The Process of Primary Desistance From Intimate Partner Violence

Perceive situation differently

This theme was dominant in eight of the desisters’ accounts, yet only one of the persisters talked about the need to change how he perceived and interpreted certain situations. The essence of this theme is how the men explain that they changed their appraisals of situations or reframed their interpretations of events. Part of the process was achieving a better understanding of certain situations and realizing how the interpretation of them is likely to affect their reactions to them. In the following example, D9 compares how he previously would react to situations with how he would now react. Reactions are therefore narrated as changed thinking, as this offender comes to realize taking a different perspective will result in a more positive outcome. In the following account, this desister emphasizes the move away from a default position of reacting aggressively in a given situation.

Before I’d flare up but now I just sort of think you know, why shall I shout at this person . . . why should I grab this person. Or what they’re saying to me is something which I need to be told and it could just be some constructive criticism. I was getting a better understanding of situations and of things I would do or how things would affect me or how I would react . . . I was always on the defensive. And it was trying to change that behavior that I didn’t have to feel like I was always fighting somebody. (D9)

Another way that the men perceived the situations differently was by actually attempting to look at things from other people’s perspectives and to not assume that their own perspectives were the only valid/right ones. The ability to perspective take is a skill that is associated with conflict resolution (Galinsky, Gilin, & Maddux, 2011; Gehlbach, 2004). Johnson (1975) defines perspective taking as understanding “how a situation appears to another person and how that person is reacting cognitively and emotionally to the situation . . . put oneself in the place of others and recognise that other individuals may have points of view different from one’s own” (p. 241). This summarizes how within this desisters’ early desistance narratives, they described a cognitive change in seeing others’ points of view which they explained was required to manage potential triggers of violence (e.g., D4: I’m getting better at not thinking that I know the only way because it’s not the way, it’s just my way and there are other ways). Several of the facilitators and men spoke about a need to see things from other people’s “points of view.” An example from a facilitator about how they understand what helps people change and the reason they see success for some people compared with those who they know have reoffended is as follows:

I think the ones that can develop some form of perspective taking, and start seeing things from kind of other people’s points of view are different to those who reoffend. That really helps people to change and you do, I think you do with some of them see some slight changes in their behavior, they become a little bit more respectful. They start to appreciate how their behavior is impacting on the facilitators and the group and on other people, particularly their partners. (F1)

Interestingly, when the persisters talked about a need to perceive things differently, it was at the conceptual stage, and so their accounts did not include stories in which they could identify, explain, or understand how or why they needed to look at things differently, that is, they cannot explain their use of violence or identify actions they had actively embraced to change this. It was perceived as something that “just happens” over time:

I saw actually the use of violence as quite a standard thing. Like in life just in, even in sometimes in day to day. In general things and yeah now I just see it as well I don’t know what I see it. A bad thing. Obviously but yeah a very last resort . . . I think sometimes maybe it’s just people get older and look at things through a different point of view. Eventually. But it takes different times for different people. (P7)

Create more stability day to day

Desistance from crime often requires a reorganization and change of one’s lifestyle and this seems to be reflected in relation to IPV. This theme refers to the men attempting to deal with the day-to-day stressors they had in their lives and attempting to remove or manage them more effectively. Again, this was not something evident in the facilitators’ and survivors’ accounts but came from the men themselves. This was seen in both the desisters’ and the persisters’ accounts. However, there was a subtle difference in their accounts in that the desisters seemed to be proactive in their creation of stability, whereas the persisters were more reactive, that is, changing because circumstances forced them to (e.g., separation from partner, permanently end relationship [e.g., P1: The violence stopped because we separated and she was not there]). Nevertheless both groups explained that either the latent stressors that could lead to violence were removed from their lifestyles or the stressors were managed with effective nonviolent solutions.

One of the desisters described that removing and dealing with the day-to-day stressors was a way of managing triggers to violence. He addressed each stressor one at a time and then removed it, suggesting that removing the stressors removed the violence. In his account, this desister explains how the practical steps he took created a less stressful situation. When this desister was asked what stops him from being violent, he identified several areas that needed changing to remove stress and to create an environment less likely to foster violence within it. This is perhaps best described as a narrative of proactive change and represents the events, stages, and contexts described as being required so change can emerge.

