The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Processes of Resistance in Domestic Violence 

Offenders 

Author: Deborah A. Levesque, Ph.D. 

Document No.: 223620 

Date Received: August 2008 

Award Number: 2003-IJ-CX-1030 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies.

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
PROCESSES OF RESISTANCE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDERS

FINAL REPORT

October 22, 2006 

PREPARED FOR: 

Bernard Auchter 

Violence and Victimization Division 

Office of Research and Evaluation 

National Institute of Justice 

810 Seventh Street NW 

Washington, D.C. 20531 

PREPARED BY: 

Deborah A. Levesque, Ph.D. 

 Pro-Change Behavior Systems, Inc. 

P.O. Box 755 

West Kingston, RI 02892 

GRANT NO. 2003-IJ-CX-1030 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
ABSTRACT

Within a Transtheoretical Model of Change (stage of change) framework, three studies were 

conducted to examine resistance in domestic violence offenders. In Study One, an 88-item draft 

measure of resistance was developed and administered to 346 adult males in batterer treatment. 

The study yielded a valid and psychometrically sound 38-item measure that assesses eight 

resistance dimensions: 1) System Blaming, 2) Problems with Partner, 3) Problems with Alliance, 

4) Social Justification, 5) Hopelessness, 6) Isolation, 7) Psychological Reactance, and 8) Passive 

Reactance. In Study Two, the measure was administered to a separate sample of adult males at 

batterer program intake (N=358) and again two months later (N=256) in order to confirm the 

measure’s factor structure and to further examine its external validity. Resistance over time was 

related to stage progression and regression and use of psychological aggression, mild physical 

aggression, and severe physical aggression against a partner since program start. Only three 

types of resistance, System Blaming, Problems with Partner, and Hopelessness, decreased from 

program intake to follow-up, suggesting that domestic violence programs may be most attentive 

to those types of resistance, but may need to do more to address other forms of resistance. In 

Study Three, interviews with experts on domestic violence treatment were conducted in an initial 

attempt to identify strategies for dealing with resistance in batterer treatment. The current 

project and future research on resistance can help the field become more attuned to different 

forms of resistance and their potential impact on partner violence and offenders’ engagement in 

treatment. Assessing and managing resistance more effectively can complement established 

practices and, over time, potentially increase the impact of programs for domestic violence 

offenders. 

1

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During the last 25 years, court-mandated treatment has emerged as society’s intervention of 

choice for men who assault their wives and partners. However, the now several dozen studies 

conducted to assess the efficacy of batterer programs have been unable to provide conclusive 

evidence that treatment works to reduce violence and abuse. A major barrier to delivering any 

court-mandated program is that offenders are, by definition, forced to attend. Among domestic 

violence offenders, resistance to traditional intervention programs has been well documented, 

and program dropout rates can be quite high. Offenders may lack the motivation required to 

make a real investment in treatment, and make real changes. 

Domestic violence programs tend to be highly structured, psycho-educational, and “one-size-fitsall,” neglecting individual differences in readiness to change. The Transtheoretical Model of 

Change (TTM), in contrast, understands change as progress, over time, through a series of 

stages—Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance—and posits 

that we are more likely to reduce resistance, facilitate treatment engagement, and produce 

behavior change when interventions are individualized and matched to individual stage of 

change, rather than one-size-fits-all. The model systematically integrates the following 

theoretical constructs central to change: 1) stage of change; 2) decisional balance; 3) processes 

of change; and 4) self-efficacy. Effective outcomes have been found with stage-matched 

interventions for a variety of health behaviors, including smoking cessation, exercise adoption, 

and stress management. A randomized clinical trial, currently underway to assess the efficacy of 

a computer-administered stage-matched intervention for domestic violence offenders, has 

yielded promising preliminary findings.

In an effort to improve the TTM’s power to explain and facilitate change, we have begun to 

examine “processes of resistance” as a separate construct that can influence stage progression 

and regression. Within the TTM framework, processes of change represent activities that 

facilitate progress through the stages, whereas processes of resistance represent activities that 

inhibit progress through the stages and increase the risk of relapse or regression. To examine the 

processes of resistance in domestic violence offenders, the seven aims of this project were as 

follows: 

1) To develop a psychometrically sound, multidimensional measure of processes of resistance 

for domestic violence offenders. 

2) To examine the construct validity of the measure among men in batterer treatment by 

assessing the relationship between processes of resistance and other dimensions to which 

resistance should be related: stage of change for staying violence-free, time in treatment, and 

use of psychological aggression, mild physical aggression, and severe physical aggression. 

3) To examine the relationship between use of processes of resistance and processes of change. 

We hypothesized that offenders’ use of the processes of resistance would exceed the 

processes of change in the early stages, and that the processes of change would exceed 

processes of resistance in the later stages. 

4) To confirm the factor structure of the measure in a separate sample of domestic violence 

offenders. 

2

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5) To examine the relationship between patterns of resistance and the following behavioral 

outcomes over time: a) stage progression, b) stage regression, c) use of psychological 

aggression, d) use of mild physical aggression, and e) use of severe physical aggression. 

6) To determine whether resistance and other TTM variables at treatment intake predict 

treatment completion and dropout. 

7) To conduct interviews with experts on domestic violence treatment in an initial effort to 

identify strategies for dealing with the specific types of resistance identified in Study One. 

Aims 1-3 were addressed in Study One; Aims 4-6 were addressed in Study Two; and Aim 7 was 

addressed in Study Three. 

STUDY ONE

In Study One, the procedure for measure development included: 1) a literature review, interviews 

with 18 experts on domestic violence treatment, and focus groups with 35 offenders to identify 

types of resistance and specific examples to be included in the new measure; 2) qualitative data 

analysis; 3) item writing; 4) cognitive interviews with offenders to ensure that survey 

instructions and questions were interpreted as intended; 5) a review by domestic violence, TTM, 

and cultural sensitivity experts; and 6) translation into Spanish. In the end, an 88-item draft 

processes of resistance measure was administered as part of a 280-item paper pencil survey to 

346 domestic violence offenders recruited from domestic violence agencies in Florida, 

California, Rhode Island, and Georgia. 

