Examining Positive and Negative Reactions and Conciliatory Behaviors After Partner Violence Perpetration

Abstract

This study investigated positive and negative reactions and conciliatory behaviors after perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV). The goals were to examine the rates of these reactions and their associations with key attitudinal and personality factors. During program intake at a community agency, 172 partner violent men completed assessments of positive reactions (e.g., feeling justified) and negative reactions (e.g., feeling ashamed) after IPV, conciliatory behaviors after IPV (e.g., buying flowers for the partner), frequency of physical assault and abuse perpetration, and motivational readiness to change. In addition, a subset of participants (n = 64-71) completed assessments of outcome expectancies of IPV and borderline, antisocial, and psychopathic personality characteristics. The vast majority of participants (89.8%) reported negative reaction(s) after IPV; 32.7% reported positive reaction(s), and 67.5% reported conciliatory behavior(s). Positive reactions after IPV were associated with positive outcome expectancies of IPV, more frequent abuse perpetration, and antisocial features. Negative reactions after IPV were associated with greater motivation to change, more frequent abuse perpetration, and borderline features, and were inversely linked to psychopathic traits. Conciliatory behaviors were associated with motivation to change, borderline characteristics, and lower levels of psychopathic traits. Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions to IPV may be important for stimulating clinical discussion of motivations and barriers to change, and can inform the functional analysis of IPV.

Keywords

intimate partner violence consequence borderline antisocial readiness to change

Significant research efforts have been devoted to better understanding the nature of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration with the goal of improving interventions designed to reduce perpetration. In particular, researchers have emphasized the importance of understanding contextual factors surrounding IPV episodes (Bell & Naugle, 2008; Byun, 2012; Winstok, 2007). Although there is a considerable body of research examining the motivations for (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars, & Misra, 2012; Whitaker, 2014) and proximal antecedents of (Babcock, Costa, Green, & Eckhardt, 2004) IPV behaviors, the literature on perpetrators’ experiences and behaviors following IPV episodes is scarce. In the current study, we investigate positive reactions (e.g., feeling justified), negative reactions (e.g., feeling ashamed), and conciliatory behaviors after IPV perpetration among clients presenting to an IPV intervention program.

It is important to study IPV perpetrators’ positive and negative reactions directly following perpetration because the immediate consequences may either reinforce the behavior (i.e., make it more likely to occur in the future given similar circumstances) or punish the behavior (i.e., make it less likely to occur in the future given similar circumstances; Bell & Naugle, 2008; Shorey et al., 2012). For example, individuals who have positive reactions to hitting a partner during an argument would be more likely to repeat this behavior during a subsequent argument than individuals who have negative reactions. To date, only a few studies have examined the immediate consequences of psychological (Shorey et al., 2012) and physical (Bonem, Stanley-Kime, & Corbin, 2008; Breslin, Riggs, O’Leary, & Arias, 1990; Walker et al., 2010) abuse perpetration, finding that perpetrators report numerous consequences that are potentially reinforcing or punishing. However, other than the study by Bonem and colleagues (2008), this research has been limited to college and community samples. Furthermore, the question of how consequences of IPV episodes are associated with variables relevant to maintaining or changing abusive behaviors has not received thorough investigation.

A recent study found that the number of negative consequences of abuse that perpetrators reported was positively associated with their readiness to change their abusive behavior (Walker et al., 2010). Many partner violent individuals are ambivalent about change, and recognizing the negative consequences of IPV perpetration may play an important role in developing motivation to change this behavior. Research examining readiness to change in IPV perpetrators has shown it to predict their subsequent treatment engagement (e.g., pro-therapeutic group behaviors, positive working alliance between client and therapist; Semiatin, Murphy, & Elliott, 2013; Taft, Murphy, Musser, & Remington, 2004) and treatment outcomes (e.g., change in empathy, communication, and abusive behavior; Scott & Wolfe, 2003). One aim of the current study is to replicate Walker and colleagues’ (2010) findings among clients of an IPV intervention program by examining whether negative reactions to one’s own violence are associated with greater motivation to change. Another aim is to expand on this past finding by determining whether potentially reinforcing reactions to perpetration (i.e., positive feelings after IPV) are likewise associated with lower readiness to change one’s IPV behaviors.

A cognitive concept that is closely related both to perpetrators’ readiness to change and reinforcement dynamics for abusive behavior is outcome expectancies of IPV (Meis, Murphy, & Winters, 2010). That is, individuals who hold expectations that future IPV behaviors will result in many positive and few negative outcomes are likely to maintain this pattern of behavior, and to have little motivation to change. Several studies have assessed outcome expectancies of IPV behaviors, generally finding that people with histories of IPV perpetration report more positive expectancies and less negative expectancies for the consequences of abusive actions when compared with people with no history of IPV perpetration (Breslin et al., 1990; Foshee, Bauman, & Linder, 1999; Leisring, 2009; Riggs & Caulfield, 1997). The current study builds on these previous efforts by examining whether past reactions to IPV perpetration are associated in meaningful ways with outcome expectancies for future IPV behaviors.

