Joining Forces

Joining Families

Volume 11, Issue 2 • July 2009

R e a l W o r l d R e s e a r c h f o r F a m i l y  A d v o c a c y P r o g r a m s
F e at u r e d I n t e r v i e w

Intimate Partner Violence: Function, Treatment and
Typologies
An Interview between James E. McCarroll, PhD and L. Kevin Hamberger, PhD
L. Kevin Hamberger, PhD
Dr. Kevin Hamberger is Professor of Family
and Community Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin and an affiliate of the Injury
Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Since 1982, he has conducted treatment
and research programs with domestically violent
men and women and developed and evaluatedhealth care provider training programs to deliver
violence prevention services to patients. He has
In This Issue
The focus of the summer issue of Joining Forces Joining Families isbatterer treatment. We present features that describe many relevant treatment evaluation issues for the Army Family Advocacy Program. Our featured
interview is with L. Kevin Hamberger, PhD, a distinguished researcher andpractitioner. Dr. Hamberger’s work addresses typologies of batterers based on
personality and psychopathology, batterer assessment and treatment, and thefunction of violence in a relationship. We expand upon these themes in a review of his research and on civilian research on batterer treatment outcomes.
Building Bridges to Research discusses methodological issues in planning
treatment evaluation research. Websites of Interest focuses on anger management, provides information on controlling anger, and on differentiating anger
management from domestic violence treatment. We hope your summer isgoing well.

Contents

Intimate Partner Violence: Function, Treatment and Typologies .......................1
Review of Research of L. Kevin Hamberger, PhD.............................................3
Methodological Issues in Batterer Treatment Outcome Evaluation...................5
Batterer Treatment: Implications of Civilian Research Literature on the Army
Population......................................................................................................6
Websites of Interest........................................................................................8

published over 100 articles and chapters and six
books and serves on the editorial board of six
scientific journals.
Dr. McCarroll: How did you enter the field of
intimate partner violence research?
Dr. Hamberger: In the very early literature
on intimate partner violence there were twoconcepts from the predominantly feminist
model that gave me pause. The first was that
all men are at risk of battering. The second
viewed psychopathology as not being part of thebattering spectrum. My own clinical observations revealed many individual differences. Jim
Hastings, one of my research colleagues, and I
sought to highlight that heterogeneity within
the population with which we were working.
[Editor’s note: See review of Hamberger and Hastings research in the review of Dr. Hamberger’s
research.] Our goals were to demonstrate thatbatterers (abusive men) constitute a very heterogeneous population and to look at the frequencyof psychopathology in our clinical samples.
Dr. McCarroll: Does the term batterer describe
only the man who is the severe, pathologicalabuser or does it refer to a broader range of
abusive behavior?
Dr. Hamberger: I view battering as a factor in determining how violence works in therelationship, not as the overall severity of theviolence. In a particular relationship, pushingand shoving may function to dominate or control the victim in the same way that more severe
violence may function in another relationship.
Continued on page 2

The primary focus ofbatterer treatment is on
the function of violence
and abuse to dominate
and control an intimate
partner.

Dr. McCarroll: What is the focus of the powerand control model today?
Dr. Hamberger: In clinical samples, wetend to see a predominance of male-to-female
violence. Male-to-female intimate partner
violence is related to and stems from broader
sociopolitical forces that tend to place womenin a second-class status. That second-class status is reinforced within an individual relationship through the application of force, abuse,and controlling behaviors. It may not be thewhole story. One theoretical perspective does
not adequately explain all of intimate partner
violence.
Dr. McCarroll: Is anger management therecommended treatment for batterers?
Dr. Hamberger: Most state standards would
argue against anger management as a treatment for batterers because it is too narrowly
focused on the batterer’s lack of skill in managing anger, and not enough emphasis is placedon using violence as a tool of power and control. The predominant model is psychoeducational using a cognitive-behavioral skills-based
approach in which the primary focus is on thefunction of violence and abuse to dominate
and control an intimate partner. Studies show

Joining Forces
Joining Families
Editor-in-Chief
James E. McCarroll, PhD
Email: jmccarroll@usuhs.mil
EditorJohn H. Newby, MSW, PhD
Email: jnewby@usuhs.mil
Joining Forces Joining Families
is a publication of the U. S.
Army Family Morale, Welfare
and Recreation Commandand the Family Violence andTrauma Project of the Centerfor the Study of TraumaticStress (CSTS), Bethesda,
Maryland 20814-4799, tel.
301-295-2470. CSTS is a partof the Dept. of Psychiatry,
USUHS, and a partnering
center of the Defense Centersof Excellence (DCoE).