Results of statistical analyses suggest that the processes of resistance items can be classified into 

the following eight distinct dimensions: 

1) System Blaming: Believing that the criminal justice system treats men unfairly in 

domestic violence cases and that women abuse the laws. 

2) Problems with Partner: Blaming the partner for the violence, diminishing or feeling 

discouraged about the relationship. 

3) Problems with Alliance: Focusing on the counselor’s use of confrontation and inability 

to help the client feel understood, safe, and supported. 

4) Social Justification: Believing that changing would be difficult—or impossible—in one’s 

environment, given social and religious norms and expectations. 

5) Hopelessness: Feeling hopeless, overwhelmed, depressed or anxious about making 

changes. 

6) Isolation: Lacking support from family and friends because of social isolation, distrust, 

or discomfort seeking help. 

3

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7) Psychological Reactance: Responding to pressure to change with an angry or negativistic 

stance. 

8) Passive Reactance: Responding with pressure to change by participating only 

superficially, without meeting expectations or responding appropriately. 

A total of 38 items, 3-5 per scale, were retained. Results of external validity analyses are 

reported below. 

• 23% of participants were in the Precontemplation stage of change for partner violence 

cessation; 26% in Contemplation; 19% Preparation; 13% Action High Relapse; and 19% 

Action Low Relapse. 

• We expected to find the highest levels of resistance among offenders in the earlier stages 

of change, and lowest levels among offenders in the later stages. This was the case for 

Passive Reactance, and a trend for System Blaming and Problems with Alliance. In 

contrast, Social Justification and Hopelessness peaked in the Preparation stage, and 

Isolation peaked in the Preparation and Action High Relapse stages, when offenders may 

be experiencing more anxiety about their behavior and ability to make and maintain 

changes. 

• Total incidents of psychological aggression in the last six months was predicted by 

Psychological Reactance and Passive Reactance; total incidents of mild physical 

aggression was predicted by Psychological Reactance and Hopelessness; and total 

incidents of severe aggression was predicted by Psychological Reactance and Social 

Justification. 

• Problems with Alliance, the only type of resistance related to time in treatment, was 

highest among individuals who had been in treatment for less than one month. 

• As expected, processes of resistance exceeded the processes of change in the early stages, 

and processes of change exceeded processes of resistance in the later stages. 

 

Interestingly, System Blaming and Problems with Partner, the two processes of resistance that 

participants reported using most frequently, were relatively unrelated to partner aggression. In 

contrast, Social Justification, Hopelessness, Passive Reactance, and especially Psychological 

Reactance were related to behavior, with effect sizes in the medium range. These preliminary 

data suggest that if domestic violence counselors choose to address resistance, they may want to 

focus less on the more pervasive system blaming and partner blaming, and focus more on the 

types of resistance that may be more emotional and internally-based, and possibly more difficult 

to detect. The processes of resistance measure provides a tool for measuring those types of 

resistance. 

STUDY TWO

In Study Two, the processes of resistance measure was administered to a separate sample of 

domestic violence offenders at batterer program intake and again two months later. We chose to 

4

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
administer measures at intake and two months follow-up to provide a snapshot of resistance 

during the early phase of treatment, where levels, patterns, and successful management of 

resistance may be particularly important. 

The goals were to: 1) confirm the factor structure of the measure; 2) to examine the relationship 

between patterns of resistance and stage progression, stage regression, and perpetration of 

partner aggression during the first two months of treatment; 3) to determine whether resistance 

decreases from program intake to follow-up; 4) to determine whether resistance and other TTM 

variables at treatment intake predict treatment completion and dropout; and 5) to examine the 

relationship between use of processes of resistance and processes of change and stage 

progression and stage regression over time. 

Study participants were domestic violence offenders from domestic violence agencies in Florida, 

Virginia, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Calgary, Canada. In all, 358 offenders completed the 

baseline survey and 256 completed the follow-up survey (72% study retention rate). Agencies 

provided program attendance and completion data. Major finding are summarized below: 

• The factor structure of the processes of resistance measure was replicated. The goodness 

of fit index for the final measurement model was not as high as desired. However, the 

model was very complex, and the parsimonious fit index, which takes into account 

complexity, was in the acceptable range. 

• 71% of participants who were in one of the Pre-Action stages (Precontemplation, 

Contemplation, or Preparation) at baseline remained in Pre-Action at follow-up; 74% of 

participants who were in one of the Action stages (Action High Relapse or Action Low 

Relapse) at baseline remained in Action at follow-up. 

• Men who progressed from Pre-Action to Action showed significant decreases in 

Problems with Alliance, Social-Justification, and Passive Reactance from intake to 

follow-up. Conversely, regression from Action to Pre-Action was associated with 

significant increases on these same dimensions, along with increases in Problems with 

Partner and Hopelessness. Those specific types of resistance may be especially important 

to monitor and manage in the early phases of treatment. 

• Results of analyses examining the relationship between resistance and partner aggression 

perpetrated since program start suggest that Social Justification, Hopelessness, 

Psychological Reactance, and Passive Reactance may be especially important to target. 

• Only System Blaming, Problems with Partner, and Hopelessness decreased from intake 

to follow-up. One explanation of this finding is that domestic violence programs are 

most attentive to these types of resistance, and do have an impact on them. However, 

agencies may need to do more to address other forms of resistance in domestic violence 

treatment. 

• Stage of change, age, and employment status were the only significant predictors of 

program completion. Being in Action or employed fulltime at treatment intake more 

5

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
doubled the likelihood of completing treatment. Each additional year of age increased 

the likelihood of completing treatment by about 4%. 

• Among individuals who progressed from Pre-Action to Action during the follow-up 

period, the processes of resistance decreased and the processes of change increased to 

surpass resistance. The increase in the processes of change was twice as large as the 

decrease in resistance, pointing to the importance of encouraging and supporting positive 

behaviors that facilitate change, and not just focusing on resistance. 