It is also potentially important to consider how individual differences may influence reactions to one’s violent behavior. Stemming from Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) typology of male IPV perpetrators, much of the individual difference research on this population has focused on personality psychopathology, specifically borderline, antisocial, and psychopathic features. As conceptualized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013), borderline personality disorder (BPD) is characterized by high levels of impulsivity, unstable relationships, fear of abandonment, and strong, fluctuating emotions. Like BPD, antisocial personality disorder (APD) also involves high levels of impulsivity but is further characterized by a failure to conform to social norms, deceitfulness, high levels of irritability and irresponsibility, and a lack of remorse (APA, 2013). The diagnostic conception of psychopathy shares the features of APD while adding personality characteristics including superficiality, glibness or insincerity, and a lack of major affective reactions (Pozueco-Romero, Moreno-Manso, Blázquez-Alonso, & García-Baamonde, 2014).

Research suggests that these psychopathological features are associated with lower treatment adherence and increased recidivism among IPV perpetrators (Huss & Ralston, 2008; Rock, Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Salekin, 2013), and may play an etiologic role in IPV perpetration (Ehrensaft, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2004). For example, Marshall and Holtzworth-Munroe (2010) found that deficits in recognizing wives’ emotional expressions mediated the relationships between husbands’ borderline and psychopathic features and IPV perpetration. Some, albeit mixed, evidence suggests that these psychopathological dimensions may be associated with distinct characteristics, including proximal antecedents to IPV episodes (Babcock et al., 2004; Ross & Babcock, 2009) and cognitive distortions during anger arousal (Costa & Babcock, 2008). The current study contributes to this literature by examining whether borderline, antisocial, and psychopathic features are associated with perpetrators’ positive and negative reactions after IPV perpetration. Following the work of other researchers (Costa & Babcock, 2008; Marshall & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2010), we examine these features dimensionally in the current study, rather than creating subtypes that are also based on the severity and generality of violence.

Alongside perpetrators’ reactions directly following IPV episodes, a key area that has been understudied is their use of conciliatory behaviors after IPV perpetration. In conceptualizing the cycle of violence, Walker (1979) indicated that IPV tends to occur in a cyclical pattern, with a reconciliation/honeymoon phase following the explosive expression of violence. In the reconciliation phase, the abusive partner apologizes and attempts to make up for the abuse in an effort to convince the victimized partner not to leave the relationship. Although this phenomenon is well described in the clinical literature on IPV, empirical research has been limited, and clinical observations reveal mixed evidence for reconciliation after violence, particularly in light of the fact that conciliatory behaviors appear at odds with the common tendency to justify violent actions. Thus, another aim of the current study is to examine the rates and correlates of perpetrators’ conciliatory behaviors following IPV, which may provide greater understanding of the nature of these behaviors. For example, if IPV perpetrators engage in conciliatory behaviors primarily to manipulate their partners, one might expect these behaviors to be uncorrelated with negative reactions after IPV, readiness to change, and negative outcome expectancies of IPV, whereas positively correlated with antisocial and psychopathic features. Alternatively, if these behaviors represent more genuine demonstrations of remorse, one might expect them to be positively correlated with negative reactions after IPV, readiness to change, and negative outcome expectancies of IPV, and perhaps correlated with borderline features, but to be uncorrelated or inversely correlated with antisocial and psychopathic features.

The overarching aim of the current study is to investigate the rates and correlates of positive reactions, negative reactions, and the use of conciliatory behaviors following IPV perpetration. First, we will present the rates of positive and negative reactions and conciliatory behaviors after IPV, as well as the intercorrelations among them. Next, we will present correlations between these variables and (a) the frequency of IPV and emotional abuse perpetration, (b) readiness to change and outcome expectancies of IPV, and (c) borderline, antisocial, and psychopathic features. We made the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Positive reactions, negative reactions, and conciliatory behaviors would be associated with greater IPV and emotional abuse perpetration frequency.

Hypothesis 2: Positive reactions after IPV would be associated with lower readiness to change and greater positive outcome expectancies of IPV.

Hypothesis 3: Negative reactions after IPV would be associated with higher readiness to change and greater negative outcome expectancies of IPV.

Hypothesis 4: Borderline features would be associated with greater negative reactions after IPV.

Hypothesis 5: Antisocial and psychopathic features would be associated with greater positive reactions after IPV.

As there was scant empirical research with regard to conciliatory behaviors, we made no specific hypotheses for this variable.

Method

Participants and Procedures

The sample consisted of 172 men who presented for treatment services at a community-based IPV intervention program in the Baltimore–Washington, D.C., area and provided informed consent for the use of their data for research. The average age of the sample was 35.7 years (SD = 10.2 years, range = 18-75 years). Participants had received an average of 12.9 years of formal education (SD = 2.1 years) and had an average annual income of US$22,300 (SD = US$22,500). With respect to race/ethnicity, 40.1% of the sample self-identified as non-Hispanic Caucasian, 44.2% as African American, 5.8% as Hispanic, 2.9% as Asian American, 1.2% as American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 5.8% as another race/ethnicity. The majority of the sample (74.1%) was court-ordered to attend treatment, 9.4% had a court case pending, and 16.5% had no legal involvement related to IPV perpetration.

