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

• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20969945
• Author: Meg Stairmand,Devon L. L. Polaschek,Louise Dixon
• Date: 01 May 2021
• Published date: 01 May 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20969945

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2021, Vol. 65(6-7) 790 –812

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20969945

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Pathways to Family Violence:

Investigating Patterns in

the Event Process of Family

Violence Perpetrators

Meg Stairmand1 , Louise Dixon2,

and Devon L. L. Polaschek1

Abstract

This study is part of a larger research project that developed the event process

model of family violence (FVEPM). The FVEPM was developed by applying grounded

theory methods to the event narratives of 14 men and 13 women completing

community-based family violence (FV) perpetrator treatment programs. The

current study extends this work with the original sample, by examining the routes

individual events take through the FVEPM. Three main pathways—comprising

93% of event narratives—were identified: a conflict escalation pathway (n = 14),

an automated violence pathway (n = 6), and a compliance pathway (n = 6). Our

findings extend existing FV typologies and theories by identifying patterns of

features pertaining to the individual, the relationship, and the situation that

converge to result in FV perpetration during a FVE. Further validation and

development of the pathways may provide FV practitioners with an organizing

framework from which to identify more nuanced assessment, treatment planning,

and risk management processes for the diverse range of FV perpetrators they are

tasked with treating.

Keywords

family violence, offense process, offense pathways, female perpetrators, treatment

1University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

2Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Corresponding Author:

Louise Dixon, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140,

New Zealand.

Email: louise.dixon@vuw.ac.nz

969945IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20969945International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyStairmand et al.

research-article2020

Stairmand et al. 791

The heterogeneity of family violence (FV) perpetrators has long been recognized

(Dixon & Browne, 2003; Dixon et al., 2007). In an effort to make sense of this het-

erogeneity, typologies of intimate partner violence (IPV) have emerged. These

typologies largely focus on the individual characteristics and patterns of aggressive

behavior of male perpetrators of IPV (Dixon & Browne, 2003). For example,

Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) developed a typology of male IPV perpetra-

tors based on three dimensions: violence frequency and severity, violence generality,

and batterer psychopathology. Family-only batterers perpetrate minor and infre-

quent physical IPV, only use violence within their intimate relationship, and exhibit

little psychopathology. They report limited childhood exposure to FV and partner-

specific communication difficulties, do not endorse violence-supportive beliefs, and

experience intrapersonal (e.g., emotional regulation) difficulties to a lesser degree

than other types. Dysphoric/borderline batterers perpetrate moderate to severe phys-

ical, psychological, and sexual IPV, occasionally use violence outside of their inti-

mate relationship, and exhibit psychopathology such as substance abuse, emotional

volatility, and personality disorder. They report frequent childhood exposure to FV,

violence-supportive beliefs, insecure attachment, and emotional regulation and part-

ner-specific communication difficulties. Finally, generally violent/antisocial batter-

ers perpetrate moderate to severe physical, psychological, and sexual IPV, often use

violence outside of their intimate relationship, and exhibit significant psychopathol-

ogy. They report the highest levels of childhood exposure to FV, a lack of empathy,

impulsivity, violence-supportive beliefs, and communication and conflict resolution

difficulties across multiple relationships.

Whereas Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) typology considers IPV at an

individual level, Johnson’s (2006) typology takes a dyadic approach. Johnson consid-

ers patterns of violence and control by both persons in an intimate relationship: Either

one person is violent and controlling (“intimate terrorism”), both persons are violent

and controlling (“mutual violent control”), both persons are violent but only one is

controlling (“violent resistance”), or one or both persons are violent but neither is

controlling (“situational couple violence”). These types align with Holtzworth-Munroe

and Stuart’s typology: Situational couple violence resembles family-only batterers,

and intimate terrorism resembles dysphoric/borderline and generally violent/antisocial

batterers (Johnson, 2006).

By offering insight into different etiologies of IPV perpetration, typologies can

provide a framework for identifying more nuanced treatment planning and risk man-

agement approaches (Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2020; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart,

1994). Nevertheless, FV researchers warn that typologies in their current form are not

well-developed and are too inflexible for their potential clinical utility to be realized

(Capaldi & Kim, 2007; Dixon & Browne, 2003). Further, typologies (cf. Johnson,

2006) typically fail to consider the role of relevant situational and interpersonal factors

that may usefully differentiate between types (Dixon & Browne, 2003; Holtzworth-

Munroe & Meehan, 2004). Indeed, the event process model of family violence

(FVEPM; Stairmand et al., 2019) highlights the importance of these factors in contrib-

uting to acts of FV.