Según un estudio de EEUU
Su autor recomienda despolitizar el problema y prestar más atención a las víctimas masculinas de abuso en la pareja.
LIBERTAD DIGITAL 2013-05-27
Un proyecto llevado a cabo en Estados Unidos durante tres años por un grupo de 42 académicos de 20 universidades y centros de investigación ha concluido que mucho de lo que creemos saber sobre violencia doméstica no es cierto. "Aunque confirma que las mujeres sufren más el impacto de la violencia doméstica", asegura John Hamel, director de la investigación, "estos hallazgos recomiendan importantes cambios de políticas, incluyendo la necesidad de prestar más atención a la violencia cometida por mujeres, abuso mutuo y las necesidades de las víctimas masculinas".
El Proyecto sobre el Estado del Conocimiento del Abuso en Pareja (PASK, por sus siglas en inglés) es un compendio de más de 1.700 estudios publicados sobre este asunto cuyas conclusiones acaban de ser publicadas en la revista Partner Abuse. Excepto en lo referente a la coacción sexual, hombres y mujeres perpetran abusos físicos y no físicos en porcentajes similares, la mayor parte de la violencia doméstica es mutua, las mujeres son tan controladoras como los hombres, la violencia doméstica de hombres y mujeres está correlacionada con los mismos factores de riesgo y sus motivaciones son similares en ambos casos.
"A lo largo de los años, la investigación sobre el abuso en pareja se ha ido fragmentando y politizando innecesariamente", asegura Hamel, quien afirma que el proyecto está basado en la premisa de que "todos tenemos derecho a nuestra propia opinión, pero no a nuestros propios hechos".
No es la primera vez que los estudios muestran una imagen más compleja y alejada de la narrativa oficial. Por ejemplo, en 1989 el Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science publicó los resultados de una investigación que sí servía para avanzar la imagen de "violencia machista" que puebla el discurso político en España. Sin embargo, otra autora, Marilyn Kwong, volvió a analizar los datos diez años más tarde. Se habían olvidado de informar de los resultados que ofrecía la encuesta en dirección contraria. Así, por ejemplo, aunque el 10,8 por ciento de los hombres encuestados habían empujado, agarrado o lanzado objetos contra su pareja, el 12,4 por ciento de las mujeres también lo había hecho. Kwong examinó después otros ocho estudios y averiguó que el patrón se repetía.
http://domesticviolenceresearch.org
http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/FindingsAt-a-Glance.Nov.23.pdf
——-
DOCUMENTO PDF TRANSCRITO
1
Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project
Findings At-a-Glance
Sponsored by the Journal Partner Abuse, John Hamel, LCSW, Editor-in-Chief
1
www.springerpub.com/pa November, 2012
Editor’s Note: This is an abridged version of the Overview of Findings by the Authors document,
which summarizes the results of the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, a comprehensive,
2,300- page review of the domestic violence research literature. To access the 17 manuscripts
and/or the free online summary tables, go to www.springerpub.com/pa. Under “Online Resources”
click on: The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project Free Online Data Base.
Prevalence of Partner Abuse
Victimization
Overall, 24% of individuals assaulted by a partner at least once in their lifetime (23% for
females and 19.3% for males)
Higher overall rates among dating students
Higher victimization for male than female high school students
Lifetime rates higher among women than men
Past year rates somewhat higher among men
Higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) among younger, dating populations
“highlights the need for school-based IPV prevention and intervention efforts”
Perpetration
Overall, 25.3% of individuals have perpetrated IPV
Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)
Wide range in perpetration rates: 1.0% to 61.6% for males; 2.4% to 68.9% for women,
Range of findings due to variety of samples and operational definitions of PV
Emotional Abuse and Control
80% of individuals have perpetrated emotional abuse
Emotional abuse categorized as either expressive (in response to a provocation) or coercive
(intended to monitor, control and/or threaten)
Across studies, 40% of women and 32% of men reported expressive abuse; 41% of women
and 43% of men reported coercive abuse
According to national samples, 0.2% of men and 4.5% of women have been forced to have
sexual intercourse by a partner
1
John Hamel, LCSW conceived and supervised the project. The journal’s former Associate Editors, Jennifer
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Ph.D., and Denise Hines, Ph.D., provided editorial assistance.
