigating factors to facilitate their FV perpetration during the FVE. This lowered threshold was demonstrated in solo escalation FVEs, in which participants escalated more quickly to physical FV perpetration despite the absence of counter-escalation by event victims.

Our findings are consistent with a key assertion of the I³ model (Finkel, 2008) that violence-inhibiting factors are an important—but often ignored—consideration when developing theoretical explanations of FV. Participants often reported their non-violent intentions in their relationships with event victims; these intentions were evident in Pathway 1 FVEs, in which participants typically selected initial strategies involving non-physical acts before deferring to physical FV. Interestingly, these intentions were often in stark contrast to participants’ physical violence use in other interpersonal contexts. From a treatment perspective, it is important that a person does not want to engage in, and has made initial attempts to avoid the behavior that has led to them receiving treatment. This presents an opportunity to identify and build upon (e.g., by providing education about the nature and detrimental impact of psychological FV) potential protective factors alongside targeting risk factors for FV perpetration.

Finally, the distinction between enduring and temporary factors is an important one when examining participants’ accounts of the lead-up to the FVE. Specifically, the FVEPM suggests that an individual’s more temporary experiences of compounding environmental stressors during the lead-up to a FVE may contribute to their uncharacteristic use of FV during the FVE itself. However, participants typically did not report experiencing environmental stressors and their sequelae (e.g., depleted emotional and cognitive resources) in the lead-up to the FVE. From a theoretical perspective, this suggests that participants’ FV perpetration during the FVE may be better explained by a combination of enduring risk factors, rather than a combination of temporary and enduring factors as set out in the FVEPM.

This study also highlights the role of trauma as a potential mechanism for FV perpetration. While theoretical (Finkel, 2008) and empirical (Stith et al., 2000) accounts of FV have frequently identified childhood exposure to FV or current FV victimization as a risk factor, they have not explicitly identified trauma as the mechanism linking these prior experiences of victimization with current perpetration. As previously discussed, this suggestion is consistent with an emerging body of research exploring perpetrators’ dissociative experiences during a FVE. Along these lines, participants’ childhood experiences of FV victimization (described across all pathways) and of dissociative symptoms during the FVE (unique to Pathway 2) suggest that their involvement in FV perpetrator treatment programs should be guided by a trauma-informed approach (Webermann & Murphy, 2019).

Our study design presents several important limitations. First, we relied exclusively on participants’ subjective accounts of their FVEs. Given that participants were subsequently convicted and imprisoned for their role in approximately one-half of FVEs, others’ accounts (e.g., victim statements, police summary of facts) may have been accessible for some FVEs. Research suggests that there is a high level of disagreement between perpetrators’ and victims’ accounts when individual acts of FV are considered (Moffitt et al., 1997); obtaining multiple accounts of the FVE would therefore be useful.

Second, data analysis was completed by the researchers—primarily MS—involved in the original development of the FVEPM and its pathways. As such, there is potential for researcher bias—unconscious or otherwise—to influence data analysis; particularly, for the researchers to search for or interpret information in a way that supports the generalizability of the FVEPM. Although not the preferred process from a research perspective, this was a purely pragmatic decision: Ethical approvals and research agreements clearly stipulated that access to participant transcripts was restricted to the researchers involved. MS routinely discussed the data analysis process with DP, and consistently used other strategies (e.g., constant comparative analysis, theoretical sampling; both hallmarks of grounded theory methodology) to minimize researcher bias. Finally, despite the majority of participants providing multiple event narratives, the small sample size makes it unlikely that theoretical saturation with the incarcerated sample has occurred.

Further research is required to determine how well the FVEPM can accommodate other—including female—incarcerated samples, as well as non-IPV forms of FV (e.g., sibling and elder abuse, child maltreatment). Nine event narratives involving participants’ children, siblings, and parents as event victims were included in the initial development of the FVEPM and in the current study, as preliminary analysis revealed that they were conceptually similar to FVEs involving IPV. The small number of FVEs involving non-partner family members may preclude potentially important differences from being identified. Additionally, future research could incorporate third-party and event victims’ accounts of FVEs, in an effort to cross-reference participants’ own event narratives with other information sources. FV researchers are increasingly calling for event-based theory and research, with the aim of enhancing our theoretical and empirical understanding of what happens, and why it happens, during a FVE (Bell & Naugle, 2008; Wilkinson & Hamerschlag, 2005). Further development and validation of the FVEPM with larger and more diverse samples will contribute toward this important aim.