One of the first things I did to change the situation was to get rid of everything that was a factor causing the problem. So I started off with the smallest the first, the housing situation. We were going to lose our house, so I sorted that out and I went to the Council got ourselves on the Council list. Got ourselves into a hostel which eventually got us into a house. And then I thought right, the debt. Sort out the debt situation and I went for debt advice and eventually went bankrupt. That took a massive equation out of it. My job, my job was another factor, working long hours and I was not spending enough time with my family. If I get rid of the job, there’s plenty of other jobs about. I started a new job. So I went through all the factors and knocked them off one by one. (D9)

Having background latent stress has a significant impact on daily stress and pushes a person to his or her threshold, which results in violence; hence, if the background stress is removed, the day-to-day stress has less potency. As seen in the account from the male above, he worked through stresses by identifying each problem and tackling it head on. This demonstrates what has been theorized as problem-focused coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This is an approach that is task-orientated and individuals channel resources to reduce stress, which demonstrates direct efforts to resolve problems. Endler and Parker (1990) suggested that this is predictive of positive consequences, as was described by the desisters in the current study.

Reduce or eliminate alcohol

There is frequent reference within the narratives by the men that alcohol is a trigger for violence and a factor for them that commonly plays a role when their ways of being are violent. By removing or eliminating this element, the men described how they felt this encouraged a nonviolent way of being. This was typified by one of the desisters, D10, who reflected that previously alcohol “brought out the problems in my relationship which resulted in arguments and violence,” thereby demonstrating his understanding is that his violence was a result of his drinking. However, now in his accounts, he explains that he understands by not drinking he is not so opinionated but more level-headed and so he feels he is changed as a person. This in turn is reflected by him not using violence.

Well the thing is last year I stopped drinking as well, I didn’t drink a lot anyway but I stopped drinking what I did drink and in that time I have changed. Yeah I used to go out, you know, and have a few drinks and be really opinionated . . . and now I am much more level-minded. I say I think I’ve changed quite a lot, which is seen by me not using violence. (D10)

It should be noted, however, that based on the narratives, although alcohol was identified as relevant within the process of persistence and desistance, a cause and effect relationship or a theoretical insight that explains the relationship between IPV persistence and desistance and alcohol could not be established. The actual role that alcohol plays in IPV perpetration, persistence, and desistance remains a topic of considerable debate. Heavy alcohol use has been proximally related to aggression through its pharmacological effects on cognitive function (Klostermann & Fals-Stewart, 2006). It has been suggested that heavy drinking can lead a person to overreact to perceived provocation, misjudge social cues, and reduce the saliency of cues that aggressive behavior will have negative consequences; these factors increase the risk of confrontation and violence (Reyes, Foshee, Bauer, & Ennett, 2011). This theme of reducing or eliminating alcohol was found in the accounts from all four groups, although more prominently for the desisters. The persisters who did identify that this change was required had either just stopped drinking or were in the process of battling with giving it up. In the following example, the persister in his account had identified that up until recently he was “drinking for king and country,” and when this happened, it ended up in violence. However, “alcohol problems” is a theme seen in his narrative; he now acknowledges alcohol as a problem and something that, although not fully addressed, needs addressing.

You see the thought processes about going to buy a bottle of wine. Most of the time, if I’m not drinking I don’t need a drink. And then you know, I come down the hill into [Town] and Sainsbury is on the right side and I just think, oh I’ll just go in and before I know what’s happened I’ve done that [bought wine] without a second thought. The biggest battle I have is with alcohol still. (8)

Within their early desistance narratives, to manage antecedents and triggers to violence, the males identify that this involves them using several different strategies. This is something that the desisters are aware of as their narratives included explanation of how they have proactively put these strategies into action. The survivors and facilitators also suggested that this was an integral part of the process of desistance. This also seemed to be something that the persisters were aware of; however, they appeared to be at a stage where they have not committed to a new lifestyle as reflected in their accounts, which do not include reference to actual action taken. At this stage, their stories suggest they may have just proactively embraced, or are still contemplating whether to embrace, the factors identified in this organizing theme, as part of their lifestyle behaviors.

See the way to change by seeing behavior as abusive

This theme represents how individuals suggested that they needed to make a cognitive shift. The shift that is described in this theme is an awareness that their behaviors were and are abusive, and this then initiates a decision that this can be changed and will be changed. Such awareness increases the self-attribution of responsibility (Duval & Wicklund, 1973). This was identified by two of the survivors (e.g., S3: He realized how he was behaving, . . . and knew what he had to change) and the majority of the facilitators who gave examples of how they saw this happening. In the following instance, this facilitator, when speaking about how they see the process of change developing, discusses the importance of the offenders recognizing their behavior as abusive so that they then can actually do something about it.