2
4.1% to 8% of women and 0.5% to 2% of men report at least one incident of stalking during
their lifetime
Intimate stalkers comprise somewhere between one-third and one half of all stalkers.
Within studies of stalking and obsessive behaviors, gender differences are much less when
all types of obsessive pursuit behaviors are considered, but more skewed toward female
victims when the focus is on physical stalking
Context
Bi-directional vs. Uni-directional
Among large population samples, 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 42%
unidirectional; 13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male to female (MFPV), 28.3% was
female to male (FMPV)
Among school and college samples, percentage of bidirectional violence was 51.9%; 16.2%
was MFPV and 31.9% was FMPV
Among respondents reporting IPV in legal or female-oriented clinical/treatment seeking
samples not associated with the military, 72.3% was bi-directional; 13.3% was MFPV,
14.4% was FMPV
Within military and male treatment samples, only 39% of IPV was bi-directional; 43.4%
was MFPV and 17.3% FMPV
Unweighted rates: bidirectional rates ranged from 49.2% (legal/female treatment) to 69.7%
(legal/male treatment)
Extent of bi-directionality in IPV comparable between heterosexual and LGBT populations
50.9% of IPV among Whites bilateral; 49% among Latinos; 61.8% among African-Americans
Motivation
Male and female IPV perpetrated from similar motives – primarily to get back at a partner
for emotionally hurting them, because of stress or jealousy, to express anger and other
feelings that they could not put into words or communicate, and to get their partner’s
attention.
Eight studies directly compared men and women in the power/control motive and subjected
their findings to statistical analyses. Three reported no significant gender differences and
one had mixed findings. One paper found that women were more motivated to perpetrate
violence as a result of power/control than were men, and three found that men were more
motivated; however, gender differences were weak
Of the ten papers containing gender-specific statistical analyses, five indicated that women
were significantly more likely to report self-defense as a motive for perpetration than men.
Four papers did not find statistically significant gender differences, and one paper reported
that men were more likely to report this motive than women. Authors point out that it might
3
be particularly difficult for highly masculine males to admit to perpetrating violence in self-defense, as this admission implies vulnerability.
Self-defense was endorsed in most samples by only a minority of respondents, male and
female. For non-perpetrator samples, the rates of self-defense reported by men ranged from
0% to 21%, and for women the range was 5% to 35%. The highest rates of reported self-defense motives (50% for men, 65.4% for women) came from samples of perpetrators, who
may have reasons to overestimate this motive.
None of the studies reported that anger/retaliation was significantly more of a motive for
men than women’s violence; instead, two papers indicated that anger was more likely to be a
motive for women’s violence as compared to men.
Jealousy/partner cheating seems to be a motive to perpetrate violence for both men and
women.
Risk Factors
Demographic risk factors predictive of IPV: younger age, low income/unemployment,
minority group membership
Low to moderate correlations between childhood-of-origin exposure to abuse and IPV
Protective factors against dating violence: Positive, involved parenting during adolescence,
encouragement of nonviolent behavior; supportive peers
Negative peer involvement predictive of teen dating violence
Conduct disorder/anti-social personality risk factors for IPV
Weak association between depression and IPV, strongest for women
Weak association overall between alcohol and IPV, but stronger association for drug use
Alcohol use more strongly associated with female-perpetrated than male-perpetrated IPV
Married couples at lower risk than dating couples; separated women the most vulnerable
Low relationship satisfaction and high conflict predictive of IPV, especially high conflict
With few exception, IPV risk factors the same for men and women
Impact on Victims, Children and Families
Impact on Partners
Victims of physical abuse experience more physical injuries, poorer physical functioning
and health outcomes, higher rates of psychological symptoms and disorders, and poorer
cognitive functioning compared to non-victims. These findings were consistent regardless
of the nature of the sample, and, with some exceptions were generally greater for female
victims compared to male victims.
Physical abuse significantly decreases female victims’ psychological well-being, increases
the probability of suffering from depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
and substance abuse; and victimized women more likely to report visits to mental health
professionals and to take medications including painkillers and tranquilizers.
4
Few studies have examined the consequences of physical victimization in men, and the
studies that have been conducted have focused primarily on sex differences in injury rates.