2 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

Editorial Advisor
LTC Ben Clark, Sr., MSW, PhD
Family Advocacy Program Manager
Headquarters, Department of theArmy
E-mail: Ben.Clark@fmwrc.army.mil
Editorial Consultants
David M. Benedek, MD, LTC, MC, USA
Associate Professor and Scientist
Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress
Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences
dbenedek@usuhs.mil
Nancy T. Vineburgh, MA
Director, Office of Public Education
and Preparedness
Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress
Email: nvineburgh@usuhs.milthat abusive men, on average, do show moreanger and hostility relative to nonviolent men.
One needs to be mindful of anger issues whenassessing men for treatment as well as doing
treatment with them.
Dr. McCarroll: In your early work, you were notable to find enough female batterers to include
in your analyses. Is this still the case?
Dr. Hamberger: A larger number ofwomen are now being arrested as either the soleperpetrator or as part of a dual arrest scenario. Recent arrest rates indicate that womenconstitute upwards of 20–25% of all people
arrested for domestic violence. My research on
female perpetrators has focused on motivation
for using force against their intimate partners
rather than on personality characteristics andpsychopathology.
Dr. McCarroll: Do dual arrest policies require
the arrest of persons who engage in violence
for self-defense?
Dr. Hamberger: That has not been adequately sorted out. Most state laws regarding
mandatory arrest discourage dual arrest andpromote determination of the predominantphysical aggressor. My research on motivations
for use of intimate partner violence by men andwomen reveals that about two-thirds of men
are using violence primarily to dominate andcontrol their partner. About 17% of men reportself-defense or retaliation from a prior assault
as a motivation. We see the mirror opposite
with women. About two-thirds report their primary motivation for violence is self-defense or
retaliation, and about 17–19% report domination and control. Motivations such as retaliation and self-defense may not prevent a personfrom being arrested, but are still important forthe clinician to consider when planning treatment.
Dr. McCarroll: Do you think batterer treatment
works, and if so, how?
Dr. Hamberger: The evidence across the twoor three meta-analyses that I have read looks
promising, but not conclusive. There is a small,but significant effect size in batterer treatment.
However, one can find a lot of flaws in the research that argue against strong results. We havenot looked carefully at matching treatment tothe characteristics of abusive men including
readiness to change, trauma history, alcoholand drug abuse, and the need to deal with aContinued on p. 4
July 2009

Review of Research of L. Kevin Hamberger, PhD
By James E. McCarroll, PhD and David M. Benedek, MD

Anger is frequently
seen in batterers
with borderline
personalities, but also
in depression andanxiety disorders.
Abusers have anger
and hostility directed
at themselves, but alsoless anger control.