The study used archival data from interviews and questionnaires administered during routine program intake completed over the course of two 2-hr sessions scheduled 1 to 2 weeks apart. Two separate cohorts completed the measures used in the current study, with one cohort assessed between 1999 and 2001, and the other between 2009 and 2011. Due to changes in the standard assessment battery administered at the agency research site between these cohorts, the following variables were only assessed among a subset of participants: outcome expectancies of IPV (n = 71), borderline personality features (n = 65), antisocial personality features (n = 64), and psychopathic features (n = 65).

Measures

Positive and negative reactions following IPV perpetration

Two sets of items, one reflecting positive personal reactions after IPV and one set reflecting negative personal reactions after IPV, were generated for the current study by a team of clinicians and trainees led by the second and fourth authors. Item generation was informed by team members’ prior clinical experience conducting structured group discussions of positive and negative personal reactions to violence with this population. Using structured interview questions administered by graduate student clinicians, participants were asked to report whether they had ever experienced any of the following 10 reactions in the minutes or hours after being physically aggressive toward their partner: five negative reactions—feeling ashamed, embarrassed, guilty, worried, or sad—and five positive reactions—feeling justified, excited or exhilarated, “pumped up,” like you were “in charge” or “in control,” and like you showed your partner who is boss (the quotation marks above appeared in the interview guide). These dichotomous items were summed to create two scale scores, with first five items forming the scale for negative reactions after IPV perpetration and the last five items forming the scale for positive reactions after IPV perpetration. The Kuder–Richardson formula 20 (KR-20) coefficients for this sample were .60 for positive reactions and .86 for negative reactions after IPV perpetration.

Conciliatory behaviors following IPV perpetration

A scale was designed to evaluate perpetrators’ use of conciliatory behaviors for the current study. Using structured interview questions, participants were asked about whether they had ever tried to “make up” or show that they are sorry after being physically aggressive with a relationship partner by buying her flowers, taking her out to dinner, giving her money to go shopping, telling her to buy herself something nice, offering to clean up the house, offering to watch the kids, giving her more affection than normal, or other similar behaviors. These eight dichotomous items were summed to create a total score for the use of conciliatory behaviors, which had a KR-20 coefficient of .87 in this sample.

IPV and emotional abuse

Physical IPV perpetration and injury were measured in the current study using the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Straus, 1979) and Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996).¹ Both are widely used assessments of IPV and have well-established psychometric properties (Straus, 1979, 1990; Straus et al., 1996). Participants were asked to report the number of times they had engaged in each behavior over the previous 6 months, with response options of never, once, twice, 3 to 5 times, 6 to 10 times, 11 to 20 times, or more than 20 times. These responses were recoded as estimated frequencies with midpoints used to represent ranges of scores (e.g., 3 to 5 times is coded as 4 and more than 20 times is coded as 25). Internal consistency values were .60 for the CTS1 Physical Assault Scale, .68 for the CTS2 Physical Assault Scale, and .58 for the Injury Scale. The Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (MMEA; Murphy & Hoover, 1999) was used to assess participants’ emotional abuse perpetration. The measure consists of 28 items (e.g., “tried to stop the other person from seeing certain friends or family members”). Response options and scoring of the MMEA are identical to those of the CTS, and the measure contains four seven-item subscales: Restrictive Engulfment (α = .87), Hostile Withdrawal (α = .90), Denigration (α = .89), and Dominance/Intimidation (α = .88).

Motivational readiness to change

The 35-item Safe at Home Instrument for Assessing Readiness to Change Partner Violence (SAH; Begun et al., 2003) was used to evaluate participants’ overall readiness to change their IPV behaviors. The SAH contains item content devised specifically for partner violence treatment settings and assesses participant attitudes that are consistent with various stages of change as outlined by the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984). The SAH contains eight-item subscales measuring Precontemplation (e.g., “there’s nothing wrong with the way I handle situations, but I get into trouble for it anyway”), Contemplation (e.g., “It’s time for me to listen to the people telling me I need help”), and Preparation/Action (e.g., “I have a plan for what to do when I feel upset”). Participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale. In this sample, Cronbach’s alphas were .63, .89, and .73 for the Precontemplation, Contemplation, and Preparation/Action scales, respectively. The overall readiness to change score is computed by summing scores on the Contemplation and Preparation/Action scales, and subtracting the score on the Precontemplation scale. Cronbach’s alpha for overall readiness to change in this sample was .73.

Outcome expectancies of IPV

Participants were administered the 26-item Outcome Expectancies of Partner Abuse Scale (OEPA; Meis et al., 2010). This measure produces two subscales representing positive (e.g., “being loud or aggressive gets my point across”) and negative (e.g., “if I mistreat my partner, my partner won’t trust or respect me”) outcome expectations of partner abuse perpetration. Respondents indicate dichotomous agreement or disagreement with each item. The KR-20 coefficients were .66 for positive outcome expectancies and .64 for negative outcome expectancies in the current sample.

Borderline personality features

The Self-Report Instrument for Borderline Personality Organization (BPO; Oldham et al., 1985) is a 30-item measure that assesses the clinical and subclinical features of BPD. Respondents indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a scale from 1 (never true) to 5 (always true). An overall BPO composite score was used in this study, with higher numbers reflecting greater borderline features. Previous research among IPV perpetrators (Dutton & Starzomski, 1993) has found the BPO to correlate strongly (r = .71) with the Borderline Personality Disorder Scale of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–II (Millon, 1987). Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was .92.