To refrain from reoffending or being abusive again, so being able to recognize that the behavior that they would go on to commit would be abusive, but being able to put a stop in place and restricting themselves or resisting themselves from going on and taking that action. There is a guy that’s recently completed. . . . And seeing things on the videos that we show for him was quite insightful because he realized actually, I’m doing that and didn’t realize he was being abusive, or didn’t realize the impact that would have. He became more talkative with his partner, he became less blaming of his partner. (F2)

This theme is also one that the majority of the desisters drew attention to in their narratives, but only one of the persisters discussed it. The desisters speak extensively about this and how they feel that part of the process is “awareness,” “acknowledging,” “recognizing,” and/or “admitting” that their behaviors were abusive and violent. An important element within the desisters’ accounts is that they need to not only recognize that their behaviors are abusive but realize that they can also do something to avoid such behaviors in the future. The narrative below was common from the desisters; in this case, D8 makes sense of how he stopped using IPV by recognizing and admitting publicly that IPV was wrong and then exploring ways to then change the behavior.

I absolutely, well admit and recognize, well no, recognize then admitted. So coming to a group is admission right, it’s acknowledgment . . . I think the moment of recognition is crucial. I didn’t even see it [violence] as wrong I guess. So it’s a recognition that it’s wrong. Massively. There’s this recognition of, not only is it wrong, but I’ve now found a way of being able to control it. (D8)

The findings in the current study reflect those of Chamberland, Fortin, Turgeon, and Laporte (2007) who suggested that men who were violence-free for a year, all of whom had completed treatment, were able to recognize abusive behaviors better than the men yet to start treatment. It therefore seems that recognition of the violent and abusive nature of their behaviors is an important stimulus for change.

Internalize responsibility

This theme was clear across all the accounts except those of the persisters, who did not evidence internalizing of responsibility for their behaviors. This theme captures how the men described how they not only acknowledged that their behaviors were abusive, but took this one step further by also taking responsibility, accountability, and ownership for their violence. This is different from the previous theme, by the movement from simply recognizing their behaviors as abusive to actually taking responsibility for them. This may be a crucial part of the process of change, particularly as this theme was not evident in the persisters’ narratives, which suggests that this process is on a continuum from recognition to responsibility. It suggests that offenders may not truly desist unless they internalize responsibility, as this transforms recognition and foresight into action, that is, taking behavioral steps toward desistance. In the accounts, a cognitive change is seen, as a realization is required that the focus needs to be completely on the self. In the following excerpt, this desister clearly articulates that he needs to be accountable to his wife and disclose to others that he is attending a group. Accountability has to be to everyone (the outside world), but importantly, he understands his ability to desist is reliant on him being completely accountable to himself, meaning he takes full responsibility for his own behavior, who he is, and then do something about it.

The big issue, for most of the people here, is closure to contacts in the outside world about attendance at this group. I don’t know what the guys do, as far as I’m concerned, this group is, unless I disclose that I’m attending an abusers group to the right people at the right time I in no way lift the shadow of my treatment from [wife] if it remains in some way secret between me and [wife] that I’ve been coming to an abusers group. I need to be accountable to the world, not just to [wife], for my behavior. I believe in accountability. I need to be accountable to everyone and take responsibility myself. I am absolutely accountable and wholly responsible for my behavior, I’m still a complete bastard but I want to learn to behave nicely. (D4)

In taking responsibility, the men also suggested that they needed to make sure that responsibility was taken away from others, usually their partners. The following desister offers more of a change narrative around who is responsible for his behavior, that is, a move away from suggesting that his violence was his wife’s fault to retraining his thinking into the realization the fault lies firmly with him.

Then when the order got lifted, after the court case we started sort of talking to each other and seeing each other again. Spending more time with my little one but there was still, it wasn’t anger, I was still determined I wanted to change but I still had this little bit of resentment in the back of my head and you know there was always that niggling thought why, this is your (his partner) fault I’m doing this [using violence] and then it was just trying to retrain my brain into thinking, you know, it’s not her fault, you are the person that’s done it. (D9)

The findings in this theme have been previously reported in other studies (e.g., Catlett et al., 2010; Scott & Wolfe, 2000; Semiatin, Murphy, & Elliott, 2013), where it is suggested that taking responsibility for past violence and abuse is important for behavior change. It has been proposed that those who display honesty about and responsibility for their abuse tend to be the most successful in changing their abusive behaviors (Scott & Wolfe, 2000). This was certainly echoed in the narratives in the current study.