• Among individuals in the Action stages, stage regression during the follow-up period was 

associated with a significant increase in resistance, and maintained Action was associated 

with a significant decrease, pointing to the importance of continuing to attend to 

resistance even among individuals who are already engaged in the change process. 

STUDY THREE

Thirteen domestic violence experts were mailed a list of processes of resistance measure items, 

organized by dimension, and asked to think about how they would recommend domestic 

violence counselors respond to a client engaging in those behaviors in treatment. Interviews 

were conducted by telephone, with an interviewer and note-taker, and audiotaped. Expert 

recommendations were organized into themes within each resistance dimension. A sample of the 

major themes are reported below. 

Recommendations for System Blaming: 

1) Empathize with the client’s experience to build the therapeutic alliance. 

2) Let the client know that this program may be helpful, even if he was unjustly arrested. 

Recommendations for Problems with Partner: 

1) Stress that while the client cannot control or change his partner’s behavior, he has choices 

about how he will respond to it. 

2) Assist the client in deciding whether to continue his relationship, and whether he will be 

able to make healthy changes if he decides to continue it.

Recommendations for Problems with Alliance: 

1) Examine your own attitudes about domestic violence offenders and domestic violence 

treatment. 

2) Address potential problems with alliance and your responsibilities to the criminal justice 

system openly and proactively.

Recommendations for Social Justification: 

1) Challenge the client’s beliefs about what is normal behavior in his culture, and what it 

means to be a man. 

6

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2) Assess with the client whether he may need to change people, places, or things that 

support or encourage his violent behavior. 

Recommendations for Hopelessness: 

1) Acknowledge and address other difficulties in the client’s life; provide referrals. 

2) Increase self-efficacy through skill-building.

Recommendations for Isolation: 

1) Encourage the client to identify and reach out to positive sources of support in the 

community. 

2) Help the client think more about his need for friendships and social support, and any 

barriers to finding them. 

Recommendations for Psychological Reactance: 

1) Remind the client that he has the option of accepting or rejecting what the group has to 

offer. 

2) Be aware of how your own behavior may be contributing to psychological reactance. 

Recommendations for Passive Reactance: 

1) Acknowledge and show acceptance for the fact that some people don’t like being told 

what to do. 

2) Encourage real involvement by making the group as stimulating as possible. 

Recommendations might be distilled into a smaller list of core guidelines for managing 

resistance: 

• Avoid debates 

• Empathize with concerns without excusing behavior 

• Help clients recognize that they do have choices 

• Collaborate and problem-solve 

• Believe that most clients ultimately do want to improve their lives and relationships, 

despite their resistance. 

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

To begin to examine resistance in domestic violence offenders, three studies were conducted. 

The products of this research include a validated 38-item measure of resistance; information on 

the levels and patterns of resistance during the first two months of batterer treatment, and the 

relationship between resistance and stage progression, stage regression, and partner aggression; 

and a summary of experts’ recommendations for managing each type of resistance in domestic 

violence treatment. While developed within a TTM framework, the measure can be used 

outside the TTM framework in research and practice guided by other theoretical models. 

7

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The findings provide an impetus for several lines of future research. First, all data were collected 

via self-report surveys. It will be important validate the new resistance measures against data 

from other sources—including, for example, partner reports of offenders’ violent and abusive 

behavior, and group facilitators’ assessments of offenders’ treatment engagement and motivation 

to change. 

Study Two examined resistance on only two occasions, at program intake and two months later. 

It will be important to determine what happens to resistance over a greater number of assessment 

timepoints, and over the entire course of the batterer program. Furthermore, a longer follow-up 

would allow us to see whether the resistance dimensions that did not decrease significantly 

during the first two months of treatment do decrease eventually, at a slower rate or with an initial 

lag in their decline. 

It would also be helpful to identify external factors that influence changes in resistance over 

time. Variables of interest would include the nature of the relationship with the counselor, level 

of confrontation used in the group, the nature of the relationship with the partner, whether one’s 

social environment is hospitable or inhospitable to change, and total number of serious life 

stressors. 

Finally, to improve batterer treatment outcomes, it will be important to develop and test 

interventions designed to reduce—or at least minimize—resistance. The processes of resistance 

measure could be used as an outcome measure in such research. It could also be used as an 

intervention tool to monitor resistance, identify individuals at risk, or even serve as a vehicle for 

discussing resistance with offenders. 

The current project and future research on resistance can help the field become more attuned to 

resistance and its potential impact on partner violence and engagement in treatment. Assessing 

and managing resistance more effectively can complement established practices and, over time, 

potentially increase the impact of programs for domestic violence offenders. 

8

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
INTRODUCTION

The 1995 National Violence Against Women Survey on intimate partner violence (Tjaden & 

Thoennes, 2000) found that nearly 25% of women surveyed had been physically or sexually 

assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner at some point in 

their lifetime. Approximately 4.8 million intimate partner physical and sexual assaults are 

perpetrated against American women each year; over 40% of these assaults result in injury, and 

over 10% require some form of medical treatment. Intimate partner violence is a significant risk 

factor for mental disorders. Among studies of mental illness in battered women, the weighted 

mean prevalence of depression was 47.6%; suicidality, 17.9%; post traumatic stress disorder, 

63.8%; alcohol abuse, 18.5%; and drug abuse, 8.9%. Weighted mean odds ratios representing 

the association between intimate partner violence and these disorders ranged from 3.6 to 5.6 

(Golding, 1999). Children who witness interparental violence are at higher risk for post 

traumatic stress disorder (Kilpatrick & Williams, 1997), depression (Sternberg et al., 1993), and 

behavioral disturbances (Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson, & Zak, 1986). 