http://www.CSTSonline.org

the typology work of Holtzworth-Monroe
In a series of studies, Hamberger and coland Stuart (1994). Cluster 1 was characterized
leagues have examined personality patterns
as dependent-submissive, passive-aggressiveof batterers and non-batterers using a dual
negativistic, and avoidant; cluster 2, as narcisapproach. The first involves studying batterers
sistic, antisocial-aggressive, and histrioniconly; the second compares batterers and nongregarious; cluster 3 wasbatterers. These approaches
non-pathological. The
yield different results. In
Batterers,
particularly
those
non-pathological men
the former, possible differgenerally had the lowest
ences between batterers canwith borderline personality
maximum violence andbe examined; in the latter,organization, generally struggle
their violence was restrictone can attempt to find
ed to intimate relationwith anger and hostility
differences between batterships. The antisocial anders and non-violent perpassive-aggressive men didsons. To date, his researchnotdifferinmaximum
violence. However, antion batterer characteristics has been exclusivelysocial men were the most generally violent andon males because during the time of data colhad the most police contacts. Passive-aggressive
lection not enough female batterers had beenand dependent men had the highest frequency
identified for study.
of violence.
Both personality and psychopathology
Batterers, particularly those with borderline
are related to spouse abuse. An early study of
personality organization, generally struggle
personality correlates of 99 men who batteredwith anger and hostility (Hamberger & Holtztheir partners and were part of a domestic
worth-Monroe, 2009). Anger is a common
violence abatement program found three
feature of domestic violence. However, anger,
categories of personality profiles reflecting
hostility, and aggression are different concepts:
general tendencies: schizoidal/borderline,
anger is the emotion, hostility is the attitude,
narcissistic/antisocial, and dependent /comand aggression is the behavior (Del Vecchio
pulsive personality disorders (Hamberger && O’Leary, 2004). Anger is infrequently menHastings, 1986). Only about 12% of batterers
tioned in psychiatric diagnosis nomenclature.
showed no psychopathology. They concluded
In DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Associathat there was no general batterer personalitytion, 1994), anger is not a diagnosis or more
profile, that the majority of batterers showed
than part of a criterion for a mental disorder,
evidence of disordered personality profiles,
e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder (p. 428),
and that both personality types and psychointermittent explosive disorder (p. 612), andpathological processes must be consideredamong the factors related to spouse abuse. This borderline personality disorder (p. 654).
Hamberger and Holtzworth-Monroe (2009)
research was extended to comparisons between
report that abusive men are more hostile thandomestically violent and non-violent men
non-abusive men. Anger is frequently seen in(Hamberger & Hastings, 1991). The domestibatterers with borderline personalities, but also
cally violent group included men who werein depression and anxiety disorders. Abusers
alcoholic and non-alcoholic. Both alcoholic
have anger and hostility directed at themselves,and non-alcoholic abusive men showed higher
but also less anger control. Particularly imlevels of borderline personality organization
portant to the expression of anger in abusive
than nonviolent men.
men is the tendency to label and interpret theirHamberger and colleagues continued topartner’s behavior with negative intent. They
pursue batterer typology in a larger study ofnote that these attributes occur in situations
833 men who were court-referred for evaluathat most would interpret as only moderately
tion prior to participating in a domestic vioprovocative, situations that non-violent men
lence counseling program (Hamberger, Lohr,would be likely to overlook or at least not react
Bonge, & Tolin, 1996). They found three mainstrongly. They ask the question as to whether
clusters of batterers, which largely replicatedJoining Forces/Joining Families • 3

In conclusion,
Hamberger’s
research indicatesthat batterers area heterogeneousgroup, particularly
in terms of therelationship between
their typology andviolence as well as
anger and hostility.

batterers are mentally ill. In terms of personality disorders, at a minimum, the answer seems
to be that many are.
It is important for clinicians to know how
anger and aggression are related to violence.
Psychologists who work with personality profiles and have expertise in domestic violence
have demonstrated reliability sorting batterers
into profile types, particularly borderline-dysphoric and antisocial/narcissistic (Lohr, Bonge,
Witte, Hamberger, & Langhinrichsen-Rohling,2005). This research represents an effort todetermine whether providers can be taught touse personality profiles to categorize the abusive clients — necessary to subsequently design
treatment based on individually assessed needs.
In conclusion, Hamberger’s research
indicates that batterers are a heterogeneousgroup, particularly in terms of the relationship between their typology and violence aswell as anger and hostility. For example, while
many batterers show high levels of anger
and aggression, some show lower levels thannon-violent men. Hamberger speculates that
this finding may be due to the fact that many
batterers are superficially pleasant, but also thatthey deny or deceive when anger is inquired on
self-report measures (Hastings & Hamberger,
1988; Hamberger & Holtzworth-Monroe,2009). Whatever the pattern of personality,
alcohol tends to increase violence severity andfrequency. It is noteworthy that Hamberger
found no alcohol-abusive men in his nonviolent samples (Hastings & Hamberger, 1988).
Because of the complexity of violent behavior,treatment is also complex. Given that mostpartner-violent men seemed to have someform of psychopathology consisting of personality disorder, depression, anxiety, dysregulation ofaffect, and substance abuse, treatment may callfor specific approaches that target each of thesefactors.

