Typologies of Batterers

Intimate Partner Violence by men against women has been broadly categorized as "patriarchal/intimate terrorism" and "common/situational couple violence." The former group includes men who employ violence in order to dominate or control their family member(s). This violence typically incorporates all four types of behavior (physical assault, sexual abuse, emotional/psychological abuse, and threats/verbal violence), as well as using economic (e.g., financial support) and social leverage (e.g., isolation) to dominate others. In contrast, Common Couple Violence is more likely to be in response to the stress and pressures of life within the family. Where control is an issue, it is more likely to be a family member’s attempt to control what they perceive as out-of-control circumstances. While Patriarchal Terrorism indicates rage, Common Couple Violence indicates frustration. (Johnson 1995; Johnson and Leone 2005) A further difference is that Patriarchal Terrorism normally joins physical violence with psychological abuse as a strategy to subordinate their partner and exercise power. (Wexler 1999)

Perpetrators themselves have been sub-typed into three categories: Generally Violent/Antisocial Batterer (Type 1); Family-Only Batterer (Type 2), and Dysphoric/Borderline Batterer (Type 3). Type 1 batterers do not limit their violence to the home, use violence instrumentally (i.e., strategically for perceived gain), and are likely to engage in both criminal activity and substance abuse. Their psychological conditions are also very resistant to treatment. Type 2 batterers are usually violent only at home and are often provoked by jealous feelings for his partner. Their violence tends to erupt after a period of repressed anger, resentment, and bitterness. Type 3 batterers often present feelings of inadequacy, tend to misinterpret the actions of family members, are prone to blame others for their own negative emotions, struggle with effective communication, and are more “socially incompetent” than Type 1 or 2 batterers. (Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart 1994; Wexler 1999)

One special consideration with regard to these typologies is a study relating the perpetrator’s typology to partner forgiveness (Tsang and Stanford 2006). Specifically, victims of intimate partner violence were more forgiving toward Type 1 than Type 2/3 batterers.

For example, [a victim's] benevolence was related negatively and avoidance and revenge positively to [a perpetrator's] depression, paranoia, and schizophrenia. Additionally, avoidance and revenge were positively related to anxiety, drug problems, suicidal ideation and stress. In contrast, dominance in offenders was associated positively with benevolence and negatively with avoidance and revenge in victims. (Tsang and Stanford 2006: 11-12)

Empathy on the part of the victims was correlated with forgiveness. The authors hypothesized that victims of Type 1 batterers are more vulnerable to emotional manipulation and warned that “these data illustrate a vicious cycle between dominant batterers who continually elicit empathy from forgiving women, raising the possibility of tolerance for sustained abuse” (Tsang and Stanford 2006: 14). Similarly, victims of Type 2/3 batterers are perhaps less able to empathize with them due to their psychological and emotional volatility, even though these batterers respond better to treatment than Type 1 batterers. (n1)

Finally, the utility of batterer typologies has also come under increased scrutiny, especially due to the ease by which these typologies can become reified. Typologies remain a source of controversy in the literature, both in the sense of proposals for competing models and in questioning the concept's validity and helpfulness. (Capaldi and Kim 2007) A more dyadic, less typological model proposed by Capaldi and Kim (2005) balances three areas of emphases: characteristics of all (not just one) partners in the violent cycle; risk context and contextual factors; and the interaction patterns within the relationships.

***Notes

1)“Clinicians may help partners of dominant abusers think more critically about forgiveness, which may be influenced more by partners’ charismatic personality rather than by any mitigation of abuse. Clinicians might also use this data to help partners of impulsive abusers, who may be hesitant to forgive given the abuser’s wide range of problems without realizing that impulsive abusers are more likely than dominant abusers to respond to treatment....” (Tsang and Stanford 2006: 14-15)