When severe aggression has been perpetrated (e.g., punching, kicking, using a weapon),
rates of injury are much higher among female victims than male victims, and those injuries
are more likely to be life-threatening and require a visit to an emergency room or hospital.
However, when mild-to-moderate aggression is perpetrated (e.g., shoving, pushing,
slapping), men and women tend to report similar rates of injury.
Physically abused women have been found to engage in poorer health behaviors and risky
sexual behaviors. They are more likely to miss work, have fewer social and emotional
support networks are also less likely to be able to take care of their children and perform
household duties.
Similarly, psychological victimization among women is significantly associated with poorer
occupational functioning and social functioning.
Psychological victimization is strongly associated with symptoms of depression and suicidal
ideation, anxiety, self-reported fear and increased perceived stress, insomnia and poor self-esteem
Psychological victimization is at least as strongly related as physical victimization to
depression, PTSD, and alcohol use as is physical victimization, and effects of psychological
victimization remain even after accounting for the effects of physical victimization.
Because research on the psychological consequences of abuse on male victims is very
limited and has yielded mixed findings (some studies find comparable effects of
psychological abuse across gender, while others do not) it is premature to draw any firm
conclusions about this issue.
Effects of Partner Violence and Conflict on Children
Significant correlation between witnessing mutual PV and both internalizing (e.g., anxiety,
depression) and externalizing outcomes (e.g., school problems, aggression) for children and
adolescents
Exposure to male-perpetrated PV: Worse outcomes in internalizing and externalizing
problems, including higher rates of aggression toward family members and dating partners,
compared to no exposure
Children and teens exposed to female-perpetrated PV significantly more likely to aggress
against peers, family members and dating partners compared to those not so exposed
Results mixed regarding additive effect of exposure to PV and experiencing direct child
abuse
Witnessing PV in childhood correlated with trauma symptoms and depression in adulthood
Child abuse correlated with family violence perpetration in adulthood
Children more impacted by exposure to conflict characterized by contempt, hostility and
withdrawal compared to those characterized only by anger
Greater impact when topic discussed concerns the child (e.g., disagreements over child
rearing, blaming the child)
5
High inter-parental conflict/emotional abuse leads to a decrease in parental sensitivity,
warmth and consistent discipline; and an increase in harsh discipline and psychological
control
Neurobiological and physical functioning mediate relationship between inter-parental
conflict and negative child outcomes
Maternal behaviors somewhat more affected than paternal behaviors, but findings are
equivocal, given difficulty in disaggregating male and female perpetrated conflict from
couple level operationalizations
Greater effects found for mother-child relationships and child outcomes through the toddler
years; greater effects found for father-child relationships and child outcomes during the
school-age years
Family systems theory useful in understanding how discord in one part of the family can
impact functioning in the family as a whole, even if it poses some methodological and
explanatory challenges
Partner Abuse in Other Populations
Partner Abuse in Ethnic Minority and LGBT Populations
African-Americans: Older studies found higher rates of male-to-female partner violence
(MFPV); recent studies have found higher rates of female-to-male partner violence (FMPV)
Psychological aggression reported at significantly higher rates than physical aggression
As with White populations, minor/moderate aggression far more prevalent among Black
couples than severe aggression
In dating studies, no gender differences found in rates of physical or psychological
victimization, but women reported higher rates of physical aggression than men
Latinos: Mutual and minor/moderate PV most prevalent, but not as much as psychological
aggression
No gender differences for physical or psychological aggression, except among migrant
farmworkers where MFPV was highest
Asian Americans: The one general population study found percentage of mutual violence
perpetration to be one-third of total
Overall rates of PV comparable across gender in large population, community and dating
samples
Lowest rates found among Vietnamese, compared to respondents who identified as Filipino,
Chinese or others of Asian descent
Native Americans: Only three studies found; women reported higher rates of victimization
than men, and reported higher levels of injuries incurred
Risk factors for ethnic minority PV include: substance abuse, low SES, and violence
exposure and victimization in childhood
LGBT populations: Higher overall rates compared to heterosexual populations
6
Inconsistent findings regarding PV differences between same-sex subgroups
Risk factors for LGBT groups include discrimination and internalized homophobia
Partner Abuse Worldwide
A total of 162 articles reporting on over 200 studies met the inclusion criteria and were
summarized in the online tables for Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the
Caribbean, and Europe and the Caucasus.