During the last 25 years, court-mandated treatment has emerged as society’s intervention of 

choice for men who assault their wives and partners. However, the now several dozen studies 

conducted to assess the efficacy of batterer programs have been unable to provide conclusive 

evidence that treatment works to reduce violence and abuse. Three meta-analyses of batterer 

treatment outcome studies found small effects for treatment in studies relying on official reports 

of violence recidivism, and negligible effects in studies relying on partner reports (Babcock, 

Green, & Robie, 2004; Feder & Wilson, 2005; Levesque, 1998). Based on the data, Babcock et 

al. (2004) concluded that batterer programs “have a minimal impact on reducing recidivism 

beyond the effect of being arrested.” Others, however, maintain that our methods for evaluating 

programs are flawed and that some of the data do provide some encouragement (Gondolf, 2004). 

A major barrier to delivering any court-mandated program is that offenders are, by definition, 

forced to attend. Among domestic violence offenders, resistance to traditional intervention 

programs has been well documented (e.g., Ganley, 1987; Daniels & Murphy, 1997; Hamberger 

& Hastings, 1986), and program dropout rates can be quite high (for a review, see Daly & 

Pelowski, 2000). Offenders may lack the motivation required to make a real investment in 

treatment, and make real changes. 

Batterer treatment tends to be highly structured, psycho-educational, and “one-size-fits-all,” 

neglecting individual differences in motivation that can affect program effectiveness and 

participation rates. The Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM) offers a promising approach 

to matching intervention to offenders’ readiness to change (Eckhardt, Babcock, & Homack, 

2004; Begun et al., 2003; Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005; Levesque, Gelles, & Velicer, 2000; Scott, 

2004). TTM research has found that behavior change involves progress, over time, through a 

series of stages that represent ordered categories along a continuum of motivational readiness: 

Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance (Prochaska & 

DiClemente, 1983). The model posits that we are more likely to reduce resistance, facilitate 

progress and treatment engagement, and produce behavior change when interventions are 

individualized and matched to individual stage of change, rather than one-size-fits-all. Along 

with stage of change, the model includes additional dimensions central to change: decisional 

balance—the pros and cons associated with a behavior’s consequences (Janis & Mann, 1977; 

Velicer, DiClemente, Prochaska, & Brandenberg, 1985); processes of change—10 cognitive, 

9

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
affective, and behavioral activities that facilitate progress through the stages of change 

(Prochaska, Velicer, DiClemente, & Fava, 1988); and self-efficacy—confidence to make and 

sustain changes in difficult situations, and temptation to slip back into old patterns (Bandura, 

1977; Velicer, DiClemente, Rossi, & Prochaska, 1990). 

Over 25 years of research on a variety of health behaviors and in a variety of populations have 

identified the principles and processes of change that work best in each stage to facilitate 

progress. Effective outcomes have been found with stage-matched interventions for a variety of 

health behaviors, including, smoking cessation (Prochaska, DiClemente, Velicer, Rossi, 1993; 

Prochaska, Velicer, Fava, Rossi, & Tsoh, 2001), exercise adoption (Marcus et al., 1998), and 

stress management (Evers et al., 2006). A randomized clinical trial is currently underway to 

assess the efficacy of a computerized TTM-based multimedia intervention developed as an 

adjunct to traditional batterer programs (Levesque et al., 2005; Levesque, Driskell, & Prochaska, 

in press). 

Although the TTM has had unprecedented impacts on health behavior change across behaviors 

and populations, a majority of individuals in the early stages of change do not progress to Action, 

and a sizeable percentage of individuals in the later stages regress, even when administered 

stage-matched interventions. In an effort to improve the TTM’s power to explain and facilitate 

change, we have begun to examine “processes of resistance” as a separate and potentially 

multidimensional construct that can influence stage progression and regression. 

RESISTANCE

Turkat and Meyer (1982) provide the most general and straightforward definition of resistance: 

“Resistance is client behavior that the therapist labels antitherapeutic” (p. 158). Most 

psychotherapy research suggests that resistance is associated with slower progress and premature 

termination from treatment (for a review of that research, see Beutler, Moleiro, & Talebi, 2002). 

However, a series of studies on resistance among adults in parent training therapy found that 

resistance follows a curvilinear pattern: it starts out low in the first few sessions, increases in the 

middle sessions, and then decreases, suggesting a “struggle and working through” as the 

therapist begins to encourage behavior change (Chamberlain, Patterson, Reid, Kavanagh, & 

Forgatch, 1984; Stoolmiller, Duncan, Bank, & Patterson, 1993). Chronically high and 

chronically low levels of resistance predict less change and worse outcomes. 

Most published batterer treatment manuals address resistance only briefly or provide only 

general guidance on how to deal with it. In their manual on the Duluth Model, Pence and 

Paymar (1993) recommend that counselors confront resistance to increase client accountability, 

whereas other batterer treatment guides recommend avoiding confrontation, and sometimes 

ignoring the resistance altogether (Neidig & Friedman, 1984; Wexler, 2000). Confrontation may 

increase rather than decrease resistance and model coercive behavior (Murphy & Baxter, 1997). 

Two brief, low-cost interventions have been developed specifically to reduce resistance and 

improve attendance among domestic violence offenders. Stosny (1994) developed a video 

entitled “Shadows of the Heart,” which dramatizes partner violence through the eyes of a child 

who later becomes an abuser. It was hypothesized that compassion for the child evoked by the 

video and the group discussion that followed would be inconsistent with, and thus reduce, anger 

and resistance. More recently, clinical researchers drew from the motivational enhancement 

10

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
literature (Miller and Rollnick, 2002) to develop a protocol that involves handwritten notes and 

telephone calls from the counselor at the start of group and following missed sessions to express 

an interest in working with the client and problem-solve around barriers to attendance (e.g., 

transportation problems). It was hypothesized that this intervention would reduce resistance by 

facilitating the therapeutic alliance and increasing motivation to change (Taft, Murphy, Elliott, 

and Morrell, 2001). Both interventions were found effective in improving attendance. 

