Pathways to Family Violence: Investigating Patterns in the Event Process of Family Violence Perpetrators

Participants

The event narratives of 14 men and 13 women formed the basis of this study.^1,2 All participants were completing a community-based FV perpetrator treatment program at the time of their involvement in the research, either on a voluntary (n = 13) or mandated basis through the criminal (n = 9) or family (n = 5) court. Participants identified as New Zealand Māori (n = 12), New Zealand European (n = 8), Pasifika (n = 2), or as having multiple ethnicities (n = 5). Participants ranged in age from 22 to 50 years (M = 34.44, SD = 7.52). Ten participants were unemployed, seven worked full-time, four worked part-time, five were stay-at-home parents, and one studied full-time. Nearly two-thirds of participants reported experiencing physical IPV victimization by the event victim prior to the FVE. ³

Procedure

Participants were recruited from three different FV service providers in the North (n = 2) and South (n = 1) Islands of New Zealand. Participants were recruited either directly through the first author’s (MS’s) attendance at their treatment program (n = 8), or indirectly through being informed of the research by their treatment provider (n = 19). Regardless of the initial recruitment procedure, MS met individually with each potential participant in a private room at the treatment agency. After providing informed consent, participants took part in a semi-structured interview that ranged in length from 46 to 120 minutes (M = 78 minutes). Participants were asked to provide a detailed description of a specific FVE in which they 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. Participants received a $30 voucher for their participation.

Data Analysis

Development of the event process model of family violence

The FVEPM forms the basis of the analysis for this paper; as such, a brief description of its development is provided here. ¹ Participants collectively described 32 FVEs in which they used physical (and often also psychological; n = 28) or only psychological (n = 4) FV towards an intimate partner (n = 26), child (n = 3), sibling (n = 2), or parent (n = 1). Although most participants described one FVE, five participants described a second FVE in enough detail for it to be included in data analysis. Preliminary analysis revealed that FVEs involving physical FV and only psychological FV were conceptually similar, as were FVEs that involved partners and non-partners as event victims. As such, all event narratives were included in data analysis.

MS carried out data analysis using NVivo software. Grounded theory methods (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) informed the model development. We selected grounded theory because it privileges a bottom-up approach to theory development, seeks to explain variation in human behavior, acknowledges the importance of context in understanding action and interaction, and is a particularly useful approach in the absence of other theories that adequately explain the phenomena of interest (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Consistent with a grounded theory approach, interviews were analyzed in sets of one to four to allow for iterative periods of data collection and analysis. After reading each transcript multiple times, MS methodically re-read each transcript line by line to identify, and then label, individual meaning units. New and revised codes were applied to meaning units as data analysis continued, and tentative categories were developed and refined as conceptual links between meaning units began to emerge. Enduring categories were organized into interrelated coding paradigms (i.e., mini-frameworks) that were then grouped into discrete sections based on their temporal relationship to the FVE. Following analysis of the first seven transcripts, a preliminary model of the event process was developed; this preliminary model was revised, tested, and refined during analysis of the remaining 20 transcripts, at which point theoretical saturation occurred.

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 described (see Table 1). The FVEPM describe participants’ upbringings and early relationship histories (Section 1), their relationships with event victims and the context in which the FVE occurred (Section 2), the FVE itself (Section 3), and the aftermath of the FVE (Section 4). ¹

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

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

Section	Section description	Paradigms
1. Background factors	Upbringing and early relationship history	1.1. Experiencing and managing adverse early events
		1.2. Schema development and physical violence use
2. Event build-up	Relationship history with the event victim; environmental context in which the family violence event occurred	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	The family violence event	3.1. Initiation of verbal interaction and conflict escalation
		3.2. Script activation
4. Post-event	Aftermath of the family violence event	4.1. The aftermath

Pathways analysis

Distinct event pathways that described participants’ progression through each paradigm and section of the FVEPM were identified via a four-stage analysis.