Identify self as agent for change

This basic theme is represented by two subthemes that illustrate how, within the men’s narratives, they talked about assigning certain characteristics and behaviors to themselves that they felt meant they took on identities of individuals who have stopped using violence against their partners. The men look to the self (i.e., internally) and attribute themselves with characteristics, behaviors, and beliefs that are aligned with individuals who are nonviolent. The narration of the self, therefore, produces agentic movement for the men. The concept of agency in the general offending literature is often deemed to have a pivotal role for those “going straight,” and this is starting to emerge for these IPV offenders. This theme links to active management of propensity and gives an insight into individual propensity to be violent. There was, however, no evidence that the men had taken on completely new identities as nonoffenders (as found by others, for example, Maruna, 2001), although this finding is associated with long-term desistance. However, the men did discuss how aspects of their identities were different, as they attempted to maintain violence-free relationships. This may well relate to the fact that the individuals are experiencing primary desistance. There is evidence that self-identity is important in the desistance process and that individuals make changes to their personal identities and self-narratives, and this results in new, improved selves that no longer cognitively or emotionally align with offending (Farrall, 2002; Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002; Maruna, 2001; Vaughan, 2007).

The two subthemes that are all associated with this basic theme are manage characteristics and emotions to create different identity and motivation to change. The men assigned themselves with characteristics and mind-sets incompatible with individuals who engage in IPV. This was observed in the men’s explanatory style (Peterson, Buchanan, & Seligman, 1995), which has been linked to desistance in the general offending literature (Maruna, 2004). In the new ways of being, the men attribute not being violent to internal attributes (e.g., identify self as agent for change), and they execute processes of positive-internal attributions. Maruna (2004) has suggested that processing biases that encompass positive-internal attributions seem to be most supportive of desistance from offending.

Manage characteristics and emotions to create different identity

This theme was found in the majority of desisters’ and facilitators’ accounts, but only two of the persisters and one survivor referred to this. The key element of this theme is that it refers to managing preexisting characteristics and emotions (or propensity). In their early desistance narratives, the men explained that to stop using violence they need to manage their propensities, which are dynamic, so that they do not go over the threshold that then leads to violence. Although this leads to different identities, the men discussed how they still acknowledge that these characteristics remain underlying features of who they are, and therefore, there is always the possibility this could lead to violence again. This desister is not saying his violence is an illness per se but sees it as comparable in that both need to be managed. Again the theme represents an active involvement by the offenders as this management requires cognitive effort.

I think it’s (violent characteristic) always going to be in me . . . it’s how you decide to live with it. I see it as not necessarily an illness, but you know, when you’ve got an illness that you’ve got to learn to manage it. I think if I don’t manage myself and my situation, like if I let things get on top of me, or if I get down or depressed, there is the potential to be violent. Because you stop thinking about you need to be doing and that’s when the things you shouldn’t be doing happen all the things. (D8)

The men’s narratives underscore that they suggest they become agents for change, as opposed to individuals who previously had seen their characteristics as being part of the ways they were and as something they could not control. In the persistence narratives, violence was explained through negative internal attributions (e.g., P7: Yeah kind of, just thought I done it [punched partner] because I’m a bad person). Across all the groups, there was talk about the need to manage certain traits and characteristics (e.g., aggressive, angry, defensive, opinionated). This links to managing propensities, particularly self-control, which is one of the characteristics that the men identified they needed to manage. Some researchers have proposed that self-control is not absolutely stable within a person (Hay & Forrest, 2006; Mitchell & MacKenzie, 2006; Winfree, Taylor, He, & Esbensen, 2006) and fluctuates over time in response to individual experiences (Muraven, Baumeister, & Tice, 1999; vanDellen & Hoyle, 2010). It could therefore be argued that self-control is potentially renewed as individuals’ personal circumstances of change (new way of being). One of the survivors in her account talks about her partner who had stopped using violence and saw this as a result of his behavior change in him being calmer and therefore easier to reason with (S3: He’s a lot calmer now than he used to be. He is a lot calmer. You can reason with him now). Numerous interviewees discussed how their desistance related to managing their characteristics and highlight that these were choices they made, meaning they have become “calmer,” “more relaxed,” “laid back,” “mellowed,” and “level-minded.” The narrative below shows how previously this desister described himself as a “growler” and as argumentative (with not only his partner but also other members of his family); yet, as a nonviolent individual, he sees himself as calm and placid, which he identified as being “normal.”