A total of 40 articles (73 studies) in 49 countries contained data on both male and female
IPV, with a total of 117 direct comparisons across gender for physical PV.
Rates of physical PV were higher for female perpetration /male victimization compared to
male perpetration/female victimization, or were the same, in 73 of those comparisons, or
62%.
There were 54 comparisons made for psychological abuse including controlling behaviors
and dominance, with higher rates found for female perpetration /male victimization, in 36
comparisons (67%).
Of the 19 direct comparisons made for sexual PV, rates were found to be higher for female
perpetration /male victimization in 7comparisons (37%).
When only adult samples from large population and community surveys were considered,
the overall percentage of partner abuse that was higher for female perpetration /male
victimization compared to male perpetration/female victimization, or were the same, was
found to be 44% for adult IPV, although in many comparisons, the differences were slight.
Studies reporting on female victimization only found the lowest rates for physical abuse
victimization in a large population study in Georgia (2%, past year), and the highest in a
community survey in Ethiopia (72.5% past year) On the higher end, rates of physical PV far
exceed the average found in the United States.
The lowest rates of psychological victimization were found in large population study in
Haiti (10.8% past year); highest was 98.7% in Bangkok, Thailand (past year).
Unlike physical IPV, the highest rates of psychological abuse throughout the world are
about the same as those found in the United States (80%).
Rates of sexual abuse victimization differed widely across regions, with rates as low as 1%
in Georgia (past year); highest rates were found in a study of secondary school students in
Ethiopia (68%, lifetime)
Physical injuries were compared across gender in two studies. As expected, abused women
were found to experience higher rates of physical injuries compared to men.
Far more frequently mentioned were the psychological and behavioral effects of abuse, and
these included PTSD symptomology, stress, depression, irritability, feelings of shame and
guilt, poor self-esteem, flashbacks, sexual dissatisfaction and unwanted sexual behavior,
changes in eating behavior, and aggression.
Two studies compared mental health symptoms across gender. In Botswana, women were
found to evidence significantly more of these than men; whereas in a clinical study in
7
Pakistan male and female IPV victims suffered equally (60% of men and women reported
depression, 67% anxiety.)
A variety of health-related outcomes were also found to be associated with IPV
victimization, including overall poor physical health, more long-term illnesses, having to
take a larger number of prescribed drugs, STDs, and disturbed sleeping patterns. Abused
mothers experienced poorer reproductive health, respiratory infections, induced abortion and
complications during pregnancy; and in a few studies their children were found to
experience diarrhea, fever and prolonged coughing.
The most common risk factors found in this review of IPV in Asia, Africa, the Middle East,
Latin America and Europe have also been found to be significant risk factors in the U.S. and
other English-speaking industrialized nations.
Most often cited are the risk factors related to low income household income and
victim/perpetrator unemployment, at 36. An almost equally high number of studies (35)
reported\ victim’s low education level. Alcohol and substance abuse by the perpetrator was
a risk factor in 26 studies. Family of origin abuse, whether directly experienced or
witnessed, was cited in 18 studies. Victim’s younger age was also a major risk factor,
mentioned in 17 studies, and perpetrator’s low education level was mentioned in 16.
In contrast to the U.S., there is a much higher tolerance by both men and women for IPV in
other parts of the world, with rates of approval depending on the country and the type of
justification.
Regression analyses indicated that a country’s level of human development (as measured by
HDI) was not a significant predictor of male or female physical partner abuse perpetration.
Additional regression analyses indicated that a nation’s gender inequality level, as measured
by the Gender Inequality Index (GII), was not predictive of either male or female
perpetrated physical partner abuse or female-only victimization in studies conducted with
general population or community samples.
Separate regression analyses on data from the IDVS with dating samples indicate that higher
gender inequality levels significantly predict higher prevalence of male and female physical
partner abuse perpetration. GII level explained the variance for 17% of male partner abuse
and 19% of female partner abuse perpetration.
A final analysis examined the association between dominance by one partner and partner
violence perpetrated against a partner in dating samples using data from the IDVS. Male
dominance scores were not found to be predictive of male partner violence perpetration;
however, female dominance scores explained 47% of the variance of female partner
violence perpetration.
