Jeffrey C. Meehan

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.

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).

Maritally violent men's heart rate reactivity to marital interactions: a failure to replicate the Gottman et al. (1995) typology

In an attempt to replicate the J. M. Gottman et al. (1995) batterer typology, 58 men who had engaged in moderate-to-severe marital violence in the past year were studied. The sample was split into Gottman et al.s Type 1 men (i.e., whose heart rates decreased, from baseline, during a marital conflict task) and Type 2 men (i.e., whose heart rates increased). The groups did not differ in the manner predicted on measures of marital violence, antisocial or aggressive-sadistic personality, drug dependence, criminality, general violence, childhood exposure to interparental violence, behavior during marital interactions, or relationship stability. Contrary to expectations, wives of Type 1 men rated their husband as more jealous and angry and reported more marital distress. In the only finding consistent with Gottman et al., Type 2 men scored higher on a measure of dependent personality. Implications for future research are discussed.

The Relationship of Intimate Partner Aggression to Head Injury, Executive Functioning, and Intelligence.

Measures of head injury, executive functioning, and intelligence were given to a community sample composed of 102 male perpetrators of intimate partner aggression (IPA) and 62 nonaggressive men. A history of head injury and lower mean score on a measure of verbal intelligence were associated with the frequency of male-perpetrated physical IPA as reported by male perpetrators and their female partners. Lower mean scores on a measure of verbal intelligence also predicted frequency of psychological IPA perpetration. Using the perpetrator subtypes outlined by Holtzworth-Munroe et al. (2000), analyses revealed that compared with other groups, the most severely aggressive subtypes (i.e., borderline-dysphoric and generally violent-antisocial) were the most likely to report a history of head injury and to have significantly lower mean scores on a neuropsychological test of verbal intelligence. The possible role of neuropsychological factors in IPA perpetration and implications for prevention and intervention programs are discussed.

Using Structural Equation Modeling With Forensic Samples

Because of its many advantages, structural equation modeling (SEM) has been used with increasing frequency in behavioral science, and it is a set of techniques that can be useful in analyzing forensic research data. Issues in SEM, including theory, estimation method, sample size and data requirements, identification, and fit indices are discussed. Using a sample of data from men arrested for domestic violence perpetration and court referred to treatment, examples of path analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and full structural models with latent variables are presented.

Heart rate reactivity in male batterers: reply to Gottman (2001) and a second look at the evidence.

Together, the results of 3 studies examining heart rate reactivity (HRR) in male batterers do not provide strong support for the J. M. Gottman et al. (1995) batterer typology. All research groups found similar proportions of severely violent male batterers who show heart rate increases or decreases during a marital conflict discussion, but there was inconsistent validation of this taxonomy on variables of interest. This difference was also found among less violent and nonviolent men. The authors believe HRR may be useful for differentiating batterers on the dimension of anger-hostility but are less optimistic that HRR will reliably identify psychopathic or antisocial batterers. The authors do not agree that low levels of marital interaction conflict led to their failure to replicate. Reanalysis of data from J. C. Meehan, A. Holtzworth-Munroe, and K. Herron (2001) suggests baseline artifacts may be an important determinant of HRR differences. Methodological changes may improve the reliability of HRR assessment.