Stage 1. Identifying individual pathways through the model

Using NVivo software, 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). Core features of each paradigm were identified, and a coding system was devised to summarize participants’ experiences of these features for each FVE described (see Table 2). Using the coding report and coding system, MS produced a summary table of participants’ progression through the model at the paradigm level (see Table 3). This table formed the basis for the next step of analysis. Four event narratives (FVE 4, 6, 17, and 25; see Table 3) belonging to four participants were excluded from further analysis as there was insufficient information to reliably assign codes across multiple paradigms in Sections 3 and 4. The remaining 28 event narratives belonged to 26 participants. Twenty-four participants described one FVE, and two participants described two FVEs; one FVE involved the same event victim as the first FVE, and one FVE involved a different event victim.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Overview of Pathway Coding System.

Paradigm	Coding system for core paradigm features
1.1. Experiencing and managing adverse early events	1 = Experienced adverse early events and their sequelae
	2 = Did not experience adverse early events and their sequelae
1.2. Schema development and physical violence use	1 = Developed violence-supportive schemas and/or emotional regulation difficulties
	2 = Did not develop violence-supportive schemas or emotional regulation difficulties
2.1. Dyadic communication and conflict resolution strategies	1 = Relationship characterized by a backlog of relationship stressors and/or frequent/severe violence by participant and/or event victim
	2 = Relationship characterized by a backlog of relationship stressors and/or infrequent/minor violence by participant and/or event victim
	3 = Relationship characterized by resolution of relationship stressors and the absence of violence by participant and/or event victim
2.2. Individual management of relationship stressors and relationship violence	1 = Used individual coping strategies to manage relationship stressors/violence and their sequelae
	2 = Did not use individual coping strategies to manage relationship stressors/violence and their sequelae
2.3. Experiencing and managing environmental stressors	1 = Experienced environmental stressors
	2 = Did not experience environmental stressors
3.1. Initiation of verbal interaction and conflict escalation	1 = FVE characterized by escalating conflict between participant and event victim
	2 = FVE not characterized by escalating conflict between participant and event victim
3.2. Script activation	1 = FVE characterized by script activation
	2 = FVE not characterized by script activation
4.1. The aftermath	1 = Positive or neutral evaluation of FVE
	2 = Negative evaluation of FV
	3 = Mixed evaluation of FVE

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Summary Table of Family Violence Events (FVEs).

FVE	Section 1		Section 2		Section 3		Section 4
	P1.1	P1.2	P2.1	P2.2	P2.3	P3.1	P3.2	P4.1
1*	1	2	3	2	1	1	2	1
2*	1	2	3	2	1	1	2	3
3*	1	1	2	2	2	2	1	3
4*	1	1	2	2	2	X	X	2
5	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	2
6	1	1	1	1	2	X	X	X
7	1	1	1	1	2	1	2	2
8	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	1
9	1	1	2	2	1	1	1	2
10	1	1	2	1	2	1	2	2
11	1	1	1	2	2	1	2	1
12	1	1	2	1	2	2	2	2
13	2	2	3	2	2	1	2	2
14*	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	X
15*	1	1	2	2	1	1	2	2
16*	1	1	1	2	2	2	1	X
17*	1	1	2	1	1	X	X	2
18	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	1
19	2	2	1	1	2	1	2	1
20	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	1
21	1	1	2	1	2	1	2	3
22	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	3
23	1	1	2	2	1	1	2	2
24	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2
25*	1	1	1	1	2	X	X	X
26*	1	1	1	2	1	2	2	3
27	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	X
28	2	2	3	2	2	1	2	1
29	1	2	3	2	2	1	2	1
30	1	X	1	1	1	1	2	2
31	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	2
32	1	1	2	1	2	1	2	2

Note. X = Insufficient information to assign code.

*

One of two FVEs described by the same participant.