The Role of Law Enforcement and the Criminal Justice System
The Crime Control Effects of Criminal Sanctions
Possible causal mechanisms for the effectiveness of arrest and prosecution: fear of sanctions
and victim empowerment; however, because none of the reviewed studies adequately
8
measure such mechanisms, review assumes a general crime control effect that is neutral
about causal mechanisms
“Based upon the analyses and conclusions produced by these studies, we find that the most
frequent outcome reported is that sanctions that follow an arrest for IPV have no effect on
the prevalence of subsequent offending. Among the minority of reported analyses that do
report a statistically significant effect, two-thirds of the published findings show sanctions
are associated with reductions in repeat offending and one third show sanctions are
associated with increased repeat offending.”
Wide range of recidivism from 3.1% to 65.5% , due to high variability in measures of repeat
offending (e.g., follow-up time frame)
Studies unclear about then exact nature of the sentence imposed, and what constitutes a
“prosecution” or “conviction”
Diversity of analytic methods hinder analysis of effect sizes
Sample selection bias: None of the studies address this issue; for instance, if a small number
of low-risk cases are prosecuted, prosecuted offenders are more likely to re-offend compared
to those not prosecuted, because of the selection process
Missing data: Often leads to cases being dropped from a study, which in turns creates
sample bias
Gender and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Criminal Justice Decision Making
Female arrests affected by high SES, presence of weapons and witnesses
Women more likely than men to be cited rather than be taken into custody, but the gender
discrepancy is less when a decision is made on whether to file charges as misdemeanors or
felonies
Men are more likely than women to be convicted and to be given harsher sentences
“Males were consistently treated more severely at every stage of the prosecution process,
particularly regarding the decision to prosecute, even when controlling for other variables
(e.g., the presence of physical injuries) and when examined under different conditions.”
No conclusive evidence of discrimination against ethnic minority groups in either arrest,
prosecution and sentencing
Dual arrests were more likely in same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples,
perhaps due to incorrect assumption by police that same-sex couples more likely to engage
in mutual violence.
Protective orders far more likely to be granted, and with more restrictions to women than to
men (particularly in cases involving less severe abuse histories)
Mock juries more likely to assign blame responsibility to male perpetrators in contrast to
female perpetrators, even when presented with identical scenarios
Effectiveness, Victim Safety, Characteristics and Enforcement of Protective Orders
9
A large percentage of women who are issued protective orders (POs) tend to be unemployed
or under-employed as income ranged between $10,000 to $15,000, and almost 50% of
women are financially dependent on their partners.
At least half of women obtaining POs are married, and married women are more likely to
stay with their abusers and be pregnant.
Women who are issued POs tend to have more mental health issues (i.e., depression, PTSD)
and rural women tend to experience more abuse and mental health issues than urban women
Only a few studies have examined characteristics of men seeking a PO
“Effectiveness” defined as violations of protective orders (POs) and/or re-victimization
Some studies have found POs to reduce violence against victims, with an almost 80%
reduction in violence reported to police
Victims report feeling safer and having greater psychological well-being after obtaining a
protective order; still, POs violated at a rate of between 44% to 70%
Nearly 60% of women who had secured a PO reported to have subsequently been stalked
Severity of criminal charges on the offender, as well as previous violations, best predictors
of new PO violations
Although there is no significant difference in the amount of abuse suffered by married and
unmarried victims, married victims less likely to seek final protective orders, perhaps
because they are more likely to be re-victimized
Women granted POs at significantly higher rates than men, especially in cases involving
lower level violence
No gender differences in the enforcement of POs, and no differences in rates of recidivism
Assessment and Treatment
Risk Assessment
Little agreement in the literature with regard to the most appropriate approach (actuarial,
structured clinical judgment) nor which specific measure has the strongest empirical
validation behind it, leaving clinicians and policy makers with little clear guidance
Review yielded studies reporting on the validity and reliability of eight IPV specific
actuarial instruments and three general actuarial risk assessment measures.
Range of area under the curve (AUC) values reported for the validity of the Ontario
Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) predicting recidivism was good to excellent
(0.64 – 0.77)
The single study that reported on the Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (DVRAG)
reported an AUC = 0.70 (p < .001). The inter-rater reliability for both instruments was
excellent
The Domestic Violence Screening Inventory (DVSI) and Domestic Violence Screening
Inventory – Revised (DVSI-R) were found to be good predictors of new family violence
incidents and IPV recurrence (AUC range 0.61 – 0.71)
10
Three studies examined the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R) and Violence Risk
Appraisal Guide (VRAG), neither of which are IPV specific, reporting AUCs ranging from
0.66 – 0.71 and 0.67 – 0.75, respectively.
The Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R) and Level of Service Inventory – Ontario
Revision (LSI-OR) were discussed in four articles, reporting two AUC values of 0.50 and
0.73, both of which were predicting IPV recidivism
Two structured professional judgment instruments were included in the review, the Spousal
Assault Risk Assessment guide (SARA) and the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the
Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER. The SARA research reports nine AUCs ranging from 0.52-0.65. The interrater reliability (IRR) for the SARA was excellent for total scores, good for
the summary risk ratings, and poor for the critical items. Although neither of the articles
examining the B-SAFER reported the predictive validity of the instrument one did report the
IRR based on 12 cases with a mean interclass coefficient (ICC) of 0.57.
The Danger Assessment (DA) has the largest body of literature behind it, but there are
limitations in the research that inhibit a clear determination of the psychometric properties of
the measure, thus far. Victim appraisals of the risk of future IPV show some evidence of
predictive accuracy; however, further research is needed to determine the best means with
which to collect the victim’s reports and determining the conditions (e.g., stalking) and
characteristics of victims that should be considered (e.g., PTSD, substance use).
Overall, the literature reveals moderate postdictive/predictive accuracy across measures with
little evidence to support one as being highly superior to others, particularly given the
heterogeneity of perpetrators and victims, study limitations, and the small body of empirical
literature to date.
Several themes emerged when we examined the synthesized literature: (1) There is a
relatively small body of empirical evidence evaluating IPV violence risk assessment
measures. (2) The need for continued advancements in the methodological rigor of the
research including prospective studies, research that compares multiple measures within
single studies, and research that uses large samples and appropriate outcome indicators. In
terms of clinical implications, the review demonstrates the considerable promise of several
IPV risk assessment measures but generally reveals modest postdictive/predictive accuracy
for most measures.
Victim appraisals, while the research has a considerable ways to go, were found to have
clinical relevance. However, preliminary evidence suggests that clinicians may want to be
particularly cautious when working with some sub-groups when taking into account victims’
perceptions (e.g., PTSD symptoms, substance use, stalking and severe abuse experienced)
and supplement the woman’s input with an additional structured assessment.
When clinicians and administrators are faced with the challenge of determining which
measure(s) to use to assess risk of IPV they should carefully consider the purpose of the
assessment (Heilbrun, 2009). Assessors also should take into account the context, setting,
and resources when evaluating which measure best suits their needs.
11
Consideration must be given to the characteristics of the population to be assessed (e.g., age,
gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status) and the extent to which a measure has been cross-validated in similar samples is required
Assessors need to be clear about the outcome of concern (verbal abuse, physical abuse,
severe violence, stalking, femicide) and knowledgeable about relevant base rates
Based on the available literature, we are also unable to provide guidance on the clinical
relevance and utility of these instruments with female perpetrators, male victims, and in
same-sex relationships due to the lack of studies using relevant populations.
Effectiveness of Primary Prevention Efforts
All studies incorporated a curriculum-based intervention, with the primary goal of lowering
rates of PV
Schools provided the setting for two-thirds of the interventions; the rest were conducted in
community settings
Of the five most methodologically-sound school based studies, only one, the Safe Dates
Program, found a clear-cut positive outcome on PV behavior (emotional abuse, mild
physical abuse and sexual coercion)
In contrast, each of the five most methodologically-sound community-based studies was
deemed effective in reducing PV; among them were two interventions targeting couples and
one family-based intervention involving parents and their adolescent children
Although outcomes are mixed, especially for the school-based studies, and no studies were
replicated, the authors suggest that “because prevention is generally cost-effective,
programming is badly needed to prevent IPV before it begins.”