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 iD

Meg Stairmand

Notes

References

Bell

K. M.

Naugle

A. E.

(2008). Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: Moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1096–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.03.003

Carlson

R. G.

Dayle Jones

(2010). Continuum of conflict and control: A conceptualization of intimate partner violence typologies. The Family Journal, 18(3), 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480710371795

Cassar

Ward

Thakker

(2003). A descriptive model of the homicide process. Behaviour Change, 20(2), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1375/bech.20.2.76.24840

Cavanaugh

M. M.

Gelles

R. J.

(2005). The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies: New directions for research, policy, and practice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504268763

Cicchetti

Rizley

(1981). Developmental perspectives on the etiology, intergenerational transmission, and sequelae of child maltreatment. New Directions for Child Development, 11, 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219811104

Department of Corrections. (2015). Topic series: Family violence offenders. Department of Corrections. https://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/12651/TOPIC_SERIES_Family_violence.pdf

Dixon

Browne

(2003). The heterogeneity of spouse abuse: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(1), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1359-1789(02)00104-0

Drummond

S. J.

(1999). A descriptive model of the offence process in domestic violence (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Canterbury.

Finkel

E. J.

(2008). Intimate partner violence perpetration: Insights from the science of self-regulation. In Forgas

J. P.

Fitness

(Eds.), Social relationships: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (pp. 271–288). Psychology Press.

10.

Gannon

T. A.

Rose

M. R.

Ward

(2008). A descriptive model of the offense process for female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 352–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063208322495

11.

Gulliver

Fanslow

J. L.

(2015). The Johnson typologies of intimate partner violence: An investigation of their representation in a general population of New Zealand women. Journal of Child Custody, 12(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2015.1037051

12.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Stuart

G. L.

(1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 476–497. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.116.3.476

13.

Johnson

M. P.

(2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1003–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206293328

14.

LaMotte

A. D.

Murphy

C. M.

(2017). Trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, and dissociative experiences during men’s intimate partner violence perpetration. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9(5), 567–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000205

15.

Mantakos

S. M.

(2008). Psychometric properties of the Dissociative Partner Violence Scale (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Maryland.

16.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Krueger

R. F.

Magdol

Margolin

Silva

P. A.

Sydney

(1997). Do partners agree about abuse in their relationship? A psychometric evaluation of interpartner agreement. Psychological Assessment, 9(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.9.1.47

17.

Morrison

Bevan

Tamaki

Patel

Goodall

Thomson

Jurke

(2015). Bringing perpetrations into focus: A brief assessment of international and New Zealand evidence on effective responses to family violence perpetrators. Department of Corrections.

18.

Murdoch

Vess

Ward

(2012). A descriptive model of female violent offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19(3), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2011.589942

19.

Nightingale

(2002). Feeling like a million dollars: A grounded theory investigation of preliminary offence chains in aggravated robbery (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington.

20.

Polaschek

D. L. L.

(2016). The offence and relapse process. In Ward

Beech

A. R.

(Eds.), The Wiley handbook of theories, assessment and treatment of sexual offending, Volume 1. Theories (pp. 313–336). Wiley-Blackwell.

21.

Polaschek

D. L. L.

Hudson

S. M.

(2004). Pathways to rape: Preliminary examination of patterns in the offence processes of rapists and their rehabilitation implications. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 10(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600410001667779

22.

Polaschek

D. L. L.

Hudson

S. M.

Ward

Siegert

R. J.

(2001). Rapists’ offense processes: A preliminary descriptive model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(6), 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016006003

23.

Polaschek

D. L. L.

Kilgour

(2013). New Zealand’s special treatment units: The development and implementation of intensive treatment for high-risk male prisoners. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(5–6), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.759004

24.

Robertson

Murachver

(2007). Correlates of partner violence for incarcerated women and men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(5), 639–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506298835

25.

Simoneti

Scott

E. C.

Murphy

C. M.

(2000). Dissociative experiences in partner- assaultive men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(12), 1262–1283. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626000015012002

26.

Stairmand

Dixon

Polaschek

D. L. L.

(2019). Pathways to family violence: Investigating patterns in the event processes of family violence perpetrators. Manuscript submitted for publication.

27.

Stairmand

Polaschek

D. L. L.

Dixon

(2019). Perpetrators’ perspectives on family violence: An event process model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519873440

28.

Stith

S. M.

Rosen

K. H.

Middleton

K. A.

Busch

A. L.

Lundeberg

Carlton

R. P.

(2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(3), 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00640.x

29.

Straus

M. A.

(1997). Physical assaults by women partners: A major social problem. In Walsh

M. R.

(Ed.), Women, men, and gender: Ongoing debates (pp. 210–221). Yale University Press.

30.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.

31.

Vonderlin

Kleindienst

Alpers

G. W.

Bohus

Lyssenko

Schmahl

(2018). Dissociation in victims of childhood abuse or neglect: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Medicine, 48(15), 2467–2476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718000740

32.

Ward

Louden

Hudson

S. M.

Marshall

(1995). A descriptive model of the offense chain for child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(4), 452–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626095010004005

33.

Ward

Polaschek

D. L. L.

Beech

A. R.

(2006). Theories of sexual offending. Wiley.

34.

Webermann

A. R.

Murphy

C. M.

(2019). Childhood trauma and dissociative intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 25(2), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218766628

35.

Wilkinson

D. L.

Hamerschlag

S. J.

(2005). Situational determinants in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(3), 333–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2004.05.001