Stage 2. Identifying patterns across participants’ pathways

Next, MS examined each section of the FVEPM in turn to identify shared patterns across participants’ event processes. Within sections, several patterns emerged. For example, participants who reported adverse early events were also likely to report experiencing energized and altered emotions during childhood. Similarly, FVEs characterized by a period of conflict escalation tended not to involve script activation, and vice versa. However, when looking across sections, no meaningful patterns emerged: More than 20 distinct pathways through the model were identified, and 10 distinct pathways were identified for Section 2 alone.

Stage 3. Selecting an organizing framework to guide pathways analysis

Given the heterogeneity observed across individual pathways at the paradigm level, we decided to select a core paradigm or section to function as an organizing framework for further analysis. This strategy was similarly used by Polaschek and Hudson (2004), who organized their pathways analysis according to offenders’ goals. As the FVEPM focuses on one specific FVE (Section 3), and Sections 1, 2, and 4 function to provide the surrounding context for better understanding this FVE, Section 3 was selected as the organizing framework.

Stage 4. Identifying distinct offending pathways through the model

Using the initial coding report generated in NVivo, MS reviewed individual pathways for Section 3 paradigms at the category and subcategory level. Patterns across each individual pathway were then examined. Analysis at this level revealed that the heterogeneity observed within the sample could be usefully captured within the organizing framework of Section 3 paradigms. Three distinct pathways were identified; these pathways accounted for the majority of FVEs, and are described in the results section.

Pathway 1: Conflict Escalation Pathway

Pathway 1 (see Figure 1) comprised 14 event narratives involving 13—six male and seven female—participants and their current or former intimate partner (n = 12) or child (n = 2). Pathway 1 participants described growing up in a violent social environment in which they frequently witnessed physical violence. Participants also directly experienced a range of FV-related adverse early events, including psychological, physical, and sexual FV. Within the context of their failed support seeking, participants were required to independently manage adverse early events and their sequelae. Participants used a range of strategies in an effort to end these events, and to facilitate the short-term and long-term avoidance of the negative emotions that the events evoked. Participants described experiencing parenting practices (e.g., the avoidance or aggressive management of negative emotions and interpersonal stressors) that prevented them from learning how to control and pro-socially express their emotions. Subsequently, some participants developed “Others will hurt me,” “Violence is acceptable,” and “I am worthless” schemas.

Participants’ and event victims’ relationships were characterized by a “honeymoon period,” after which relationship stressors began to arise. The dyadic conflict resolution and communication strategies used to manage these relationship stressors facilitated ongoing relationship conflict. For example, discussion-based strategies involved one or both persons’ attempts to avoid verbal communication about relationship stressors, or immediate escalation into a verbal argument in which both persons refused to consider the other’s perspective and vehemently defended their own. These strategies contributed to a backlog of relationship stressors, characterized by either the reoccurrence of a relationship stressor or the repeated use of ineffective discussion-based strategies to manage existing stressors. Discussion-based strategies could escalate to psychological and—minor or infrequent—physical FV by one or both parties. Enduring efforts to control the other over time—as opposed to temporary and situation-specific efforts during a FVE—were infrequently reported. Although ongoing conflict was a defining feature of these relationships, physical FV was not. In fact, participants reported their deliberate intention to not use physical FV towards the event victim. Some participants experienced multiple and compounding environmental stressors in the lead-up to the FVE.

Pertaining to the FVE itself, participants initiated verbal interaction with the event victim following their evaluation of the event victim’s unacceptable behavior. This evaluation related to a new occurrence of an ongoing relationship stressor, or the event victim’s use of physical or psychological FV:

The school rings me up at 4 o’clock, ‘Are you going to pick your children up from school?’ And I went ‘No cause I’m out of town, their father’s meant to pick them up’ . . . I was fuming that he could forget about our children—P19, female

Having recently experienced relationship stressors, environmental stressors, or both, participants described having limited emotional and cognitive resources to manage the impending conflict. Participants’ depleted internal resources influenced their intrapersonal and interpersonal responses during the FVE:

[describing suspicions of event victim’s infidelity prior to the FVE] . . . [I was] really upset and, just wondering what to do about it, if it’s true or not or if it’s happening. It was just like a constant battle . . . I felt like I was just losing myself sort of thing. I was losing what sort of dude I am what sort of guy I am—P11, male

Following their initial evaluation, participants selected a strategy for managing their interaction with the event victim. Participants invariably reported an initial intention to ensure the event victim’s compliance, based on their goal of obtaining access to valuable resources and experiences (e.g., information, personal belongings) or ensuring their own and other’s psychological safety or wellbeing. Importantly, participants’ initial attempts to gain compliance involved verbal acts (e.g., contingent threats, verbal demands):

I said ‘Stop sending me these f***ing messages, I’ve had enough’ [act: verbal demand] . . . I wanted him to hear me, how it was for me from my point of view and that I need him to stop [intention: compliance] . . . I just wanted to be left alone in peace, I wanted to be happy and I felt at the time that I’m never gonna be happy as long as this guy’s in my life [goal: psychological safety and wellbeing]—P5, female

Event victims responded to these acts in a manner that was incompatible with participants’ goals; for example, by refusing to comply with participants’ demands or using psychological or physical FV towards the participant. Event victims’ responses precipitated participants’ own counter-escalation; for example, by escalating the severity of acts used to achieve their goal or by shifting from a compliance to a harm intention. As such, participants reported that their strategy selection was a dynamic process, characterized by their reselection of multiple and changing acts, intentions, and goals as the conflict escalated:

I was trying to talk with [event victim] [act: verbal demand] he just blatantly ignored me . . . I was trying to get him to go outside [intention: compliance] . . . he was being disrespectful and wouldn’t listen so I pulled his ear [act: bodily force]—P12, female

During this process, participants experienced violence-supportive cognitions (e.g., “[Event victim] is hurting me on purpose”) and intensifying anger that they felt increasingly unable to control:

I felt like [event victim] was setting me up, like to get rid of me or to, move on with life, and I was, it’s just all this strong emotion of anger . . . I just started seeing red and, just couldn’t I just had no way to control it—P3, male

Eventually, a further perceived transgression—including physical or psychological FV—by the event victim precipitated participants’ physical FV perpetration. Participants’ FV perpetration was accompanied by their newly formed intention to physically harm the event victim, in an effort to achieve retributive justice:

[Event victim] pushed me to full blown extent . . . she defended [third party] and that’s when I snapped . . . I just f***in hit her cause that was the only way I could feel that I could hurt her the way that she’d been hurting me—P28, female

Participants perpetrated a range of physically violent acts, from a single push to a sustained physical attack involving multiple blows to the event victim’s head and body. These acts were uncharacteristic—both in terms of presence and severity—of the participant in their relationship with the event victim, and did not result in physical injury. Nevertheless, most FVEs were witnessed by participants’ and event victims’ children.

Participants’ physical FV perpetration signaled the ending or imminent ending of the FVE, either because the participant promptly left the scene or because formal or informal intervention was sought. Formal intervention seeking by the event victim or a third party resulted in the participant receiving legal consequences (e.g., being charged with an offense). Most participants viewed the FVE in a negative light, largely based on the perceived unacceptability of their actions but also based on the non-realization of their goal and the potential consequences of their actions to themselves.

Pathway 2: Automated Violence Pathway

Pathway 2 (see Figure 1) comprised six event narratives involving six—five female and one male—participants and their intimate partner (n = 5) or child (n = 1). Pathway 2 participants’ upbringings were largely indistinguishable from those described in Pathway 1. However, several differences emerged: Pathway 2 participants were more likely to disclose sexual abuse, to report feeling less valued or loved than their siblings, to experience unsuccessful support seeking (e.g., because they were blamed or not believed), and to develop “Others will hurt me” and “Violence is acceptable” schemas.