It’s about your own choices and your own behavior. I’m calm, placid, normal. . . . They would describe me as a growler, I would get angry and grrr and growl at them . . . now I don’t growl no more, I’m very calm. My sister said to me the other day, you’ve changed but it’s all for the better, you know, and I said at least we don’t argue no more. . . . So I take myself out of the situation now. Whereas before I’d be like grrr grrrr with me own sisters and me own brothers, my other half, you know, and that’s not a good thing, you know. (D5)

Motivation to change

This subtheme represents how the men are required to be motivated as individuals to achieve a nonviolent way of being. This is a dynamic state, and consists of the desires and willingness of the men to change. To maintain nonviolent lifestyle behaviors, each man has to genuinely want to put the effort in and have an incentive to do this–for example, a better relationship or access to children. The following desister talked about initially not being motivated to change, but that this altered once treatment started and when he saw the potential benefits (seeing daughter) which all brought about the realization that this would have benefited him years ago.

I said to them at first, I’m not being funny, but you want to put me on a course that I don’t want to do, but you know, as I started it, I was, I will complete the course, I will participate in everything. I’m doing it (treatment). I have had to fight to see my daughter, you know, and that is why I am doing it. I would have done it years ago, but like I said, probation wouldn’t put me on it. That’s what I needed years ago. (D6)

Similarly, Stanley, Graham-Kevan, and Borthwick (2012) found that desire to regain access to children was an extrinsic form of motivation to change for perpetrators of IPV, and desire to become “better fathers” functioned as a form of intrinsic motivation to change. All of the facilitators talk extensively about how they believed motivation was an essential requirement, but this concept is less widespread in the other accounts and not found at all from the persisters. In fact, the persisters, in contrast, seemed to be more passive than active, about the desire to change, as common in their accounts about their ability to change was that this was a “hope” rather than a definite action that they would be taking (e.g., P1: I hope that I can do this. But I’ve seen other guys that can’t, do you know what I mean? So I’m just, I know that I can see at the time you could easily let it slip again if you wanted; P2: I hope to [stay violence free]. I would like to but, because I really believe it, but I’m not 100% sure or convinced myself yet). However, the survivors, in their accounts, acknowledge that it is down to their individual partners to want to make the change, again seeing this as an active process (e.g., S5: He’s got to want to change . . . he’s got to want to do it). Likewise, in this desister’s narrative, he clearly understands that his ability to change and be different comes from his active determination and desire to change.

That’s it, you have to have the determination. It’s no good just saying, you know, I’m going to change for 5 minutes You’ve got to want it (to be violence free). Mine has just been sheer determination. I am changing but I want to. I want to actually be different. Because I’d tried before, I tried before, I tried before and it hasn’t, I haven’t done no, made no difference. This time I want help, I want to change. (D12)

The importance of motivation is very apparent in all of the facilitators’ accounts (e.g., F8: There has to be a motivation. . . . If it’s not there, no I don’t think things will change). Here, there is a general consensus that each man needs to be “motivated” to change and have a “willingness,” “desire,” and “openness” to change. This is consistent with the findings that treatment is more beneficial for those who are motivated as opposed to those who are not (Bowen & Gilchrist, 2006; Kistenmacher & Weiss, 2009), and that motivation improves during and after treatment (Connors, Mills, & Gray, 2012).

The organizing theme permission to be nonviolent (and its associated basic themes and subthemes) encapsulates how the men appear to create different personas and embrace behaviors that are associated with being nonviolent. Desistance is connected to a change in self-storying and cognitively divorcing “the person I was from the person I am now” (Stevens, 2012, p. 541); although in the current study, the men do not at this stage provide evidence that they completely change their identity, they offer a redefinition of who they are. It is clear in this theme how important agency is in the desistance process. Through self-awareness, the men take responsibility and ownership for their abuse and see themselves as, and become agents for, change. When the men are agents of violence, they look externally to blame their partners and internally to justify their violence. However, in their new ways of being, the men recognize that their behaviors are wrong, they take responsibility, they are accountable for their behaviors, and they crucially do some things about their behaviors; the men, therefore, become agents for change and are nonviolent.