Motivational interviewing, a therapeutic approach and set of techniques initially developed to 

manage resistance among substance abusers, may hold promise as well. Miller and Rollnick 

(2002) explain that ambivalence about change is perfectly natural; resistance, on the other hand, 

is a function of the interaction—or struggle—between the counselor and client. They 

recommend that counselors avoid confrontation, and instead “role with resistance” by using a 

client-centered and empathic style, validating responsibility and personal choice, and eliciting 

self-motivational statements from the client. A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials of MIbased interventions found the approach to be effective in the treatment of alcohol, drugs, and diet and 

exercise. Results did not support its efficacy for smoking or HIV-risk behaviors (Burke, Arkowitz, & 

Menchola, 2003). Murphy and Eckhardt (2005) describe how motivational interviewing 

techniques can be used to manage resistance among domestic violence offenders—and also 

describe how concepts from the TTM can be used to understand and facilitate change among 

offenders who may be unmotivated for change. 

MEASURES OF RESISTANCE

Beutler, Moleiro, & Talebi (2002) provide an overview of existing measures of resistance. One 

set of measures uses observational approaches to assess resistance during psychotherapy 

sessions—for example, by rating in-session whininess and rebelliousness (Shoham-Salomon, 

Avner, & Neeman, 1989), defensiveness (Morgan, Luborsky, Crit-Christoph, Curtis, & Solomon, 

1982), or behavior (Chamberlain et al., 1984). Another set of measures assesses resistant traits. 

For example, the Client Resistance Scale (Mahalik, 1994) assesses opposition to: (1) the 

expression of painful affect; (2) recollecting past events; (3) the therapist; (4) change; and (5) 

insight. Among domestic violence offenders, denial and minimization can be assessed by 

examining discrepancies between offender and victim reports of the violence (e.g. Heckert & 

Gondolf, 2000), and victim-blaming can be assessed by examining offenders’ attributions of 

blame (e.g., Cantos, Neidig, & O’Leary, 1993; Holtzworth-Munroe, Jacobson, Fehrenbach, & 

Fruzzetti, 1992). More recently, brief self-report measures of denial, minimization, and victimblaming were developed for a study examining the relationship between resistance and violence 

recidivism among men who batter (Henning & Holdford, 2006). Surprisingly, no relationships 

were found. 

While denial, minimization, and victim-blaming seem to be common among domestic violence 

offenders presenting for treatment, there may be other types of resistance that deserve attention 

as well. For example, Albert Ellis, in his classic text on resistance, identifies “resistance 

stemming from feelings of hopelessness,” “resistance motivated by fear of change,” “resistance 

resulting from reactance and rebelliousness,” and “resistance connected with therapist-client 

relationships” (2002). One type of resistance that may be especially important in predicting 

program dropout and continued violence among offenders is Psychological Reactance. The 

theory of psychological reactance holds that the loss—or threat of loss—of freedom motivates 

the individual to restore that freedom. The magnitude of the reactance depends on the 

11

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
importance of the freedom, the number and proportion of freedoms threatened (Brehm, 1966; 

Brehm & Brehm, 1981), and individual differences. Reactant patients are less concerned about 

“impression management” and are more likely to resist rules and social norms, and to act without 

considering the consequences (Dowd & Wallbrown, 1993; Dowd, Wallbrown, Saunders, & 

Yesenosky, 1994). A study of dating violence among college students found that both 

perpetrators and victims of dating violence had higher levels of psychological reactance than 

individuals in nonviolent relationships (Hockenberry & Billingham, 1993). 

PROCESSES OF RESISTANCE WITHIN A TTM FRAMEWORK

Within the TTM framework, processes of resistance can be conceptualized as negative 

counterparts to each of the processes of change: whereas processes of change represent specific 

activities that facilitate progress through the stages of change, “processes of resistance” represent 

specific activities that inhibit progress and increase the risk of relapse or regression (Levesque, 

Velicer, Prochaska, & Fava, 1999). Identifying negative counterparts to each of the processes of 

change will require that we look beyond denial, minimization, and victim-blaming. 

 

To begin to examine resistance in domestic violence offenders, its impact on treatment progress 

and completion, and methods for managing it, the aims of this project were as follows: 

1) To develop a psychometrically sound, multidimensional measure of processes of resistance 

for domestic violence offenders. 

2) To examine the construct validity of the measure among men in batterer treatment by 

assessing the relationship between processes of resistance and other dimensions to which 

resistance should be related: stage of change for staying violence-free, time in treatment, and 

use of psychological, mild physical and severe physical aggression 

3) To examine the relationship between use of processes of resistance and processes of change. 

We hypothesized that offenders’ use of the processes of resistance would exceed the 

processes of change in the early stages, and that the processes of change would exceed 

processes of resistance in the later stages. 

4) To confirm the factor structure of the measure and replicate findings in a separate sample of 

domestic violence offenders. 

5) To examine the relationship between patterns of resistance and the following behavioral 

outcomes during the first two months of batterer treatment: a) stage progression, b) stage 

regression, c) use of psychological aggression, d) use of mild physical aggression, and e) use 

of severe physical aggression. 

6) To determine whether resistance and other TTM variables at treatment intake predict 

treatment completion and dropout. 

7) To conduct interviews with experts on domestic violence treatment in an initial effort to 

identify strategies for dealing with resistance in batterer treatment. 

12

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This research was conducted in three studies. In Study One, the sequential method for scale 

development described by Jackson (1971) and Comrey (1988) provided the basic procedure for 

developing the processes of resistance measure: 1) item generation, 2) measure administration, 3) 

measure refinement, and 4) preliminary validation. Additional steps were taken to ensure that 

the measure was culturally sensitive, and the measure was translated into Spanish. It was 

hypothesized that individuals in the most advanced stages and who had been in treatment the 

longest would report the lowest levels of resistance. 

In Study Two, the measure was administered to a separate sample of domestic violence offenders 

at batterer program intake and again two months later in order to confirm the hypothesized factor 

structure of the processes of resistance measure, and to further examine the measure’s external 

validity. It was hypothesized that higher levels of resistance would be associated with lack of 

stage progression among individuals in the Pre-Action stages at program intake, with stage 

regression among individuals in the Action stages at program intake, and with increased rates of 

psychological aggression, mild physical aggression, and severe physical aggression perpetrated 

during treatment. 

