A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Journal of Family Violence
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Intimate Partner Violence and the Duluth Model:
An Examination of the Model and Recommendations
for Future Research and Practice
Greg Bohall
1
&Mary-Jo Bautista
2
&Sabrina Musson
3
Published online: 11 October 2016
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global health
concern. Given the complexity of the act of violence coupled
with the difficulty of stabilizing the perpetrator and victim,
assessment and intervention continue to be substandard. The
Duluth Model is the predominant intervention for perpetrators
of IPV; however, it continues to be controversial and has re-
ceived significant criticism due to its narrow scope. The ob-
jective of this article is to identify the components of the
Duluth Model and compare to the advances in behavioral
sciences in order to implement a change in treatment for per-
petrators of IPV.
Keywords Intimate partner violence .Duluth model .
Domestic violence .Partner violence .Professional ethics
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious, yet preventable
international public health concern. IPV is the self-reported
experience of physical and/or sexual violence by a current or
former partner since the age of 15 years old (World Health
Organization [WHO] 2013); stalking and psychological ag-
gression were later added as types of IPV (Breiding et al.
2015). In their effort to understand the global impact that
IPV encompasses, WHO (2013) obtained global and regional
estimates of physical and/or sexual IPV based on data
extracted from 79 countries and 2 territories. The global life-
time prevalence of IPV among ever-partnered women was
found to be 30 %. The highest prevalence was in the
African, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Mediterranean WHO
regions where approximately 37 % of ever-partnered women
reported IPVat some point in their lives.
Data regarding male victims of IPV may be significantly
underreported due to the perception of the public and law
enforcement. Men who report IPV may be seen as cowardly,
feel embarrassed, and/or fear being laughed at or scorned
(Shuler 2010). Furthermore, few men report their abuse to
law enforcement due to the fear of disbelief and support ser-
vices offered (Allen-Collinson 2009). As a result, male vic-
tims do not freely admit being a victim of IPV at the hands of
females and, therefore, do not seek professional intervention
(Barber 2008). In their review of the previous 10 years of IPV
research, Desmarais et al. (2012)identifiedthatapproximately
one in five men has experienced physical violence in an inti-
mate relationship. This serious international public healthcon-
cern warrants further exploration into our prevention, assess-
ment, and treatment efforts.
The Complexity of Intimate Partner Violence
Violence is a multifaceted construct. Megargee (1982) de-
scribed four domains that influence criminal violence: instiga-
tion, inhibition, habit strength, and situation. The instigation
domain is the sum of the internal influences such as
cognitions, motivations, and feelings that incline a person to
behave violently, whereas inhibition is the sum of internal
influences that decrease the likeliness that a person would
behave violently. Habit strength refers to the static history of
violent and nonviolent behavior. The situation domain
consists of the external factors that impact violence. Meloy
*Greg Bohall
gregbohallpsyd@gmail.com; gregbohall@cheservices.com
1
Department of Clinical Psychology, CHE Behavioral Health
Services, Los Angeles, CA 90010, USA
2
Applied Behavioral Alternatives, Inc., Arcadia, CA, USA
3
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Research
Institute on Addictions, Buffalo, NY, USA
J Fam Viol (2016) 31:1029–1033
DOI 10.1007/s10896-016-9888-x
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.