Group pressure, influence, and support

This theme was found mostly in the facilitators’ accounts, although it was acknowledged by a small proportion of the desisters (four), and by one persister and one survivor. The influence of the group was found to be a particularly strong support system. This finding has also been reported by other researchers (Daniels & Murphy, 1997; Sheehan et al., 2012; Silvergleid & Mankowski, 2006), who have found that relationships with other men in treatment groups facilitated behavioral change, particularly through positive feedback that reinforced and shaped behavior change, and through manifesting the feeling in the men that they were not alone in this. Within these early desistance narratives, it was seen that being challenged by your peers appeared to have enormous impact on the men, more so than if the challenge came from other people (e.g., facilitators and partners). Kelly and Westmarland (2015) suggested that change in partner-abusive men was associated with being challenged by peers. One of the facilitators talked extensively about group pressure and how power comes from within the group, by group members sharing their accounts of success:

One or two people that attend the group that have had their arms twisted behind their backs by Social Services . . . the volunteers will drag the other men up to their level. No, you’ve got to change your behavior, that’s why you’re here. So the power comes from within the group. And its peer pressure as opposed to facilitator pressure. You’ve got to open up. And then you get the experienced group members saying, “I was like that when I first got here, this is what I done and it worked for me, it might work for you.” So there is a lot of peer pressure within the group and the ethos is for the men to challenge each other respectfully and then utilize the respectful behavior within their relationship as well. (F6)

The influence of the group serves unique purposes for the men at different points in their pathways to nonviolence. The group initially is influential as it challenges men, so that they can see their behaviors are wrong and they then start to understand what they need to change as they start the process of desistance. However, as time goes on, this changes as the men then become the ones who are challenging others. This is perhaps a reflection that they have grasped what is needed to change and why. What was particularly found in the desisters’ and facilitators’ accounts was that the men saw “new” offenders coming in the group, which made them realize how they used to be and how they were different now—they see their “old-self” in others, which is a contrast to how they describe themselves now. This external factor acted as reinforcement for the men to remain violence-free. This was summarized very well in the narrative of one of the desisters who identified his change in behavior by recognizing his old self in others, which emphasized how much he has changed. As well as this recognition, part of his narrative is also about challenging others (and in effect his old self) about this problematic attitude.

We had new people starting. They were sort of in denial, and it’s like, yeah, I was like that 8 months ago or whatever. And then you could tell them you’re thinking exactly what I was thinking months ago and it’s not the right way to think . . . it was that that reinforced that I’ve changed and I knew what, how I should be behaving and that also I could see me in them. And that’s so, and it was that the real force that I’ve changed and I knew what, how I should be behaving and that also I could see me in them. Instead, I say you’re wrong, that’s not right. (D10)

Group influence was therefore important in facilitating a paradigm change to their new way of being, and this was seen in how the men’s accounts reflect a change in their identities within the group. Kelly and Westmarland (2015) found group work to be part of what enables men to change, particularly through them seeing themselves in others. In the current study, to start with, the men saw the group members as the “others” (Hudson & Bramhall, 2005; Murray, 2010); this is the suggestion that they were not like the offenders in the program and so would try and distance themselves from them. However, as they were challenged by the men and heard the accounts from these “others,” this initiated recognition of their own abuse and acknowledgment they are in fact the same as the others in the group. Their roles and identities then changed again as they became the challengers and not the ones being challenged. This change in role and the self was not seen in the persisters’ narratives, who were still in the early stages of treatment and, therefore, had not made the transitional change at that point in time.

Support and encouragement from others

This theme relates to another external influence that was discussed and described as a factor that enabled the men to maintain violence-free ways of being. Again, it is the renarration of the self (Vaughan, 2007), in light of these external factors, that produces agentic movement. This theme was identified from the desisters’ and facilitators’ accounts, but was not seen in the persisters’ and survivors’ accounts. This external influence comes in the form of positive encouragement/feedback from others, namely, their partners. Positive feedback increases motivation to pursue goals, encourages goal persistence, and may prevent disengagement (Fishbach & Finkelstein, 2012). Positive feedback was a support mechanism that encouraged the men to maintain being violence-free, once the decision to stop had been made and they had started using new behaviors in their relationships. This encouragement acts to reinforce the new behaviors and different self as positive changes by rewarding the men for their modified behaviors and their new ways of being. In one of the facilitator’s accounts of their experience in group work, he reflects that part of the process is reminding the offenders that fundamentally they have aspects that are good, such as being a loving father, and then reinforcing the positive steps that the men are taking, which will result in desistance.