Antisocial personality features

Trained graduate student clinicians administered the Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) Scale of the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; APA, 1994) Axis–II (SCID-II; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997). During the interview, the clinician determines the presence or absence of 22 symptom indicators of the DSM-IV criteria for APD. Each dichotomous item was summed to create a total score for APD features. Prior research with this scale has demonstrated high levels of interrater reliability (Maffei et al., 1997). The KR-20 coefficient for this sample was .83.

Psychopathic features

Participants completed the Self-Report Psychopathy–II Scale (SRP-II; Hare, Harpur, & Hemphill, 1989), which contains items derived from the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991). Prior research has found convergent correlations between the SRP-II and other assessments of psychopathy (Hicklin & Widiger, 2005). Respondents indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The SRP-II is designed to measure both the interpersonal and antisocial features in Hare’s two-factor model of psychopathy. Factor 1 captures pathological interpersonal and affective personality traits (e.g., callousness), whereas Factor 2 captures antisocial features such as social deviance and impulsivity. Cronbach’s alphas were .38 for Factor 1 and .82 for Factor 2 in the current sample.

Data Analysis

First, we present descriptive statistics for all variables and rates of endorsing at least one item from the three primary measures of interest: positive reactions, negative reactions, and conciliatory behaviors after IPV perpetration. Prior to running bivariate correlations, we examined the distributions for all study variables to identify substantial deviation from normality, defined as skew greater than 2.0 and/or kurtosis greater than 7.0 (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). Log transformation was used for variables that deviated from normality, and all variables met the assumption of normality following transformation. Bivariate correlations were interpreted in line with Cohen’s (1988) guidelines for small (.10 ≤ r < .30), medium (.30 ≤ r < .50), and large (r ≥ .50) effects. As the three primary variables of interest concerned behaviors following physical IPV perpetration, we also examined the intercorrelations between these variables while controlling for physical IPV to ensure that any significant relationships were not simply due to their associations with perpetration frequency.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and ranges of all study variables are presented in Table 1. In this sample, 54 participants (32.7%) endorsed experiencing one or more positive reactions in the minutes or hours after IPV perpetration, 149 (89.8%) endorsed one or more negative reactions, and 114 (67.5%) endorsed one or more conciliatory behaviors. Also of interest is that, of the 54 participants who endorsed one or more positive reactions, nearly all (96.3%) additionally endorsed one or more negative reactions, suggesting that endorsement of uniformly positive reactions to one’s violence is quite rare.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables.

Variable	M	SD	Range
Positive reactions following IPV	0.51	0.92	0-5
Negative reactions following IPV	3.69	1.74	0-5
Conciliatory behaviors	2.54	2.59	0-8
Physical IPV	3.27	5.58	0-31
Injury	0.92	1.58	0-8
Restrictive engulfment	14.98	27.07	0-175
Hostile withdrawal	24.00	34.21	0-175
Denigration	9.58	25.35	0-175
Dominance/intimidation	8.55	15.08	0-90
Readiness to change	4.17	1.16	−0.45-7.68
Precontemplation	3.03	0.70	1.14-4.43
Contemplation	3.50	0.87	1-5
Preparation/Action	3.70	0.61	1.88-5
Positive outcome expectancies of IPV	3.27	2.29	0-11
Negative outcome expectancies of IPV	11.44	1.59	6-13
Borderline personality features	54.86	18.31	30-111
Antisocial personality features	3.00	3.89	0-16
Psychopathy Factor 1	38.59	6.81	24-59.63
Psychopathy Factor 2	33.98	12.86	15-68

Note. Although some variables were log transformed for analyses, means and standard deviations are presented for the original variables for ease of interpretation. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Next, we examined the intercorrelations between the primary variables of interest in the study. Positive reactions following IPV perpetration had a small and nonsignificant positive correlation with negative reactions following perpetration (r = .15, p > .05), and a small and significant positive correlation with conciliatory behaviors (r = .17, p < .05). Negative reactions following IPV perpetration were significantly correlated with conciliatory behaviors, and this effect was in the medium range of magnitude (r = .38, p < .001). Partial correlations were then conducted to determine if these associations might be accounted for by more frequent perpetration of physical assault, which confers more opportunities to have a variety of different reactions after assault. When controlling for assault frequency, the correlation between conciliatory behaviors and positive reactions was no longer significant, whereas the correlation between conciliatory behaviors and negative reactions remained significant.

Table 2 displays the correlations between the primary variables of interest and IPV and emotional abuse perpetration frequency. All but two correlations were statistically significant, with nearly all correlations showing small effect sizes. Thus, higher levels of abuse perpetration were associated with higher levels of the reactions studied. This is to be expected given that greater perpetration of aggression provides opportunities to experience a broader range of emotional and behavioral reactions. Although these effect sizes are likely influenced by measurement error, the modest magnitude of these effects suggests that positive and negative reactions and conciliatory behaviors may reflect important differences among individuals who perpetrate IPV rather than being solely an artifact of engaging in frequent IPV.

Table 2.