References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Del Vecchio T & O’Leary KD. (2004). Effectivenessof anger treatments for specific anger problems:
A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology
Review; 24:15-34.
Hamberger LK & Hastings JE. (1986). Personality
correlates of men who abuse their partners: A
cross-validation study. Journal of Family Violence; 4:323–341.
Hamberger LK & Hastings JE. (1991). Personality
correlates of men who batter and non-violent
men: Some continuities and discontinuities.
Journal of Family Violence; 6:131–147.
Hamberger LK & Holtzworth-Monroe A. (2009).
Psychological correlates of male aggression. In
K.D. O’Leary and Erica Woodin (Eds.). Understanding Psychological and Physical Aggression in
Couples, pp 79–98.
Hamberger LK, Lohr JM, Bonge D, & Tolin DF.
(1996). A large sample empirical typology
of male spouse abusers and its relationshipto dimensions of abuse. Violence and Victims;11:277-292.
Hastings JE & Hamberger LK. (1988). Personality
characteristics of spouse abusers: A controlled
comparison. Violence & Victims; 3:31–47.

Continued on p. 7

Interview with L. Kevin Hamberger, PhD, from page 1

broad spectrum of treatment issues such as recidivism. The
anger management interventions alluded to earlier also need
to be considered as part of a broader intervention for emotion
regulation.
Dr. McCarroll: How would you advise clinicians to think about
using the results of your typology research?
Dr. Hamberger: I have used the information from typologies more to assess aspects of risk of premature termination
and recidivism. Borderline, dysphoric men are at a high risk ofdropping out of standard treatment. We have also found thatdropouts are at a higher risk of recidivating than completers.
That information can inform the female partner’s safety planning and decision-making. We need to ramp up our expertisein pretreatment assessment and in developing treatment plans
4 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

that are more in line with the client’s needs and personality
style rather than just applying a ‘One size fits all’ model.
Dr. McCarroll: When do you involve a non-battering spouse in
the treatment?
Dr. Hamberger: Primarily, I involve the victim-partnerin collateral contacts early in the abusive partner’s assessment and at the end of his involvement in treatment. I gather
information about the violence from her point of view, provide
community resource information, conduct safety planning, discuss risks, and establish a set of criteria for ongoing contact, if
necessary. We do not involve the most disordered and severely
violent people in couple counseling. Couple counseling appears
to be appropriate primarily when both partners are willing toattend and for people who commit less severe levels of violence,Continued on p. 8
July 2009

Methodological Issues in Batterer Treatment Outcome
Evaluation
By James E. McCarroll, PhD and Robert J. Ursano, MD
Practitioners andadministrators infamily maltreatment
continually strive
to understandand use evidencebased treatments
for which there are
more questions thananswers.

Practitioners and administrators in family
maltreatment continually strive to understandand use evidence-based treatments for which
there are more questions than answers. Ourreview of batterer treatment reveals that outcomes are inconsistent at best. Methodological difficulties are important in determining
how to approach the question, “Does batterer
treatment work?” The question must include
qualifiers such as “With which population?”and “Under what circumstances?” If you arethinking about evaluating treatment outcome,such as in a men’s batterer treatment group,
here are some of the questions you might address in planning such a study.

Question Selection
Choose a question that can have an answer.
One way to tell if you have done this is to statea hypothesis. For example: People who complete treatment will have a better outcome (interms of specific variables such as recidivism,
measures on instruments, partner satisfaction,or other reasonable outcomes) than those who
drop out.
The study can be descriptive or experimental. In a descriptive study, you are observing
and measuring what happens in a course of
events. For example, in one year, how many
people complete treatment and how many
do not? In an experimental study, you assign
people to an experimental or a comparison
condition. You do something different (e.g.,treatment) with each group. The comparison(or control) condition may include an alternative treatment or no treatment.

Literature Review
A major purpose of the literature review is
to state what others have found and how yourwork will add to the field. Literature reviews
include scientific studies that are directly or atleast closely related to the question you haveselected. All studies are not the same. You willneed to examine the description of each study
to determine if it has been well-conducted andits results can be applied to your question.