When they are getting that positive feedback, and when you know . . . we do tell them, if you start behaving respectfully and loving to your partner, she will do the same to you . . . if they get that reward, so to speak . . . that reinforces the behavior and then you are on a road to, you know, desistance. They need the support of their partner. So it is a constant process of doing behavior and reflecting and reinforcing the positives. You know, we do encourage that. That’s something I do believe in. (F3)

Several of the desisters explained about the importance of external support and this included extended family and friends. However, it was their partners’ support that was described as being the most important, particularly their encouragement. This seemed to confirm to the men that they were doing the right things, were on the right pathways, and, importantly, motivated the men to continue these ways. In the following account from one of the desisters, he clearly explains his motivation to continue along the path of desistance as being driven not only by being praised during the intervention he was attending but also specifically from his partner.

Because I mean I wanted to prove to myself and everyone that, you know, I could do it [stop using violence] And the more and more I got praised in [intervention] and more and more hearing good things from [partner], you know, when [partner] would write me a note in the morning saying, “I’m happy with the way things are going,” little things like that, but it meant enough to me to sort of give me that motivation to keep going. (D9)

This final organizing theme gives an insight into the narratives about the external support networks that were identified as being important mechanisms during the process of primary desistance. It refers to the external structures that the individuals suggested needed to be in place to promote the process of change and initiate the men to reevaluate their life and make sense of who they are. This factor seemed to run alongside the two other organizing themes presented, to make up lifestyle behaviors (nonviolent). Once at this stage of the process within the narratives, there are frequent references to the fact the IPV desisters recognized their behaviors were abusive and had taken responsibility for their violence. They look to identify themselves as agents of change and put strategies in place and adopt mind-sets to stop using physical violence against intimates. External support is also required to assist this process and help with the maintenance of violence-free lives. Based on the current data, this has been achieved for at least a year and so still remains a “new way of being.” What still needs to be examined in the narratives offered is when long-term desistance is achieved and nonviolence is simply a “way of being.”

Implications for theory

In conducting this study, there are some conceptual issues raised that have implications for theorizing about desistance from IPV. Theories in relation to general desistance have not been applied to IPV, yet it is seen from the current research that desistance from IPV can be better understood under a theoretical framework that integrates social processes and subjective change. It was not clear how relevant criminal propensity was in relation to desistance from IPV as this was not specifically identified in the narratives, although arguably understanding if this is relevant might be better suited to a quantitative approach. Primary desistance from IPV involved redefinition of the self and agency. Within the narratives, a paradigm shift that involved fundamental changes in individuals’ values, beliefs, and behaviors was evident, that is, the new way of being for the individuals. It is both structure and agency that are involved in this process. Environments and external structures that are conducive to personal change also needed to be in place. It is not the external factors and structures per se that make individuals change but the renarration of the self in light of external and structural influences that facilitates agentic moves that produce positive change (Vaughan, 2007). Through their early desistance narratives, the IPV offenders built a coherent version of the self (i.e., permission to be nonviolent), actively influenced and managed social environments (i.e., manage antecedents and triggers to violence), and this was all achieved within supportive and conducive environments for change (i.e., external support and input).

Desistance from IPV must be theorized as a process made up of different stages of change, although this should not be conceptualized as a linear process that follows a set pattern of progress, direction, or order of stages. This perhaps aligns with the TTM, which it argued is best represented as a spiral progression through stages as individuals rarely go through stages of change in a linear fashion, but rather relapse and revisit one or more stages (Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992). Desistance from IPV needs to be theorized as a complex process that involves a dynamic pathway on which there may be key identifiable phases that promote or inhibit the likelihood of desistance. The precise nature of how the process of change progresses and evolves is likely to be idiosyncratic.

When theorizing about desistance from IPV, it is clear that this does not “just happen” and is not a spontaneous event. It has previously been suggested in the general offending literature that external structures influence criminal behavior by what might be described as desistance “by default” (Laub & Sampson, 2003, p. 278) and that commitment to desist is not made by great forethought but rather “by default” as individuals commit to go straight without realizing it. However, this was not the case in the current study, suggesting that primary desistance does need upfront work (Maruna, 2001), a commitment to change, and that the redefinition of the self and identity is a conscious choice that is facilitated by an awareness of the need to change and a desire to change. Desistance from IPV can therefore be theorized as an active process that takes hard work, commitment, and a conscious choice, as desistance from IPV by default is unlikely to happen.

