Amy Holtzworth-Munroe

Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them.

Previous typologies of male batterers, including typologies developed by means of rational-deductive and empirical-inductive strategies, are reviewed. On the basis of this review, 3 descriptive dimensions (i.e., severity of marital violence, generality of the violence [toward the wife or toward others], and psychopathology/personality disorders) that consistently have been found to distinguish among subtypes of batterers are identified. These dimensions are used to propose a typology consisting of 3 subtypes of batterers (i.e., family only, dysphoric/borderline, and generally violent/antisocial). A developmental model of marital violence is then presented, and the previous literature is reviewed to examine how each batterer subtype might differ on variables of theoretical interest. Finally, some of the methodological limitations of previous typology research are reviewed, and suggestions for future work are offered.

Affect, Verbal Content, and Psychophysiology in the Arguments of Couples with a Violent Husband.

The purpose of this investigation was to study the affect, psychophysiology, and violent content of arguments in couples with a violent husband. On the basis of self-reports of violent arguments, there were no wife behaviors that successfully suppressed husband violence once it began; moreover, husband violence escalated in response to nonviolent as well as violent wife behaviors, whereas wife violence escalated only in reaction to husband violence or emotional abuse. Only wives were fearful during violent and nonviolent arguments. The observational coding of nonviolent arguments in the laboratory revealed that both battering husbands and their wives (DV) were angrier than their maritally distressed but nonviolent (DNV) counterparts. As predicted, on the more provocative anger codes, only DV men differed from their DNV counterparts. However, DV wives were as verbally aggressive toward their husbands as DV husbands were toward their wives. Language: en

Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart 1994 Batterer Typology

A. Holtzworth-Munroe and G. L. Stuart (1994) proposed that 3 subtypes (family only [FO], borderline-dysphoric [BD], and generally violent-antisocial [GVA]) would be identified using 3 descriptive dimensions (i.e., severity of marital violence, generality of violence, psychopathology) and would differ on distal and proximal correlates of violence. Maritally violent men (n = 102) and their wives were recruited from the community, as were 2 comparison groups of nonviolent couples (i.e., maritally distressed and nondistressed). Four clusters of violent men were identified. Three resembled the predicted subtypes and generally differed in the manner predicted (e.g., FO men resembled nonviolent groups: BD men scored highest on measures of dependency and jealousy; GVA men had the most involvement with delinquent peers, substance abuse, and criminal behavior; and both BD and GVA men were impulsive, accepted violence, were hostile toward women, and lacked social skills). The 4th cluster (i.e., low-level antisocial) fell between the FO and GVA clusters on many measures.

Violent versus nonviolent husbands: Differences in attachment patterns, dependency, and jealousy.

Two studies were conducted to compare the attachment patterns, dependency, and jealousy of violent and maritally distressed husbands with that of nonviolent-distressed and nonviolent-nondistressed husbands. In Study 1, participants completed the Adult Attachment Scale, Spouse Specific Dependency Scale, and Interpersonal Jealousy Scale. In Study 2, participants completed the Relationship Styles Questionnaire, Rempel Trust Scale, and Adult Attachment Interview. Results were generally consistent with hypotheses that, relative to nonviolent husbands, violent men would evidence more insecure, preoccupied, and disorganized attachment (e.g., anxiety about abandonment, discomfort with closeness, and difficulty in classifying attachment); more dependency on and preoccupation with their wives; and more jealousy and less trust in their marriage. In addition, the findings suggest that researchers need to more carefully compare various measures of attachment.

A brief review of the research on husband violence: Part II: the psychological effects of husband violence on battered women and their children

Abstract This is the second article, in a series of three, reviewing currently available empirical data on the problem of husband violence. As discussed in the introduction to this series of articles (see Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1995), marital violence is a serious problem in this country, affecting millions of couples and their children each year. While advocates for battered women have been actively helping women for over twenty years, marital violence has only received widespread attention from researchers and clinicians in the past 10 to 15 years. Thus, many psychologists did not receive formal training regarding marital violence and are not well informed about this problem. For example, Browne (1993) is concerned that therapists often misdiagnose and, thus, mistreat battered women (e.g., medicating depressive symptoms) because they do not consider that a female clients symptoms may be a consequence of abuse rather than a traditional psychiatric syndrome. Similarly, many clinicians do not adequately assess the possibility that the child problems they are treating may result from experiencing interparental violence. This paper was written to provide others, particularly clinicians, with an overview of the research data on battered wives and their children. By reviewing the available findings, we hope to provide information regarding the psychological effects of marital violence.