Pearson’s Correlations Between Variables of Interest and Physical IPV, Injury, and Emotional Abuse Perpetration.

	Physical IPV^a	Injury^a	Restrictive Engulfment	Denigration	Hostile Withdrawal	Dominance Intimidation
Positive reactions following IPV^a	.24**	.14	.23**	.23**	.19*	.27**
Negative reactions following IPV	.28***	.27***	.17*	.25**	.16*	.34***
Conciliatory behaviors	.24**	.22**	.25**	.15	.20*	.28***

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Log transformed.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Bivariate correlations between the variables of interest and stages of change, readiness to change, and outcome expectancies of IPV perpetration are presented in Table 3. Results in general support hypothesized associations among these variables. Positive reactions following IPV were significantly and positively associated with Contemplation Scale scores and inversely associated with Preparation/Action scale scores. This indicates that perpetrators with more positive reactions after IPV are more likely than others to admit that their behavior is a problem but are less likely than others to be actively addressing the problem. Because computation of the overall readiness to change composite involves adding these two scales together and their associations with positive reactions were in reverse directions, positive reactions following IPV were not significantly associated with the readiness to change composite score.

Table 3.

Pearson’s Correlations Between Variables of Interest and Stages of Change, Readiness to Change, and Outcome Expectancies of Abuse.

	Precontemplation	Contemplation	Preparation/Action	Readiness to Change	Positive Outcome Expectancies of IPV	Negative Outcome Expectancies of IPV
Positive reactions following IPV^a	.05	.18*	−.19*	.02	.32**	.20
Negative reactions following IPV	.00	.46***	.01	.35***	.13	.22
Conciliatory behaviors	−.06	.20**	−.04	.16*	.13	.02

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Log transformed for the full sample but not the subsample with outcome expectancies of IPV because it did not deviate from normality in the subsample.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

As predicted, negative reactions following IPV were associated with Contemplation Scale scores and overall readiness to change, both with medium effect sizes. Conciliatory behaviors were also significantly correlated with the Contemplation Scale and overall readiness to change, with effect sizes in the small range of magnitude. When examining positive and negative outcome expectancies of IPV perpetration, the only significant association was between positive reactions following IPV and positive outcome expectancies of IPV, which had a medium effect size. Thus, participants who report positive reactions after their IPV perpetration also expect more positive outcomes from engaging in IPV.

Table 4 displays bivariate correlations of psychopathological features with positive and negative reactions and conciliatory behaviors after IPV. As expected, individuals with higher levels of borderline personality features reported more negative reactions and more conciliatory behaviors following IPV perpetration, with effect sizes approaching a medium effect. In contrast, individuals with higher levels of antisocial features, as assessed through diagnostic interview, reported more positive reactions following IPV perpetration, with a medium effect size. Finally, individuals with higher scores on Factor 1 of the SRP Scale, which assesses pathological interpersonal and affective features, reported fewer negative reactions and fewer conciliatory behaviors following IPV perpetration, with effect sizes in the small to medium range of magnitude. Thus, with the notable exception that psychopathic features did not correlate with greater positive reactions following IPV perpetration, these findings are consistent with our hypotheses regarding personality problems and behavioral reactions to violence.

Table 4.

Pearson’s Correlations Between Variables of Interest and Borderline, Antisocial, and Psychopathic Features.

	Borderline Personality Features	Antisocial Personality Features	Psychopathy Factor 1	Psychopathy Factor 2
Positive reactions following IPV	.15	.39**	−.07	.19
Negative reactions following IPV	.29*	.20	−.40**	.11
Conciliatory behaviors	.29*	.07	−.27*	.13

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

Consistent with prior research that has found both reinforcing and punishing consequences of IPV (Breslin et al., 1990; Shorey et al., 2012), the current study indicates that perpetrators experience a mix of positive and negative reactions following perpetration. Furthermore, the study contributes to this small literature by finding that perpetrators’ experiences after IPV are associated with several variables relevant to their clinical presentation at an IPV intervention program. In line with Walker and colleagues’ (2010) community sample findings, negative reactions after IPV were associated with greater readiness to change IPV behaviors. By breaking down readiness to change into its component stages, our findings further indicate that this association primarily involves increased recognition of a need for change rather than endorsement of active change efforts. The results extend Walker and colleagues’ (2010) findings by showing that positive reactions after IPV are also associated with attitudes about change, albeit not overall readiness to change. Participants reporting more positive reactions after IPV were more likely to admit having a problem but were less likely to be making active plans or efforts to address the problem.

An interesting pattern of findings emerged with respect to positive reactions after IPV. When we initiated data collection, we were uncertain whether individuals would report such reactions in light of concerns regarding social desirability and self-presentation. Observation of treatment group discussions of the functional consequences of abusive behavior suggest that explanation and examples are usually needed before perpetrators reveal positive consequences of their abusive actions (Meis et al., 2010). In the current study, not only did one third of participants endorse positive reactions after IPV but those endorsements were also linked to higher overall levels of physical assault and emotional abuse perpetration, greater positive outcome expectancies of IPV, and more diagnostic symptoms of APD. This pattern of findings highlights a functional dimension of IPV perpetration that involves externalizing problems, beliefs about the utility of violence, and positive reactions to violence. Positive reactions were linked to both greater recognition of having a problem and less active efforts to address the problem, highlighting ambivalence to change among those who report these reactions. Perceiving personal benefits of abusive behavior may lessen one’s motivation to change the behavior even when there are also negative consequences and the behavior is recognized as problematic.