Aims, Goals, Objectives, HypothesesYour problem statement should be in termsof objectives and hypotheses. The objectives
should be general statements of the problem tobe addressed. Hypotheses are specific, testablestatements about the condition you are examining.

Participant Selection■■ Who are the participants in the research?

How will they be recruited? Who will be
excluded? (These are called inclusion andexclusion criteria.)■■ What ages will you include? Will you attempt to recruit a certain number by race/
ethnicity, and gender?
■■ Can you randomly assign participants totreatment or no-treatment groups?
■■ If offenders are participants, have they beenreferred by a military or judicial system?
■■ Is there a requirement by the referring agency for them to attend treatment and, if so,for how long? Even if mandated for treatment, their participation in the researchmust be voluntary.
■■ Have they had previous legal involvementfor domestic violence?

Treatment Plan■■ Has it been previously tested?
■■ Will you change the program content or

length?
■■ Is there a treatment manual for your pro-gram with a specific plan for sessions?

Measures■■ Will you use standardized instruments?
■■ If not, what is your alternative and why?

Comparison Group■■ No treatment?
■■ Alternative treatment?
■■ Wait list?

Problems in the Study■■ How will you analyze data from treatment

non-attendees?
■■ How will you analyze data from treatment

drop-outs?

http://www.CSTSonline.org

Continued on p. 7
Joining Forces/Joining Families • 5

Batterer Treatment: Implications of Civilian Research
Literature on the Army Population
By James E. McCarroll, PhD
Conducting researchon the treatment ofdomestic violence
offenders is difficult.
Limitations in both
civilian and military
populations include
participant recruitment,
random assignment totreatment and control
groups, dropouts, lengthof follow-up time …

In this article, we review the current civilian literature on batterer treatment outcomesthat may assist in the design and researchof Army treatment programs for domestic
violence offenders. Conducting research on thetreatment of domestic violence offenders is difficult. Limitations in both civilian and military
populations include participant recruitment,
random assignment to treatment and control
groups, dropouts, and length of follow-up
time. In the Army, further restrictions exist due
to military requirements and practices.
There are a number of Army-specificvariables that affect the efficacy of domestic
violence treatment. These include deployment, military unit supervisory practices, andthe military justice system. In the absenceof military domestic violence research, we
look to civilian research for assistance. To ourknowledge, there is no research on domestic
violence treatment procedures or outcomes in
the Army.
Most treatment outcome research has been
performed on batterer intervention programs(BIPs). Gondolf (1997) reported a multisite
evaluation of the results of batterer treatment programs, involving a total of 840 men.
The men and their partners were interviewed
every three months for 15 months after intake.
According to the victims, about 31% were reassaulted during the follow up period. Whileverbal abuse (70%) and threats (43%) werehigh, most of the women reported feeling verysafe. Gondolf also found that about half themen who re-assaulted did so within the first
three months. He concluded that well-established batterer programs contribute to a shortterm cessation of assault, but a small minorityof the men were unaffected or unresponsive tothe intervention.
The National Institute of Justice publishedan overview of batterer treatment research andreviewed evaluations of two batterer intervention programs that had attempted a rigorous
research methodology (Jackson, Feder, Forde,
Davis, Maxwell, & Taylor, 2003). One wasin Broward County, Florida (Feder & Forde,2003), and the other in Brooklyn, New York
(Davis, Maxwell, & Taylor, 2003). Both programs used a psychoeducational model based

