The proactive-reactive classification of intimate partner violence offenders: A multi-method approach to classification.

BACKGROUND: Men who commit violence against an intimate partner differ in their motives. Classifying the proactivity of men's partner violence may reveal important differences that could be treatment targets. AIMS: To examine the differences between proactive and reactive partner violence based on coded descriptions of past violent events. METHOD: Community cohabiting couples reporting intimate partner violence were recruited via advertisements. Men and women were independently interviewed about past male-to-female violent events. The narratives of a male perpetrator and a female victim were coded using a Proactive-Reactive coding system, yielding three categories of violence: reactive, mixed proactive/reactive and proactive. The three categories were compared for differences in personality disorder features, attachment, psychophysiological reactivity during a conflict discussion task, and a self- and partner report of men's proactive and reactive aggressive tendencies. RESULTS: The results revealed a 54% classification agreement between perpetrator and victim reports. No differences were found on personality or attachment measures between the groups regardless of gender of the reporter. Reactive violence was related to a tendency to self-report more reactive aggression and higher heart rate reactivity during a laboratory conflict discussion compared to the group reporting both proactive and reactive violent incidents. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a coding system for intimate partner violence can be applied to community volunteers, and it is a reliable report and valid. However, there are discrepancies when the coding is based on the perpetrator or victim reports.

Differential Treatment Response of Proactive and Reactive Partner Abusive Men: Results from a Laboratory Proximal Change Experiment.

Objective: The current study reexamines data from Babcock et al. (2011) proximal change experiment to discern the differential utility of two communication skills-based interventions for proactive and reactive partner violence offenders. Method: Partner violent men were randomly assigned to the Editing Out the Negative skill, the Accepting Influence skill, or to a placebo/timeout and reengaged in a conflict discussion with their partners. Proactivity was tested as a moderator of immediate intervention outcomes. The ability to learn the communication skills, changes in self-reported affect, observed aggression, and psychophysiological responding were examined as a function of proactivity of violence. Results: Highly proactive men had some difficulty learning the Accepting Influence skill and they responded poorly to this intervention. They responded positively to the Editing Out the Negative technique, with less aggression, more positive affect, and lower heart rates. Low proactive (i.e., reactive) men tended to feel less aggressive, more positive, and less physiologically aroused after completing the Accepting Influence technique. Conclusions: This study lends support for tailoring batterer interventions specific to perpetrator characteristics.

Objetivo: El presente estudio reexamina los datos de Babcock et al. (2011) con respecto a un experimento de cambio proximal para discernir la utilidad diferencial de dos intervenciones basadas en habilidades de comunicación para agresores de violencia de pareja proactivos y reactivos. Método: A los agresores se les asignó aleatoriamente a las condiciones habilidad de eliminar lo negativo, habilidad de aceptación de la influencia, o placebo/tiempo fuera y volvieron a participar en una discusión conflictiva con sus parejas. Se evaluó la proactividad como moderadora de los resultados proximales de la intervención. Se examinó la capacidad de aprender habilidades de comunicación, los cambios en el afecto autoinformado, la agresión observada y la respuesta psicofisiológica en función de la proactividad de la violencia. Resultados: Los hombres muy proactivos tuvieron algunas dificultades para aprender la habilidad de aceptación de la influencia y respondieron escasamente a esta intervención. Sin embargo, respondieron positivamente a la técnica de eliminar lo negativo, con menor agresión, más afecto positivo y una frecuencia cardíaca más baja. Los hombres poco proactivos (es decir, reactivos) tendían a sentirse menos agresivos, más positivos y menos activados fisiológicamente después de completar la técnica de aceptación de la influencia. Conclusiones: Este estudio proporciona apoyo a la adaptación de las intervenciones para maltratadores a las características específicas del agresor.

Differential Treatment Response of Proactive and Reactive Partner Abusive Men: Results from a Laboratory Proximal Change Experiment / [La respuesta al tratamiento diferencial de hombres maltratadores proactivos y reactivos: los resultados de un experimento de cambio proximal de laboratorio]

Objective: The current study reexamines data from Babcock et al. (2011) proximal change experiment to discern the differential utility of two communication skills-based interventions for proactive and reactive partner violence offenders. Method: Partner violent men were randomly assigned to the Editing Out the Negative skill, the Accepting Influence skill, or to a placebo/timeout and reengaged in a conflict discussion with their partners. Proactivity was tested as a moderator of immediate intervention outcomes. The ability to learn the communication skills, changes in self-reported affect, observed aggression, and psychophysiological responding were examined as a function of proactivity of violence. Results: Highly proactive men had some difficulty learning the Accepting Influence skill and they responded poorly to this intervention. They responded positively to the Editing Out the Negative technique, with less aggression, more positive affect, and lower heart rates. Low proactive (i.e., reactive) men tended to feel less aggressive, more positive, and less physiologically aroused after completing the Accepting Influence technique. Conclusions: This study lends support for tailoring batterer interventions specific to perpetrator characteristics.(AU)

Objetivo: El presente estudio reexamina los datos de Babcock et al. (2011) con respecto a un experimento de cambio proximal para discernir la utilidad diferencial de dos intervenciones basadas en habilidades de comunicación para agresores de violencia de pareja proactivos y reactivos. Método: A los agresores se les asignó aleatoriamente a las condiciones habilidad de eliminar lo negativo, habilidad de aceptación de la influencia, o placebo/tiempo fuera y volvieron a participar en una discusión conflictiva con sus parejas. Se evaluó la proactividad como moderadora de los resultados proximales de la intervención. Se examinó la capacidad de aprender habilidades de comunicación, los cambios en el afecto autoinformado, la agresión observada y la respuesta psicofisiológica en función de la proactividad de la violencia. Resultados: Los hombres muy proactivos tuvieron algunas dificultades para aprender la habilidad de aceptación de la influencia y respondieron escasamente a esta intervención. Sin embargo, respondieron positivamente a la técnica de eliminar lo negativo, con menor agresión, más afecto positivo y una frecuencia cardíaca más baja. Los hombres poco proactivos (es decir, reactivos) tendían a sentirse menos agresivos, más positivos y menos activados fisiológicamente después de completar la técnica de aceptación de la influencia. Conclusiones: Este estudio proporciona apoyo a la adaptación de las intervenciones para maltratadores a las características específicas del agresor.(AU)

Collateral Report of Psychopathy: Convergent and Divergent Validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form.

Psychopathy is a personality syndrome comprised of interpersonal, affective, and behavioral features that has emerged as a correlate of intimate partner violence perpetration. One commonly used self-report measure of psychopathy is the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form. The current study employed a multi-trait, multi-method approach to test convergent and discriminant validity of the measure in partner-violent couples by comparing males' self-report of psychopathy to the informant report of their female partner (N = 114). It was hypothesized that the female partner-report of the male's psychopathy would be highly correlated with the male report of his own psychopathy, thus providing evidence for the construct validity and interrater reliability of the PPI-SF. Analyses found that male and female reports were correlated significantly on the two major factors of the PPI-SF. Furthermore, the female-report explained a significant amount of variance over and above men's self-report on PAI scales designed to indicate antisocial personality traits.