INTERVENTION PROGRAM FOR PERPETRATORS OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

Intervention Program for Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence



Intervention Program for Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent health and communal problem that cuts over socio-economic, heritage, and ethnic boundaries ([Balci and Ayranci, 2005], [Graham et al., 2009], [Hegarty et al., 2000], [Johnson et al., 2008] and [Klap et al., 2007]). Although there is no unanimously agreed-upon definition of IPV (Hamberger, 2005), it can be broadly appreciated as the use or threat of physical, sexy, and/or psychological violence among current or former intimate partners (Arias & Corso, 2005). Research shows that both men and women perpetrate violence against their partners, although the consequences of this violence are general more detrimental to women than men in terms of frequency and severity of wounds, time needed off work, and use of medical, mental health and fairness scheme services ([Archer, 2000], [Arias and Corso, 2005] and [Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000]). Existing research suggests that as many as 30 to 54% of women in Western countries will experience at least one episode of physical IPV in their lifetime (Reisenhofer & Seibold, 2007).

Despite the prevalence of IPV, few investigations have analyzed the insights of those involved in partner violence in an effort to understand why, in their minds, the violence occurred — that is, the reason, cause or interpretation people give for why they or their partner acted aggressively. Yet, persons' insights are centered to their own familiarity of violence and the kind in which they behave in the face of violence from others. Therefore, insights of both feminine and male perpetrators and victims can supply significant insight into intimate partner violence thead covering may not be apparent from more objective assesses of risk components, such as demographic characteristics of victims and perpetrators or heritage components affiliated with IPV (see WHO, 2009).

Causal attribution idea is helpful for comprehending the importance of perceptions surrounding IPV and for articulating how this knowledge can be utilised in the development of productive avoidance programming. Attribution idea focuses on the ways in which persons explain the events that occur to them and on how these insights are very resolute by their perspective in the event (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Weiner's (1992) attribution idea of motivation is particularly helpful for comprehending the relevance of seen causes for IPV for intervention and prevention efforts. First, his dimension of locus (i.e., whether the cause is interior or external to the one-by-one) distinguishes whether a person attributes blame to him/herself, to someone else, or to other framework factors. The second dimension, steadiness, mentions to if the perceived cause is malleable. For example, aggression attributed to someone's character (e.g., “he was aggressive to me because he is mean”) will expected be seen as less malleable than aggression attributed to someone's transient feeling (e.g., “he was hard-hitting to me because he was so angry”). The third dimension is controllability. This dimension engages the span to which the perpetrator is seen as being adept to command, ...