6 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

on feminist ideology. In both groups, batterers(males only) were court-mandated to attend a
BIP. Men were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group. In the Broward County
study, men in the treatment condition wereassigned to a 26-week program while controls
were sentenced to one year of probation. In the
Brooklyn study, some men in the treatmentgroup were assigned to a 26-week program
while others attended longer, twice-weekly
sessions for 8 weeks. Community service was
required for men in the control group. The
Broward County study found no differences
between the experimental and control groups inviolation of probation or re-arrests. They also
found no differences in attitudes toward (a) therole of women, (b) whether wife beating should
be a crime, or (c) whether the state had a rightto intervene in cases of domestic violence.
The Brooklyn study found that the treatment group was less likely to be arrested again
for a crime against the same victim. However,
only the 26-week group had significantly fewer
official complaints than the control group at 6
and 12 months. The pattern of victim reports
was not significantly different between the
8-week group and the 26-week group. There
were no differences between the three groups
in attitudes toward domestic violence. The differences between the outcomes of the 8-weekgroup and the 26-week group are importantfor several reasons. Researchers thought thatbatterers would be more likely to complete theshorter treatment program and have a lower
re-arrest rate. From a policy point of view, an
8-week group would be more cost effective thana 26-week group. However, as noted above, the26-week group had fewer criminal complaints
against them than the 8-week group. The investigators concluded that batterer intervention
suppressed violent behavior for the durationof treatment. Due to many limitations, suchas problems in random assignment, measurement of violence, attrition, low response rates,and other problems, neither of these studies isconclusive.
There are many policy questions regarding
batterer intervention programs (Jackson, Feder,
Continued on page 7
July 2009Forde, Davis, Maxwell, & Taylor, 2003). These include whether
they waste valuable resources, create a false sense of security
for women who may believe the batterer will reform, and theprudence of mandating batterer treatment when there is little
evidence that it works.
A meta-analytic review of four experimental and six quasiexperimental studies of court-mandated batterer intervention
programs found conflicting results (Feder & Wilson, 2005).
All the studies used a cognitive-behavior, feminist-oriented, or
psychoeducational approach. The mean effect of the programfrom official reports showed modest benefit, whereas themean effect for victim-reported outcomes was zero. Quasiexperimental studies without a no-treatment comparison
had inconsistent findings indicating a small overall harmful
effect. Contrasted with the no-treatment comparison, studies that used treatment dropouts as a control group showeda large, positive mean effect on domestic violence outcomes.
The authors raised concerns about using treatment dropouts
as a control, of official reports, and of the effectiveness ofcourt-mandated batterer treatment programs. Official reports
tend to underestimate the violence and victim reports are notalways reliable. The authors concluded that their analysis did
not offer strong support for court-mandated treatment of
misdemeanor domestic violence offenders as a way to reduce
the likelihood of further domestic violence.
There is a relationship between personality characteristics and both treatment dropout and recidivism (Hamberger,
Lohr, & Gottlieb, 2000). Dropout was evaluated in two ways:
those who completed intake but never attended treatment andthose who completed intake and began treatment but dropped
out prior to completing all the sessions. Dropouts after intake
scored higher on a measure of paranoid personality whereas
those who dropped out during treatment scored higher on ameasure of borderline personality. Recidivism following treatment completion was more likely among those with greater
antisocial and narcissistic personality orientations (Hamberger & Hastings, 1990).
There is a great need for treatment research in the U.S
Army for both clinical and policy purposes. In addition totreatment effectiveness, research is needed in treatment partic-

ipation, effects of treatment interruption based on deployment
or moves, effects of offender treatment on families, and effectsof the treatment on other aspects of the offender’s life such as
the perception of the offender by the military unit.

References
Davis RC, Maxwell CD, & Taylor BG. (2003). In Jackson, Feder,
Forde, Davis, Maxwell, & Taylor, 2003. Batterer intervention
programs: Where do we go from here? Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice Special Report NCJ195079.
Feder L & Forde DR. (2003). In Jackson, Feder, Forde, Davis,
Maxwell, & Taylor, 2003. Batterer intervention programs:
Where do we go from here? Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice Special Report NCJ195079.
Feder L & Wilson DB (2005). A meta-analytic review of courtmandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affectabusers’ behavior. Journal of Experimental Criminology;
1:239–262.
Gondolf EW. (1997). Patterns of reassault in batterer programs.
Violence and Victims;12:373-387.
Hamberger LK, Lohr JM, & Gottlieb M. (2000). Predictors oftreatment dropout from a spouse abuse abatement program.
Behavior Modification; 245: 528–552.
Hamberger LK & Hastings JE. (1990). Recidivism following
spouse abuse abatement counseling: Treatment program implications. Violence & Victims; 5: 157-169.
Jackson S, Feder L, Forde DR, Davis RC, Maxwell CD, & Taylor
BG. (2003). Batterer intervention programs: Where do wego from here? Washington, DC: National Institute of JusticeSpecial Report NCJ195079.
Review of Research, from page 4
Holtzworth-Monroe A & Stuart GL. (1994).Typologies of malebatterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them.
Psychological Bulletin; 116:476–497.
Lohr JM, Bonge D, Witte TH, Hamberger LK, & LanghinrichsenRohling J. (2005). Journal of Family Violence; 20:253–258.