Effectiveness of Intervention Programs for Perpetrators and Victims
Authors reviewed studies all utilized either a randomized or quasi-experimental design
Mixed evidence for the effectiveness of perpetrator interventions
Evidence that group or couples format can be effective, but many studies flawed
More promising results for programs with alternative content (e.g., programs that encourage
a strong therapist-client relationship and group cohesion, use some form of Motivational
Interviewing technique)
Inconsistent effects for brief interventions
Structured interventions found to reduce rates of re-victimization compared to no-treatment
controls when they include supportive advocacy
Cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) most effective in reducing the deleterious effects of
PV on victims and enhancing their emotional functioning
Little evidence to indicate the superiority of one type of intervention over another. Thus,
there is no empirical justification for agencies, state organizations, judges, mental health
professionals, or others involved in improving the lives of those impacted by IPV to limit
the type of services offered to clients, or to restrict the theoretical and ideological
underpinnings of such methods.
12
Full References for PASK Manuscripts
Capaldi, D.M., Knoble, N.B.,Shortt, J.W., & Kim, H.K. (2012). A systematic review of
risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231-280.
Carney, M., & Barner, J. (2012. Prevalence of partner abuse: Rates of emotional abuse
and control. Partner Abuse, 3(3), 286-335.
Desmarais, S.L., Reeves, K.A.,Nicholls, T.L.,Telford, R. & Fiebert, M.S. (2012).
Prevalence of physical violence in intimate Relationships – Part 1: Rates of male and female
victimization. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 140-169.
Desmarais, S.L., Reeves, K.A.,Nicholls, T.L.,Telford, R. & Fiebert, M.S. (2012).
Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships – Part 2: Rates of male and female
perpetration Partner Abuse, 3(2), 170-198.
Eckhardt, C.I., Murphy, C.M., Whitaker, D.J., Sprunger, J., Dykstra, R., & Woodard, K.
(2013). The effectiveness of intervention programs for perpetrators and victims of intimate
partner violence. Partner Abuse, 4(2),
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & McCullars, A. (2012). Motivations for men and women’s
intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(4),
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Misra, T.A., Selwyn, C. & Rohling, M.L. (2012).
Rates of bi-directional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual
orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 199-230
Lawrence, E., Oringo, A., & Brock, R. (2012). The impact of partner abuse on partners.
Partner Abuse, 3(4),
MacDonnel, K. Watson (2012). The combined and independent impact of witnessed
interparental violence and child maltreatment. Partner Abuse, 3(3), 358-378.
Maxwell, C., & Garner, J. (2012). The crime control effects of criminal sanctions for
intimate partner violence Partner Abuse, 3(4),
Nicholls, T., Pritchard, M., Reeves, K., & Hilterman, E. (2013). Risk assessment
in intimate partner violence: A review of contemporary approaches. Partner Abuse, 4(1),
Russell, B. (2012). Effectiveness, victim safety, characteristics and enforcement of
protective orders. Partner Abuse, 3(4),
Santovena, E, Lambert, T., & Hamel, J. (2013). Partner abuse worldwide. Partner Abuse, 4(1)
Shernock, S., & Rusell, B. (2012). Gender and racial/ethnic differences in criminal justice
decision making in intimate partner violence cases. Partner Abuse, 3(4),
Abuse, 4(1),
Sturge-Apple, M.L., Skibo, M.A., & Davies, P.T. (2012). Impact of parental conflict
and emotional abuse on children and families. Partner Abuse, 3(3), 379-400.
West, C. (2012). Partner abuse in ethnic minority and gay, lesbian bisexual, and
transgender populations. Partner Abuse, 3(3), 336-357.
Whitaker, D.J., Murphy, C.M., Eckhardt, C.I., Hodges, A.E., & Cowart, M. (2013).
Effectiveness of primary prevention efforts for intimate partner violence Partner Abuse,
4(2)
LA VIOLENCIA DOMESTICA ES BIDIRECCIONAL
La violència de gènere és bidireccional
Per Redacció Sírius
el dijous, d’octubre 17, 2013
0 comentaris
Facebook
Twitter
Google +
El professor de sociologia, fundador i codirector del Laboratori de Recerca de la Família de la Universitat de New Hampshire (Durham), Murray A. Straus, ha demostrat, aquest dijous en la conferència inaugural de l’IV Congrés Español de Victimología, amb dades procedents de diferents estudis internacionals, que la violència familiar no és exercida només pels homes sinó que és bidireccional entre els dos sexes. Els resultats són similars a tot el món. En la meitat dels casos la violència és exercida pels dos membres de la parella mentre que en la resta es divideix en parts iguals entre la violència masculina i femenina.