Our findings also speak to the occurrence and implications of perpetrators’ negative reactions after IPV. This sample evidenced high rates of endorsement of negative reactions after IPV, with nearly the entire sample reporting at least one negative reaction. Considering that greater negative reactions after IPV was associated with greater readiness to change, it appears that the majority of those presenting to an IPV intervention program report at least some negative reactions that can be utilized in discussions regarding motivation to change. In addition, current findings suggest that negative reactions after IPV perpetration are correlated with personality pathology. Borderline personality features were positively associated with negative reactions after IPV, which is in line with other research suggesting that those with borderline features may show a reactive pattern of IPV that occurs in response to jealousy and intense negative emotions (Babcock et al., 2004; Ross & Babcock, 2009). A particularly troubling finding is that the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy were associated with fewer negative reactions after IPV. A lack of negative affective reactions to abuse perpetration may represent one reason that those with psychopathy show poorer treatment adherence and outcomes (Rock et al., 2013; Taft et al., 2004). Such individuals may be relatively unmotivated to change their behavior because they experience very few negative consequences of it.

This study also provides useful information about perpetrators’ conciliatory behaviors after IPV that have been widely discussed in the clinical literature but rarely investigated empirically. First, it is notable that two thirds of this sample reported at least one conciliatory behavior to “make up” after IPV perpetration. The overall pattern of correlations with other variables is consistent with the idea that conciliatory behaviors in general represent demonstrations of genuine remorse. Most notably, conciliatory behaviors were positively correlated with negative reactions after IPV and with readiness to change, and were inversely correlated with the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy, which include deceitfulness and manipulativeness. However, we acknowledge that these measures do not assess remorse directly, and we can only make inferences in this study based on the pattern of associations with other measures. Conciliatory behaviors were also positively associated with borderline personality features, suggesting that they may in part be driven by fears of abandonment. It is important to note that these findings do not rule out the use of conciliatory behaviors as conceptualized within Walker’s (1979) cycle of violence, which focuses more on how efforts to make up during a “honeymoon phase” are part of a pattern that helps maintain abusive relationships over time. More idiographic assessment is needed to identify how perpetrators’ abuse-related behaviors function for them on an individual basis. In addition, it would be valuable to obtain reports on conciliatory behaviors from perpetrators’ partners and examine what effects these behaviors may have on the relationship or risk of future violence.

Limitations

The study’s findings should be considered in light of its limitations. The assessment of positive and negative reactions following IPV was limited, each using only five items. There are likely numerous additional reactions that perpetrators experience after IPV that were not captured with this initial assessment effort. In addition, in contrast to previous studies on related topics (Bonem et al., 2008; Breslin et al., 1990; Shorey et al., 2012; Walker et al., 2010), we did not directly examine the behavioral consequences of IPV perpetration. However, as different people may have different reactions about the same behavioral consequence (e.g., frightening one’s partner), perpetrators’ internal reactions after IPV may provide a highly salient aspect that influences their expectations regarding future perpetration of abuse and motivation to change. Measurement of conciliatory behaviors included some behaviors that were not available to every participant (e.g., “offering to watch the kids”), although most items were worded in such a way to reduce the influence of outside factors (e.g., “giving her money to go shopping” does not specify the amount of money). We also did not include assessments of perpetrators’ empathy, dissociation, or other experiences that may influence the nature of their reactions during and after IPV. These remain important topics for future research.

An additional concern is that all data were cross-sectional, thus limiting our ability to make conclusions about the temporal relationships between the observed variables. With respect to borderline and antisocial personality traits, however, both conceptual and empirical analyses would suggest that these characteristics were likely present prior to initiation of the abuse reported in the current study. Furthermore, the retrospective nature of some of the measures raises the possibility that some participants may have misremembered or misreported their reactions to IPV. Another limitation is that all variables were obtained through either self-report questionnaire or clinician interview, and so common method variance may account for some of the association between variables. Finally, the assessment of psychopathic traits had low reliability, which may have limited the strength of associations for this variable.

Research Implications

The current study provides novel findings indicating that perpetrators’ reactions after IPV are relevant to their clinical presentation at an IPV intervention program. Most notably, these reactions are associated with perpetrators’ motivation to change abusive behavior. In addition, atypical reactions (high levels of positive and/or low levels of negative reactions after abuse) may be one of the mechanisms through which personality pathology can be linked to poorer treatment adherence and outcomes (Huss & Ralston, 2008; Rock et al., 2013). Thus, it would be useful for future research to investigate reactions to violence and outcome expectancies as mediational factors that may help to explain poor response to treatment for individuals with personality disorders, and to devise and investigate strategies to alter these mechanisms. Another important direction for future research in this area involves longitudinal examination of IPV perpetration and its perceived consequences. More intensive data collection methods, such as weekly diaries or ecological momentary assessment, may help clarify how the consequences directly following IPV serve to reinforce or punish these behaviors. In addition, it would be potentially useful to examine differences in these reactions between those court-ordered and voluntarily attending IPV interventions to identify factors that may enhance voluntary participation in treatment. Unfortunately, the current study had an insufficient number of participants voluntarily in the intervention program to effectively investigate these differences. Finally, certain underlying beliefs may play a key role in determining reactions following IPV. For example, the belief that violence is justified in response to perceived disrespect or the belief that violence is justified to enforce gender-related roles could be investigated in future work. This line of research may have implications for both IPV intervention programs and public health interventions to prevent or reduce IPV.

