Interpersonal problems and personality features as mediators between attachment and intimate partner violence.

Department of Human Services, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX 75962-3019, USA.
Violence and Victims (Impact Factor: 1.28). 06/2013; 28(3):414-28. DOI: 10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00031
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We examined whether hostile dominant interpersonal problems (HDIP), antisocial features, and borderline features mediated the relationship between attachment (anxiety or avoidance) and intimate partner violence (IPV) with a sample of 132 male partner abusers. We conducted two path analyses with avoidant attachment as the predictor in one model and anxious attachment as the predictor in a second model. In both models, HDIP, antisocial features, and borderline features were the mediators with IPV as the criterion. For both models, the attachment variable had statistically significant path values to the mediating variables. However, neither antisocial nor borderline features had statistically significant path values from the mediating variable to the criterion variable (IPV). Only HDIP had a statistically significant path value from the mediating variable to the criterion variable in both models. However, only the avoidant model produced a statistically significant specific indirect effect indicating that HDIP clearly mediated the relationship between attachment and IPV. Results suggest that partner abusive men with predominantly avoidant and, to a lesser degree, anxious attachment may be at increased risk for addressing conflicts in a coercive, controlling, and vengeful manner that is manifested in physical aggression toward a partner. Further, interpersonal constructs may be better measures of psychopathology and provide more relevant clinical targets than personality constructs with male partner abusers.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This meta-analytic review examines the findings of 22 studies evaluating treatment efficacy for domestically violent males. The outcome literature of controlled quasi-experimental and experimental studies was reviewed to test the relative impact of Duluth model, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and other types of treatment on subsequent recidivism of violence. Study design and type of treatment were tested as moderators. Treatment design tended to have a small influence on effect size. There were no differences in effect sizes in comparing Duluth model vs. CBT-type interventions. Overall, effects due to treatment were in the small range, meaning that the current interventions have a minimal impact on reducing recidivism beyond the effect of being arrested. Analogies to treatment for other populations are presented for comparison. Implications for policy decisions and future research are discussed.
    Clinical Psychology Review 02/2004; 23(8):1023-53. · 7.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate behavioral differences among nonviolent, unhappily married husbands and violent husbands with different attachment classifications on the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Main and Goldwyn, 1994). Twenty-three Domestically Violent (DV) husbands and 13 maritally distressed but non-violent (DNV) husbands were interviewed using the AAI. Violent husbands (74%) were more likely than the distressed/nonviolent husbands (38%) to be classified into one of the insecure categories on the AAI. As predicted, during laboratory arguments with their wives, dismissing husbands were the most controlling and distancing, and preoccupied husbands the least distancing, during marital interactions. Secure husbands were significantly more defensive than the two insecure types. Sequential analyses of reports of violent arguments at home revealed different patterns among different types of batterers. For the preoccupied batterers only, wife withdrawal was a significant predictor of husband violence. For the dismissing batterer only, wife defensiveness was a significant precursor to husband violence. It is theorized that preoccupied batterers' violence and emotional abuse is related to expressive violence in response to abandonment fears; whereas dismissing batterers use instrumental violence to assert their authority and to control their wives. The overlap between this and other typologies of violent men is explored.
    Journal of Family Violence 01/2000; 15(4). · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined whether an individual's attachment style and/or a couple's combination of attachment styles predicted violence within the marriage and explored whether other variables moderated the risk of violence. Measures of attachment style were administered to 41 discordant couples who presented to four different clinics. The couples' presenting complaints were not violence, and those who did report violence on questioning did not manifest severe violence, i.e., requiring shelters or legal intervention. Self-report measures of violence and marital satisfaction, including problem-solving communication, were also given. Using analysis of covariance and logistic regression, the relative contributions to strength of predicting being a victim of conjugal violence were calculated. An anxious attachment style was a significant predictor of females being victims of violence and of men not being victims. A dismissive style in men was predictive of men being victims when entered into the model with problem solving communication. The combination of anxiously attached females and dismissive males was a potent predictor of violence, and longer duration of marriage and poor problem-solving communication added power to the prediction. Marital interaction, which is influenced by couples' attachment styles and problem-solving communication, is a significant factor in marital partners experiencing physical violence. For couples with milder levels of violence, a more nuanced approach (compared with the legally based approach used for severe violence) seems indicated.
    Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease 01/2005; 192(12):857-63. · 1.81 Impact Factor