In Study Three, interviews with experts on domestic violence treatment were conducted in an 

initial effort to identify strategies counselors can use to manage resistance among clients in 

batterer treatment. 

This research will increase understanding of the complex process of change among men who 

batter. It will provide a measurement tool that can be of use to researchers and practitioners, and 

point to potential intervention strategies to reduce resistance and facilitate change. 

13

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
STUDY 1 

The sequential method for scale development described by Jackson (1971) and Comrey (1988) 

provided the basic procedure for developing the processes of resistance measure. The four steps 

are: (1) item generation, (2) measure administration, (3) measure refinement, and (4) preliminary 

validation. Additional steps were taken to ensure that the measure was sensitive to cultural 

differences that can affect values, learning and behavior. We sought input from experts on 

domestic violence in the African American and Latino communities, sought a good 

representation of minority participants in all project activities (at least 15% Black or African 

American, 15% Hispanic), and asked a certified cultural sensitivity trainer to review a final draft 

of the new resistance measure. Spanish-language versions of all study materials were made 

available to Spanish-speaking study participants. 

All project activities involving human subjects were approved by an Institutional Review Board. 

At the start of each project activity, participants completed an informed consent form that 

provided information about the study, the benefits and risks of participation, and the limits of 

confidentiality. Individuals were assured that their decision about whether to participate would 

in no way affect their treatment at the agency, or their relationship with the courts or probation. 

METHOD

ITEM GENERATION

A literature review, interviews with 18 experts on domestic violence treatment (see Appendix A 

for a list of experts and their affiliations), and three focus groups with a total of 35 adult males 

attending a 20-week domestic violence program in Rhode Island were conducted to identify 

types of resistance and specific examples to be included in the draft measure. Sixty-three percent 

of participants described themselves as White, 16% described themselves as Black or AfricanAmerican, and 19% described themselves as “other” or multiracial. Twenty percent of the 

sample was Hispanic. Their mean age was 32.0 years (SD = 9.5) and mean education level was 

10.9 years (SD = 2.8); their average length of time in their current domestic violence program 

was 7.8 weeks (SD = 5.7). 

In general, experts and focus group participants were asked to identify how domestic violence 

offenders might resist using each of the positive processes of change. For example, for Dramatic 

Relief (experiencing negative emotions about one’s behavior or its consequences), offenders 

were asked, “People may try to make you feel something inside, feel bad about your behavior. 

What are some defenses against that?” Responses included, “Mentally block it out,” “Ignore it,” 

“Think about something else,” “Deny it,” “Just agree to get them off your back,” “Say, ‘I have to 

change, why doesn’t she?” Experts were asked, “Domestic violence programs often try to elicit, 

or encourage batterers to get in touch with, shame, fear, worry, and other negative emotions 

associated with their abusive behavior. What might a batterer do or say to show that he’s not 

willing or able to do what we’re asking him to do?” Responses from experts included: “Making 

light of the whole thing, making it into a big joke,” “Denial and minimization—‘It wasn’t that 

bad; it was just a disagreement,’” “Generalizing—‘Everybody has problems in their 

relationship,’” “Say, ‘Look what she did to me,’” and “See it as them trying to manipulate me.” 

Experts also were asked to respond to more general questions about resistance, including, “In 

your work with batterers, how do you think of resistance? What is it?” “Can you describe some 

14

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
of the common types of resistance you see?” “Do you consider resistance to be a state or trait?” 

and “How do you see the trajectory of resistance over the course of the program? For example, 

does it generally start low, increase, then decrease? Or does it generally start high, then 

decrease?” 

In the qualitative analysis, statements generated in the expert interviews and focus groups were 

shuffled and re-organized into separate—and to the extent possible, mutually exclusive—

categories representing different strategies or processes for resisting change in domestic violence 

programs. Eleven processes were identified and operationally defined. Next, drawing from the 

qualitative data, and incorporating the language used by the men in the focus groups, we wrote 

survey items (i.e., survey questions) representing each of the 11 processes of resistance. Labels, 

conceptual definitions, and sample items for the 11 initial processes of resistance are provided in 

Table 1. It should be noted that the dimension entitled “Social Justification” was designed to 

represent the kinds of cultural and social forces that support violence in general, and violence 

against women in particular. 

To assess content validity, six experts on the Transtheoretical Model of Change, from ProChange, sorted items into 11 categories based on the conceptual definitions of the resistance 

dimensions. Items that were not sorted into the expected category by at least five of the six TTM 

experts were dropped from the item pool or re-written. Items were also forwarded to the 

domestic violence experts for review. Any items that were added or rewritten were re-sorted by 

the TTM experts. 

Next, 13 cognitive interviews (Forsyth & Lessler, 1991; Willis, 1994) with domestic violence 

offenders were conducted to ensure that measure instructions and questions were interpreted as 

intended. Participants, recruited from a 20-week domestic violence program in Rhode Island, 

received a $20 credit toward their program fee. Forty-six percent of participants described 

themselves as White, 38% described themselves as Black or African-American, and 16% 

described themselves as “other” or multiracial. Eight percent of the sample was Hispanic. Their 

mean age was 31.1 years (SD = 9.9) and mean education level was 11.2 years (SD = 2.0); they 

had been attending their domestic violence program a mean of 10.7 weeks (SD = 5.3). 

The first version of the measure tested included 137 items; its instructions read, “Listed below 

are thoughts and feelings that men may experience in domestic violence programs. HOW 

OFTEN have you experienced each of the following in the LAST MONTH? Answer using a 

number from 1 to 5, where 1=Never and 5=Repeatedly.” During the cognitive interviews, 

participants were provided with a copy of the draft survey and asked the following kinds of 

questions to assess the measure’s clarity and meaningfulness: “What are the directions telling 

you to do?” “What does this word mean to you?” “Do you think anybody might find this 

question confusing for any reason?” “Can you think of a better way to ask this question?” In 

response to the feedback, minor changes to the survey instructions and questions were made—

and retested—in an iterative fashion, until we were confident that a majority of domestic 

violence offenders would interpret the instructions and questions as intended, and could 

complete the measure with little difficulty. 