Clinical and Policy Implications

Our findings support the use of more thorough assessment of perceived consequences of IPV perpetration at the outset of treatment (Walker et al., 2010), which, together with assessment of outcome expectancies of IPV (Meis et al., 2010), can assist in generating discussion about personally relevant motivations and barriers to change (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). Using such an assessment may be particularly helpful in light of evidence that IPV perpetrators tend to be less able to identify the consequences of their abuse perpetration than the antecedents of their perpetration (Bonem et al., 2008). Although some IPV intervention programs already include discussions about the pros and cons of perpetrators’ behaviors, further research in this area may bolster the justification for conducting functional analysis in IPV treatment more formally. For example, an important clinical tool in Dialectical behavior therapy is behavior chain analysis, in which the therapist and client work together to construct a complete picture of the sequence of events surrounding an instance of the target behavior (Rizvi & Ritschel, 2014). Behavior chain analysis may prove useful in analyzing instances of IPV during assessment and treatment of perpetrators (Fruzzetti & Levensky, 2000). Overall, the present findings illustrate the utility of including perpetrators’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions following IPV as important elements in the clinical assessment and functional analysis of IPV behaviors.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Portions of this work were presented as part of a doctoral dissertation at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, by the second author.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a doctoral fellowship to the second author from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and a grant to the last author from the National Institute of Mental Health (1RO3MH56373).

Notes

Author Biographies

Adam D. LaMotte is a graduate student in the human services psychology doctoral program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before graduate school, he was a research technician at the VA Boston Healthcare System. His research interests include intimate partner violence, posttraumatic stress disorder, and the influence of traumatic experiences on intimate relationships.

Nancy A. Remington completed her PhD in human services psychology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County in 2002. She is currently a clinical psychologist at the Early Psychosis Intervention Program at the Foothills Medical Centre, Alberta Health Services in Calgary, Canada. Her interests include assessment and treatment of individuals with psychosis, schizophrenia, and delusional disorders, as well as comorbid conditions of mood, anxiety, and substance misuse.

Casey Rezac received her bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, where she conducted independent research related to the current project. She plans to pursue an advanced degree in clinical psychology.

Christopher M. Murphy, PhD, is a professor and chair of psychology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. He also serves as clinical supervisor for the abuser intervention program at HopeWorks, a multiservice nonprofit agency in Howard County, Maryland. His research focuses on cognitive-behavioral, motivational, and trauma-informed interventions for perpetrators of abuse; the assessment and effects of emotional abuse; how the use of alcohol and drugs influence partner violence and its treatment; and the prevention of partner abuse in emerging adulthood.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Babcock

J. C.

Costa

D. M.

Green

C. E.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2004). What situations induce intimate partner violence? A reliability and validity study of the Proximal Antecedents to Violent Episodes (PAVE) Scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 433-442. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.3.433

Begun

Murphy

Bolt

Weinstein

Strodthoff

Short

Shelly

(2003). Characteristics of the Safe at Home instrument for assessing readiness to change intimate partner violence. Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 80-107. doi:10.1177/1049731502238758

Bell

K. M.

Naugle

A. E.

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

Bonem

Stanley-Kime

K. L.

Corbin

(2008). A behavioral approach to understanding domestic violence: A functional assessment based on batterer-identified contingencies. The Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention, 1, 209-221. doi:10.1037/h0100466

Breslin

F. C.

Riggs

D. S.

O’Leary

K. D.

Arias

(1990). Family precursors: Expected and actual consequences of dating aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 247-258. doi:10.1177/088626090005002008

Byun

(2012). What happens before intimate partner violence? Distal and proximal antecedents. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 783-799. doi:10.1007/s10896-012-9464-y

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Costa

D. M.

Babcock

J. C.

(2008). Articulated thoughts of intimate partner abusive men during anger arousal: Correlates with personality disorder features. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 395-402. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9163-x

11.

Dutton

D. G.

Starzomski

A. J.

(1993). Borderline personality in perpetrators of psychological and physical abuse. Violence and Victims, 8, 327-337.

12.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

(2004). Clinically abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: Men’s and women’s participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 258-271. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.113.2.258.

13.

First

M. B.

Spitzer

R. L.

Gibbon

Williams

J. B. W.

Benjamin

L. S.

(1997). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II personality disorders (SCID-II). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

14.

Foshee

V. A.

Bauman

K. E.

Linder

G. F.

(1999). Family violence and the perpetration of adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 331-342. doi:10.2307/353752

15.

Fruzzetti

A. E.

Levensky

E. R.

(2000). Dialectical behavior therapy for domestic violence: Rationale and procedures. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 7, 435-447. doi:10.1016/S1077-7229(00)80055-3

16.