Attributing negative intent to wife behavior: The attributions of maritally violent versus nonviolent men.

This study compared attributions for negative wife behavior offered by three groups of husbands: 22 maritally violent and distressed, 17 nonviolent but maritally distressed, and 17 nonviolent and nondistressed. Husbands rated wife behaviors presented in nine hypothetical problematic marital situation vignettes. On a measure of responsibility attributions, violent husbands were more likely than nondistressed husbands to attribute negative intentions, selfish motivation, and blame to the wife. On a measure of possible negative wife intentions, violent husbands were more likely than either distressed or nondistressed men to attribute negative intentions to the wife. Exploratory analyses suggested that certain types of marital situations (e.g., jealousy and rejection from wife) were particularly likely to elicit attributions of negative intent from violent husbands.

Typologies of Men Who Are Maritally Violent Scientific and Clinical Implications

Varying levels and types of husband violence may be conceptualized as typologies of maritally violent men. Across studies, batterer subtypes resembling those proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) have been identified and generally found to differ in predicted ways. Longitudinal data from this study suggests that the subgroups continued to differ over three years. Over time, however, the placement of individual men into some subtypes was not stable. Whether to best conceptualize the heterogeneity among maritally violent men as differing subtypes or as variability along dimensions is considered. Clinical issues regarding the typology are discussed, including concern that the use of absolute cut-off points to identify subtypes is premature and consideration of using the typology to predict treatment outcome and to match interventions to subtypes. Regarding future research ideas, it is time to consider more immediate, situational and dyadic, processes leading to violence perpetration within each subtype.

Do subtypes of maritally violent men continue to differ over time

In previous batterer typology studies, only 1 study gathered longitudinal data and no research examined whether subtypes continue to differ from one another over time. The present study did so. We predicted that, at 1.5- and 3-year follow-ups, the subtypes identified at Time 1 (A. Holtzworth-Munroe, J. C. Meehan. K. Herron, U. Rehman, G. L. Stuart, 2000; family only, low level antisocial, borderline/dysphoric, and generally violent/antisocial) would continue to differ in level of husband violence and on other relevant variables (e.g., generality of violence, psychopathology, jealousy, impulsivity, attitudes toward violence and women). Although many group differences emerged in the predicted direction, not all reached statistical significance, perhaps because of small sample sizes. Implications of the findings (e.g.. not all marital violence escalates; possible overlap of the borderline/dysphoric and generally violent/antisocial subgroups) are discussed, as are methodological issues (e.g., need for more assessments over time, the instability of violent relationships).

A Brief Review of the Research on Husband Violence. Part III: Sociodemographic Factors, Relationship Factors, and Differing Consequences of Husband and Wife Violence

Abstract This is the third, and final, article in a series reviewing the currently available empirical literature on the problem of husband violence. In the first two papers, we reviewed research on male batterers (Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smutzler, & Sandin, 1995) and research on the effects of marital violence on battered women and their children (Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, & Sandin, 1995). Those papers primarily reviewed psychological correlates of violence at the level of the individual. Specifically, considering a variety of psychological variables, we examined how maritally violent and nonviolent men differ, how battered and nonbattered women differ, and how children growing up in maritally violent home differ from children in nonviolent homes. This final paper is designed to review variables that often are not considered to be individual difference or psychological variables. First, we will examine some of the socio-demographic correlates of marital violence. Second, we will review dyadic or relationship level variables—variables that emerge as important in studies comparing couples experiencing husband violence to nonviolent couples. Finally, since we are introducing the concept of dyadic level variables, introducing the possible role of wives in husband violence, we felt it necessary to add a section reviewing the evidence that husband and wife violence have differing consequences.

Research-structured vs clinically flexible versions of social learning-based marital therapy

The purpose of this study was to compare our structured research-based version of marital therapy from a social learning perspective with a clinically flexible version of the same treatment where treatment plans were individually-based and there was no specific number of treatment sessions. Thirty distressed married couples were randomly assigned to one of these two treatments. Assessment of outcome was based on global marital satisfaction, spouse reports of functioning in specific areas, and direct observational measures of communication. At posttest there were no differences in efficacy between structured and flexible treatments, although both treatments led to significant improvements. At a 6-month follow-up couples treated with the structured format were more likely to have deteriorated and flexibly treated couples were more likely to have maintained their treatment gains.