Pathway 2 participants described a “honeymoon period” and high level of investment (e.g., moving in together, falling pregnant) early in their relationship with the event victim. Most participants experienced severe physical and psychological FV—either as a primary victim (n = 3) or mutual perpetrator (n = 1)—in their relationship with the event victim. Participants’ “I am worthless” schemas, desire to attain an idealized vision of a happy family not present in their own childhood, and event victims’ promises to change and repent facilitated participants’ decisions to endure FV by the event victim. Alternatively, two participants described relationships with event victims characterized by the absence or infrequent use of physical FV. These relationships were also characterized by the absence of meaningful communication; that is, participants and event victims “existed around each other” in a shared space.

As in Pathway 1, FVEs began with the participant’s evaluation of the event victim’s behavior as unacceptable. These evaluations pertained to event victims’ current or recent use of FV, or perceived transgressions by event victims (e.g., confirmed infidelity) that threatened the continuation of the relationship. These transgressions elicited participants’ intensely energized emotions, particularly anger and its physiological components:

I walked into [friend’s] room to find her in bed with [event victim] . . . I just felt so enraged like, a rage inside it was painful. It was so painful inside, raw . . . I felt sick in my stomach and I had a burning feeling in my chest and my hands were shaking. Like I was having anxiety. And I could feel my face red, like a fire engine red—P6, female

Participants reported entering the FVE with depleted emotional and cognitive resources; this pertained to their prior experiences of FV victimization. Other participants reported that the lead-up to the FVE was “just an ordinary day”:

I knew something was wrong there like I was holding a lot of anger which I am going through with my psychologist, she said it’s built in anger from everything I’ve been through . . . I was just way past my point of, way past my point. I don’t think anything would’ve helped that day. I think it was just a breaking point for me—P7, female

Upon experiencing intensely energized emotions, and in the absence of any attempt to engage in verbal interaction with the event victim, participants perpetrated severe physical FV (e.g., choking, repeated blows to the head and body) that caused physical injury (e.g., loss of consciousness, a severed limb) to the event victim. All but one participant reported their physical harm intention, based on their goal of achieving retributive justice for the physical or emotional hurt the event victim had inflicted on them (“[I] physically smashed them up like threw them to the walls, threw them down the stairs, strangled them both till they turned purple . . . I got hurt so many times so I want them to hurt”—P2, male).

Participants’ accounts of the FVE appeared to be consistent with an automated, script-driven process. Although participants could retrospectively describe their strategy selection, they distinctly recalled the absence of any cognitions or conscious goal formation during the FVE (“There was just no, no thinking . . . there was no thoughts going on in my head . . . there was no goal or anything”—P6, female). Participants’ descriptions of a “blank mind” suggest the unconscious activation of a “Hurt the person who hurt me” script. Due to the unconscious nature of their cognitive processes, participants felt as if they were acting on auto-pilot while perpetrating physical FV (“[Physical FV] was automatic. [My] arms just started swinging straight away . . . My mind just went totally blank. Everything went blank and I was just swinging my arms everywhere”—P7, female). Participants experienced dissociative symptoms during the FVE, including flashbacks to a previous traumatic event, memory blackouts, and depersonalization:

I was almost outside of myself actually. It’s like, it was a surreal feeling, very odd . . . I, became very, disconnected from my body pretty much. And, so when I look back now I was looking at everything, but . . . it was like I was looking at, a stranger . . . looking at a stranger who had done this awful thing, to another stranger . . . I was in this other world where, where it wasn’t my life—P21, female

Physical intervention by a third party or a tangible reminder of the current situation (e.g., seeing the event victim’s blood) signaled the end of the participant’s physical FV; this usually coincided with the end of the FVE. Participants left the scene immediately after the FVE. No other patterns emerged regarding the aftermath of the FVE. Participants were equally likely to evaluate the FVE in a positive or negative light, and to receive—or not receive—externally-imposed consequences.