Straus, tot un referent en l’àmbit de la victimología, participa en aquest congrés que té lloc entre avui dijous i demà divendres en el Cosmocaixa i que està organitzat per la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, la Societat Científica espanyola de Victimología i la Societat Catalana de Victimología.
En la seva conferència, aquest reconegut expert ha donat a conèixer els resultats de diferents treballs sobre violència familiar que utilitzen una metodologia en la qual es pregunta als diferents membres de la família. Els resultats són similars a tot el món. A grans trets, en la meitat dels casos la violència és exercida pels dos membres de la parella mentre que en la resta es divideix en parts iguals entre la violència perpetrada pels homes i la perpetrada per les dones.
Un exemple, una enquesta nacional a EUA, amb una mostra de més de 8.000 entrevistes, en les quals els casos d’agressió física en la parella es distribueixen en un 24% de casos de violència perpetrada per un home, un 23% casos de violència perpetrada per una dona i un 54% en els quals hi ha violència bidireccional.
Fins i tot en alguns casos hi ha més dones agressores que homes, com en dos estudis transnacionals en relacions de festeig d’estudiants universitaris realitzats en diferents països -entre ells Espanya- en el qual es mostra que la violència en qualsevol tipus d’agressió per part de les dones és gairebé el doble que la masculina.
Entre els quals han rebut càstig corporal per part dels seus pares a Espanya, en un 54% dels casos la violència ha estat perpetrada pel pare i en un 62% per la mare.
D’altra banda, les dades d’estudis elaborats als Estats Units i Canadà mostren com en els casos en què la violència acaba amb la mort d’un dels dos cònjuges, en dues terceres parts la víctima és una dona. "Però en un terç dels casos són homes, i això no es pot passar per alt. Hem d’assistir a les víctimes en tots dos casos", ha assegurat.
En aquest sentit, ha criticat els que diuen que les dones agredeixen com a resposta a una agressió anterior de l’home: "Els casos d’autodefensa es donen en una minoria de vegades, són l’excepció".
Respecte als estudis en la violència perpetrada als fills, el més usual és també que els dos membres de la parella exerceixin aquesta violència. Així, en la meitat de casos hi ha violència de pare i mare, en un 25% la violència és tan sols del pare i en un 25% tan sols de la mare.
Straus també ha advertit que "quant a la salut mental, les agressions en l’àmbit de la parella afecten tant al perpetrador de la violència com a la víctima" i que una tercera part dels nens agredits es converteixen en agressors quan són adults.
Aquest expert ha criticat la metodologia de molts estudis en els quals no es considera que les dones puguin ser perpetradoras de violència. "No es coneixen aquestes dades perquè no s’estudien", ha explicat. "Les agències de les Nacions Unides no pregunten sobre si les dones que són víctimes també han estat agressores, no es plantegen que els homes puguin ser les víctimes. I, per tant, sempre els surt que les dones són el 100% de les víctimes".
Per tot això, Straus ha conclòs que "cal substituir aquesta mirada en la violència familiar en la qual només els homes perpetren la violència i hem de veure que és bidireccional. Hem de substituir els programes de prevenció dirigits només a homes i nens i fer-los neutres quant al gènere. I hem de tenir en compte que les víctimes poden ser perpetradores i que els perpetradores també poden ser víctimes. Hem de determinar el tractament a seguir en els casos de violència domèstica sobre la base d’un garbellat i no sobre pressuposicions", va concloure.
Straus, guardonat en diferents ocasions pels seus treballs de recerca, va ser pioner en estudis sobre violència domèstica. Però les nombroses dades dels seus treballs, elaborats al llarg de tres dècades, xoquen frontalment amb el discurs oficial sobre aquest tema en països com Espanya.
Tant ell com altres investigadors, com Suzanne Steinmetz i Richard Gelles, porten molt temps conscienciant sobre el fet que els homes també són víctimes de la violència familiar, per la qual cosa s’han guanyat moltes crítiques i han arribat a rebre amenaces de mort per part de grups feministes radicals, amb amenaces de bomba incloses.
http://noticies.sirius.cat/2013/10/la-violencia-de-genere-es-bidireccional.html
Derogacion de la Ley feminazi de genero, YA 