Implications for practice

As desistance from IPV is a complex process and not a static one-off event, interventions must understand this and identify ways to manage setbacks and difficulties (e.g., relapse and revisits to different stages of the process of change) and reduce the risk of them occurring in the future. From a practice point of view, the relevance of these findings is that early facilitation to enable partner-abusive men to amend existing identities and then construct new ones (e.g., found in permission to be nonviolent) could increase the likelihood of desistance. As desistance is about discovering agency, interventions are more likely to be effective if they encourage self-determination and therefore work with offenders. In addition, interventions also need to assist offenders in recognizing, creating, or utilizing structural influences (e.g., managing antecedents and triggers to violence and external support and input) that, when in place, are also likely to promote and encourage agentic movement and renarration of the self. Interventions need to provide opportunities to practice and reinforce through feedback newly forming identities that were starting to emerge in the current research. It was seen that the process of change required hard work, commitment, and support from others, and these need to be acknowledged and facilitated in treatment. In addition, rather than making the emphasis of intervention holding an individual responsible for what they have done in the past, that is, “passive responsibility” (Maruna & Mann, 2006, p. 167), the focus needs to be placed on encouraging individuals to take control over their own lives and take “active responsibility” (seen as individuals managed antecedents and triggers to violence) for making things right in the future. It is argued that control over the future might be a valuable therapeutic tool (Ward & Brown, 2004). Intervention would benefit from taking a strengths-based approach, which has been identified as an effective approach for intervening with partner-abusive men (Curwood et al., 2011; Langlands, Ward, & Gilchrist, 2009; Lehmann & Simmons, 2009) and thereby not asking what that person’s deficits are, but rather what positive contribution the person can make to promote “good lives” as defined by the person themselves (Maruna & Roy, 2007). Focus needs to be placed on personal strengths and resources in individuals’ social networks that can help them overcome obstacles to desistance. Intervention should seek to empower individuals to achieve the new positive identity, roles, and life situations that have been empirically associated with successful desistance from IPV. In addition, there is a need to expand the availability of interventions so that all individuals have the opportunity to be helped and supported to achieve primary and then ultimately secondary desistance from IPV.

Implications for future research

The new model developed in this research needs to be tested across other groups of men who have used violence against intimate partners to assess its reliability, validity, and generalizability. This could be done either using a deductive qualitative methodology where an a priori template of coding is used (Ryan & Bernard, 2003), or by the development of a questionnaire. Research needs to examine this in different groups of men, that is, different cultures and ethnicities, types of partner-abusive men, different treatment settings (e.g., one-to-one), and for those who have not experienced formal intervention. In addition, research needs to include different types of IPV and abusive behaviors (e.g., psychological, sexual, controlling behaviors). Desisting from physical IPV does not necessarily mean that all abusive behaviors have stopped, and it has been found that other nonphysical behaviors (e.g., emotional and psychological violence) can be as, if not more, traumatic than physical violence for some victims (Mechanic, Weaver, & Resnick, 2008). Desisting from different types of IPV has not been fully studied, so changes in these behaviors over time, and the mechanisms associated with these changes, warrant further examination. To get a clearer and more nuanced understanding of the changes over time, it necessary to undertake some qualitative longitudinal research (QLR). It has been argued that this type of research is necessary to encompass the complexity of the interaction between the personal and social contexts (Farrall, 2006). Untangling this complex relationship will then provide an evidence base for intervention focus and practice. QLR enables researchers to understand the intricacies of change and continuity, the processes and structures within which these changes occur, and the agency of individuals in shaping these processes (Neale, Henwood, & Holland, 2012). It is suggested that through time, using QLR it is possible to discern how personal and social, agency and structure, and the macro and micro are interconnected (Neale & Flowerdew, 2003). QLR offers the opportunity to explore complex flows of time through which people organize and make sense of their lives (Neale et al., 2012), and an opportunity to examine change and constancy over time.

Researchers also need to extend their work on desistance from IPV to cover longer time periods and examine secondary or long-term desistance. It is vital that we understand the process of primary desistance, as this is a necessary condition for secondary desistance. However, research then needs to be extended to include the long term (i.e., over several years and perhaps decades) to understand whether and how this phase differs from the findings identified in the current research. In the current study, desistance was seen as “Lifestyle behaviors (nonviolent)—New way of being,” and an understanding of the mechanisms and framework that promoted and supported this were identified. Research needs to be extended to understand the mechanisms and frameworks that must be in place so that these lifestyle behaviors (nonviolent) are simply a “way of being” for the men, as desistance has been sustained long term. Through an examination of narratives of those who have desisted for years, an understanding of how external and structural factors interact with agency, and if and how this process differs in comparison with primary desistance, can be achieved. This is critical information for treating IPV offenders and enabling them to maintain the changes they achieve.