Finally, the measure was translated into Spanish, and both the Spanish and English versions were 

forwarded to a certified cultural sensitivity trainer, a clinical psychologist with expertise in 

domestic violence. The trainer assessed the cultural sensitivity of the measure, assessed the 

15

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
accuracy of the translation, and administered the Spanish-language measure to two Spanishspeaking domestic violence offenders. No additional changes to the measure were 

recommended. 

The final version of the draft processes of resistance measure contained 88 items (eight per 

resistance dimension) selected on the basis of clarity of expression, lack of redundancy with 

other items, and the degree to which they represented their resistance dimension as 

conceptually defined. 

MEASURE REFINEMENT AND PRELIMINARY VALIDATION

Participants. Study participants were 346 domestic violence offenders recruited from domestic 

violence agencies in Florida (130 subjects from four agencies), Rhode Island (29 subjects from 

one agency), Georgia (66 subjects from one agency), and California (121 subjects from two 

agencies). Florida agencies were recruited via letters mailed to 88 agencies randomly selected 

from a list of certified Florida programs found on the Internet. Programs in California, Rhode 

Island and Georgia were well known to the project’s PI or consultants, and were invited by email or telephone to participate. 

The Florida, Rhode Island and Georgia programs ran from 20-26 weeks, and the California 

programs ran for 52 weeks. Group facilitators collected data during group sessions, in lieu of 

regularly scheduled activities. Participants received a $10 gift card to a local store, or a $10 

voucher toward their program fee, for their participation (agencies decided at the outset which 

kind of incentive they wanted their clients to receive). Agencies received $5 for each completed 

survey. 

Group facilitators reported that only a handful of men (<10) declined participation, primarily 

because they could not read or write, or because they did not trust that their information would 

remain anonymous. 

Forty-two percent of participants described themselves as White, 29% described themselves as 

Black or African-American, and 29% described themselves as “other” or multiracial. Thirty-four 

percent of the sample was Hispanic. Seventeen percent of all participants—representing 48% of 

Hispanics—chose to complete the Spanish-language version of the survey. Participants had a 

mean age of 35.3 years (SD = 10.5) and mean education level of 11.6 years (SD = 3.0). A 

majority, 72%, were employed full-time; 23% had annual incomes below $10,000, and 23% had 

incomes of $40,000 and over. 

Thirty-four percent of participants were single, never married, 38% were married, and the 

remainder were separated, divorced or widowed; 51% were living with a wife or girlfriend, and 

49% reported having children in the household. When asked to describe the current status of 

their relationship with the partner involved in the domestic assault, 31% reported that they were 

currently married to the victim, 13% were cohabiting, 7% were dating, 32% were separated, 6% 

were divorced, and 11% reported “other” (generally described, in response to a follow-up 

question, as no longer involved). 

Participants had been attending their domestic violence program an average of 16.8 weeks (SD = 

12.9). In response to questions about criminal history, 25% reported that they’d “been in 

16

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
trouble” for domestic violence before, and 14% had attended a prior domestic violence program; 

16% had been arrested for a violent offense against someone who was not a wife or girlfriend; 

24% had been arrested for a drug- or alcohol-related offense; and 44% had been arrested for 

other types of offenses. Twenty-seven percent of the sample screened positive for at-risk 

drinking. 

Procedure. The 88-item draft processes of resistance measure was administered as part of a 280-

item paper-and-pencil survey that took approximately 60 minutes to complete. Resistance items 

were placed in random order in the measure; in 50% of surveys, resistance items were placed in 

reverse order within the measure. The instruction set read: “Listed below are thoughts and 

feelings that you may experience. HOW OFTEN have you experienced each of the following in 

the LAST MONTH?” Response options were 1=Never, 2=Seldom, 3=Occasionally, 4=Often, 

and 5=Very often. The consent and survey materials were available in English and Spanish. The 

English-language survey’s Flesch Kincaid reading level was grade 7.3. 

Measures. Along with the draft processes of resistance measure, the survey included questions 

assessing demographics, relationship to the domestic assault victim, months in batterer treatment, 

and criminal history, along with the following measures: 

1) Stage of Change. Stage of Change was assessed using the URICA-DV-R (University of 

Rhode Island Change Assessment for Domestic Violence Offenders-Revised, Levesque, 

2006), a revised version of the URICA-DV (Levesque, Gelles, & Velicer, 2000), which is 

composed of four 5-item scales that measure four correlated but distinct constructs 

representing Precontemplation, Contemplation, Action, and Risk of Relapse in males with a 

history of partner violence. The URICA-DV-R begins by defining “violence” and “ending 

the violence,” and then continues, “Please tell us how much you DISAGREE or AGREE 

with each of the following statements. Base your answers on how you’re feeling and acting 

NOW.” Response options are 1= Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Sample items 

include: “I don't see the point of focusing on the violence in my relationship” 

(Precontemplation); “More and more I’m seeing how my violence hurts my partner” 

(Contemplation); “I’m finally doing something to end the violence” (Action); and “Although 

I haven’t been violent for awhile, I know it’s possible for me to be violent again” (Risk of 

Relapse). Across three separate samples of domestic violence offenders in treatment, the 

average Cronbach’s Alphas for the four scales were .70, .77, .83, and .75, respectively 

(Levesque, 2006). 

A computerized scoring program computed scale scores by taking the sum of the five items 

composing each scale, and converted scale scores to T-scores. Then, performing a 

“backwards cluster analysis,” the program used a least squares approach to calculate the 

distance between a participant’s profile of scores on URICA-DV-R and each of six 

established stage profiles (Levesque, 2006). The participant was assigned the profile with 

the closest squared distance from his own, and then classified into one of the five following 

stages based on his profile: Precontemplation (represented by two profiles), Contemplation, 

Preparation, Action High Relapse, and Action Low Relapse. The six stage profiles are 

presented and described in Appendix B. 