Pathway 3: Compliance Pathway

Pathway 3 (see Figure 1) comprised six event narratives involving five male participants and their current or former intimate partner. Pathway 3 participants’ upbringings were characterized by the absence of (n = 2) or opportunity to escape from (n = 3) exposure to adverse early events and a violent social environment. This escape was either permanent (e.g., a long-term arrangement in a deliberate effort to remove the participant from a violent home), or temporary (e.g., the ability to spend time with loving and prosocial grandparents when “things got tough” at home). As such, participants did not report the range of detrimental Section 1 experiences that characterized Pathways 1 and 2.

Participants’ and event victims’ relationships were characterized by the absence of physical FV and the use of discussion-based strategies that promoted conflict resolution. However, one participant reported their frequent use of physical and psychological FV, and another reported the event victim’s severe but relatively infrequent use of physical FV. Participants reported their dislike of physical FV, including their own use of FV towards the event victim. In the lead-up to three FVEs, participants experienced ongoing relationship stressors or compounding environmental stressors (e.g., multiple deaths in the family) that caused them to experience significant psychological distress.

Pertaining to the FVE itself, participants and event victims were equally likely to initiate verbal interaction based on their perception that the other’s behavior (e.g., substance use) was adversely impacting themselves or their children (“[Event victim] can’t be doing that sort of shit in front of our kids. You know that aint a, you’re setting a bad example”—P15, male). Participants reported their reluctance to engage in prolonged interaction with the event victim; however, they deemed a brief interaction to be necessary in order to achieve a desired outcome. As such, participants’ initial strategy selection involved verbal demands, compliance intentions, and goals of attaining access to valued resources and experiences (e.g., information, solitude) or ensuring their own or others’ safety or wellbeing:

[Event victim] wanted me to help out a bit more with the children. And I was, just wanted to sit on my couch and watch movies [goal: access to valuable resources and experiences—solitude] . . . That’s what I said too, “Just leave me alone, get outta my face” [act: demand]. I just, wanna be left alone [intention: compliance]—P1, male

Participants who had recently experienced environmental or relationship stressors reported that their strategy selection occurred within the context of their depleted emotional and cognitive resources (“I was just sort of feeling a bit sorry for myself”—P1, male). As in Pathway 1, event victims responded in a manner that was incompatible with participants’ goals. This resulted in a period of conflict escalation characterized by participants’ attempts to end, and event victims’ persistent efforts to maintain, the current interaction. In four FVEs, event victims initiated physical FV (e.g., pushing, attempting to hit or stab) towards the participant. Participants responded to event victims’ continued demands or physical FV by perpetrating single, minor acts of physical FV (e.g., pushing, physical restraint) towards the event victim; these acts did not cause physical injury. In FVEs involving event victims’ physical FV use, participants’ compliance intentions were now based on their goal of ensuring their own physical safety:

I started ignoring [event victim] and she decided to get my attention she was going to run across the room and try and punch me in the head . . . I stood up off the couch, grabbed her, put her out the front door [act: bodily force] . . . It was to stop her [intention: compliance] trying to scratch me . . . I had to manhandle her outside [act: bodily force] kicking and screaming she was trying to scratch my eyes out, kick me in the nuts and bite me [goal: physical safety and wellbeing]— P25, male

Importantly, participants’ physical FV was invariably driven by their unchanging intention to elicit compliance from—not harm—the event victim. All participants reported that their physical FV occurred in the absence of their violence-supportive cognitions and escalating anger (“It was like there was no feeling. . . there was no frustration . . . I just [used physical FV] because I knew that . . . [it] was a form of me getting what I want”—P9, male).

Following the FVE, participants made no considered evaluation of the FVE, or viewed the FVE in a positive light based on the perceived acceptability of their physical FV perpetration within the current context (e.g., the event victim’s initiation of physical FV). No other patterns emerged in the aftermath of the FVE.