Methodological Issues in Batterer Treatment Outcome Evaluation, from page 5

Analytic Methods■■ What is your data analysis plan?
■■ Do you have the computer software to enter and analyze

your data?
■■ Will you need a statistical consultant?

Administration■■ What approval processes are required for you to conduct

your study? Research on domestic violence in the Armymust usually be approved by your department, your Institutional Review Board, the Family Advocacy Research
Subcommittee (FARS), and potentially other institutions,
http://www.CSTSonline.org

particularly if external funding is sought or otherwise
involved.
■■ Do you have adequate resources to conduct your study?
This includes funding, personnel, facilities, travel, equipment, supplies, and miscellaneous expenses.
While these tips are not all inclusive, they will help you
think about research design in your own work and as you read
the work of others. Treatment evaluation research is complex.
Such a task should be addressed in small steps. One study will
not provide all the answers, but can give you useful information and suggest further research.
Joining Forces/Joining Families • 7

Websites of Interest
Mayo Clinic
Battering is generally included in websites on anger management, of which there are many. The Mayo Clinic http://www.
mayoclinic.com/health/anger-management/MH00073
provides a discussion of anger management including a selfdiagnostic tool to determine anger level, examining anger
patterns, and strategies for constructive expression of anger.
Also present is a set of pages devoted to other aspects ofself-management such as resilience, self-esteem, and mental
health.

American Psychological Association
The American Psychological Association presents a discussion on anger including strategies for control. See http://
www.apa.org/topics/controlanger.html. Interestingly, theynote that sometimes people are not angry enough. Assertiveness training is one remedy for this lack. Also of importanceon this website is a list of psychology topics, from addictions
to workplace issues.

Eastside Domestic Violence Program
The Eastside Domestic Violence Program (EDVP) in Seattle,
Washington, has a number of interesting pages related tothe impact of domestic violence. See http://www.edvp.org/
AboutDV/forabusers.htm#chart. For example, it provides
lists of possible signs of when a batterer is changing and notchanging. It also describes their anger management program. Their orientation is largely feminist, based on control
issues. As an example of the diversity of domestic violencetreatment and, particularly anger management, is theirperspective that anger is not the basis of domestic violence,but another means to intimidate a partner. Also of interest isa table that differentiates anger management treatment fromdomestic violence treatment.

Interview with L. Kevin Hamberger, PhD, from page 4

not for those with severe pathology that we might see in theborderline-dysphoric and antisocial-narcissistic typologies.
Another problem for couple counseling is that batterers
as a whole tend to over-interpret and see their partner in acertain way such as “She’s doing this on purpose,” or “She’salways doing this to disrespect me.” In contrast, there are lessdrastic interpretations such as “She’s just misbehaving rightnow” or “We’re just having a difference and it’s not a big deal.”
We would also challenge him to think about the fact that he
immediately jumps to the conclusion that his partner is likely
to cheat on him and to change that type of thinking, too.
Dr. McCarroll: Since it may not be a good idea to include
the spouse in the treatment of a batterer, how do you bring
8 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

their over-interpretation of cues into therapy?
Dr. Hamberger: In batterer treatment, we frequently talkabout various interactions that men are having with theirpartners. That is part of the ongoing homework. When they
feel upset, when they feel angry, when stressors are in theirrelationship, they are asked to record their thoughts about what
is going through their mind as they experience such a situation.
Then they bring that homework into the treatment with themand we go over it.
Dr. McCarroll: Thank you for your insights and yourcontribution to our newsletter.
Dr. Hamberger: You are welcome.

July 2009