Hare

R. D.

(1991). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

17.

Hare

R. D.

Harpur

T. J.

Hemphill

J. D.

(1989). Scoring pamphlet for the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: SRP-II. Unpublished manuscript, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

18.

Hicklin

Widiger

T. A.

(2005). Similarities and differences among antisocial and psychopathic self-report inventories from the perspective of general personality functioning. European Journal of Personality, 19, 325-342. doi:10.1002/per.562

19.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Stuart

G. L.

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

20.

Huss

M. T.

Ralston

(2008). Do batterer subtypes actually matter? Treatment completion, treatment response, and recidivism across a batterer typology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 710-724. doi:10.1177/0093854808316218

21.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

McCullars

Misra

T. A.

(2012). Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3, 429-468. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.429

22.

Leisring

P. A.

(2009). What will happen if I punch him? Expected consequences of female violence against male dating partners. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 18, 739-751. doi:10.1080/10926770903231726

23.

Maffei

Fossati

Agostoni

Barraco

Bagnato

Deborah

. . . Petrachi

(1997). Interrater reliability and internal consistency of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II), version 2.0. Journal of Personality Disorders, 11, 279-284. doi:10.1521/pedi.1997.11.3.279

24.

Marshall

A. D.

Holtzworth-Munroe

(2010). Recognition of wives’ emotional expressions: A mechanism in the relationship between psychopathology and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 21-30. doi:10.1037/a0017952

25.

Meis

L. A.

Murphy

C. M.

Winters

J. J.

(2010). Outcome expectancies of partner abuse: Assessing perpetrators’ expectancies and their associations with readiness to change, abuse, and relevant problems. Assessment, 17, 30-43. doi:10.1177/1073191109343514

26.

Miller

W. R.

Rollnick

(2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

27.

Millon

(1987). Manual for the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-II) (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

28.

Murphy

C. M.

Hoover

S. A.

(1999). Measuring emotional abuse in dating relationships as a multifactorial construct. Violence and Victims, 14, 39-53.

29.

Oldham

Clarkin

Appelbaum

Carr

Kernberg

Lotterman

Haas

(1985). A self-report instrument for borderline personality organization. In McGlashan

T. H.

(Ed.), The borderline: Current empirical research (pp. 1-18). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

30.

Pozueco-Romero

J. M.

Moreno-Manso

J. M.

Blázquez-Alonso

García-Baamonde

M. E.

(2014). The psychopathic intimate partner batterer: A non-psychopathological profile. Anales De Psicología, 30, 25-36.

31.

Prochaska

J. O.

DiClemente

C. C.

(1984). The transtheoretical approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of therapy. Melbourne, FL: Krieger.

32.

Riggs

D. S.

Caulfield

M. B.

(1997). Expected consequences of male violence against their female dating partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 229-240. doi:10.1177/088626097012002005

33.

Rizvi

S. L.

Ritschel

L. A.

(2014). Mastering the art of chain analysis in dialectical behavior therapy. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 21, 335-349. doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2013.09.002

34.

Rock

R. C.

Sellbom

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Salekin

R. T.

(2013). Concurrent and predictive validity of psychopathy in a batterers’ intervention sample. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 145-154. doi:10.1037/lhb0000006

35.

Ross

J. M.

Babcock

J. C.

(2009). Proactive and reactive violence among intimate partner violent men diagnosed with antisocial and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 607-617. doi:10.1007/s10896-009-9259-y

36.

Scott

K. L.

Wolfe

D. A.

(2003). Readiness to change as a predictor of outcome in batterer treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 879-889. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.5.879

37.

Semiatin

J. N.

Murphy

C. M.

Elliott

J. D.

(2013). Observed behavior during group treatment for partner-violent men: Acceptance of responsibility and promotion of change. Psychology of Violence, 3, 126-139. doi:10.1037/a0029846

38.

Shorey

R. C.

Temple

J. R.

Febres

Brasfield

Sherman

A. E.

Stuart

G. L.

(2012). The consequences of perpetrating psychological aggression in dating relationships: A descriptive investigation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2980-2998. doi:10.1177/0886260512441079

39.

Straus

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. doi:10.2307/351733

40.

Straus

M. A.

(1990). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales. In Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

(Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 29-48). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

41.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

42.

Taft

C. T.

Murphy

C. M.

Musser

P. H.

Remington

N. A.

(2004). Personality, interpersonal, and motivational predictors of the working alliance in group cognitive-behavioral therapy for partner violent men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 349-354. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.2.349

43.

Walker

D. D.

Neighbors

Mbilinyi

L. F.

O’Rourke

Zegree

Roffman

R. A.

Edleson

J. L.

(2010). Evaluating the impact of intimate partner violence on the perpetrator: The Perceived Consequences of Domestic Violence Questionnaire. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1684-1698. doi:10.1177/0886260509354592

44.

Walker

L. E.

(1979). The battered woman. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

45.

West

S. G.

Finch

J. F.

Curran

P. J.

(1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In Hoyle

(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56-75). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

46.

Whitaker

M. P.

(2014). Motivational attributions about intimate partner violence among male and female perpetrators. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 517-535.

47.

Winstok

(2007). Toward an interactional perspective on intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 348-363. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.12.001