2) Decisional Balance. The decisional balance measure for domestic violence offenders 

(Levesque & Driskell, 2001) is composed of three 4-item scales that measure two pros 

17

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
constructs (general and children-related) and a single general cons construct. Cronbach’s 

Alphas ranged from .74 to .79 in the present sample. Several dozen studies on decisional 

balance (Hall & Rossi, 2002; Prochaska et al., 1994) have found that, across behaviors and 

populations, the perceived cons of changing outweigh the pros in the early stages, that the 

pros outweigh the cons in the later stages, and that the crossover takes place before Action. 

This pattern has been found in domestic violence offenders (Levesque et al., 2000). Table 2 

provides conceptual definitions of the decisional balance dimensions and sample scale items 

for domestic violence offenders. 

2) Processes of Change. The 49-item processes of change measure (Levesque & Driskell, 

2001) assesses 13 cognitive/experiential and behavioral activities that can facilitate the 

behavior change among domestic violence offenders (i.e., the 10 traditional TTM processes 

of change dimensions, along with Stress Management, Partner Collaboration, and Negative 

Self-Reevaluation). In the present sample, Cronbach’s Alphas for the 13 scales ranged from 

.56 to .86, with an average of .72. Table 2 provides conceptual definitions of the 13 

processes of change dimensions and sample items. 

3) Self-Efficacy. The self-efficacy measure for domestic violence offenders (Levesque, 

Driskell, & Prochaska, 2001) is a 12-item scale assessing temptation to engage in violence in 

three types of tempting situations: 1) Daily Hassles (“when I’m having problems at work),” 

2) Drug and Alcohol Use (“when I’m high on alcohol or other drugs”), and 3) Trouble with 

Partner (“when my partner is violent toward me”). Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .82 to 

.86 in the present sample. Once again, scale scores were calculated by taking the unweighted 

sum of the items composing each scale. 

4) Modified Conflict Tactics Scales. Physical and psychological aggression were assessed using 

a measure based on the Modified Conflict Tactics Scales (MCTS- Pan, Neidig, & O’Leary, 

1994). Participants were asked how often in the last six months they used each of a series of 

strategies to resolve conflict in their relationships, beginning with “rational” strategies (six 

items, e.g., “showed respect for your partner’s feelings about an issue”), and progressing to 

strategies representing psychological aggression (seven items, e.g., “did something to spite 

your partner”), mild physical aggression (five items, e.g., “pushed, grabbed, or shoved your 

partner”), and severe physical aggression (seven items, e.g., “beat up your partner”). 

5) Marlowe-Crowne SF-13. Social desirability was assessed using a 13-item short form of the 

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Reynolds, 1982). 

The Marlowe-Crowne SF-13 is highly correlated with the standard 33-item version of the 

Marlowe-Crowne (r=.93) (Reynolds, 1982). 

6) At-Risk Drinking. The 4-item CAGE questionnaire (Ewing, 1984), widely used in primary 

care, was used to screen for at-risk, harmful, or heavy drinking in primary care. The 

questions include: “Has anyone ever felt you should cut down on your drinking?” “Have 

people annoyed you by criticizing your drinking” “Have you ever felt guilty about your 

drinking?” “Have you ever had a drink first thing in the morning (an “eye opener”) to steady 

your nerves or get rid of a hangover?” A cut-off of two positive responses has adequate 

sensitivity and specificity in screening for heavy drinking and alcoholism (Bush, Shaw, 

Cleary, Delbanco, & Aronson, 1987; King 1986). 

18

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7) Medical Outcomes Study-Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12). Developed by Ware, 

Kosinksi, & Keller (1996), the SF-12 assesses eight areas of perceived health: physical 

functioning, role limitations due to physical health problems, physical pain, general health, 

vitality (energy versus fatigue), social functioning, role limitations due to emotional 

problems, and mental health (psychological distress and psychological well-being). The last 

four areas compose the Mental Component Summary (MCS) used in the present study. Testretest reliability for the MCS scale is .76. Evidence of the external validity of the SF-12 is 

summarized in Ware (1998). 

Data Analysis. Unless otherwise noted, analyses were conducted using SPSS for Windows, 

Release 11.0.1. Where appropriate, along with results of significance tests, we report 

standardized measures of effect size, η2 (eta square) or R2, to help readers gauge the magnitude 

of each effect or strength of each relationship. For η2 and R2, .01 generally indicates a small 

effect, .06 a medium effect, and .14 a large effect (Cohen, 1988). 

For measure refinement, a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was conducted to examine the 

dimensionality, content, and psychometric properties of the processes of resistance measure and 

to select a small number of final items that best represent each of the underlying dimensions 

while maximizing each subscale’s internal reliability. 

To assess the measure’s convergent validity (the degree to which it is related to variables it 

should be related to), a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) examined the 

relationship between stage of change, the independent variable, and processes of resistance, the 

dependent variables. Scores on the Marlowe-Crowne SF-13 were used as a covariate to control 

for social desirability. A separate MANCOVA examined the relationship between time in 

treatment and processes of resistance. It was hypothesized that participants in the earlier stages 

of change would exhibit higher levels of resistance than participants in the later stages, and that 

participants who were newer to treatment would exhibit more resistance than participants who 

had been in treatment longer. In addition, three separate stepwise multiple regression analyses 

examined the relationship between processes of resistance and total incidents of (1) 

psychological aggression; (2) mild physical aggression; and (3) severe physical aggression in the 

last six months. In each analysis the predictor variables were scores on the eight resistance 

subscales and social desirability 

To examine the relationship between the processes of resistance and processes of change across 

the stages, a composite measure of the processes of resistance and a composite measure of the 

processes of change were plotted with stage of change. Likewise, for comparison, composite 

measures of the pros and cons were plotted with stage of change. 

To assess the new measure’s discriminant validity (the degree to which it is unrelated to 

variables it should not be related to), a series of MANCOVAs examined whether processes of 

resistance were systematically related to demographics, relationship variables, criminal history, 

and at-risk drinking. 

19

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
RESULTS

MEASURE REFINEMENT

An 88 x 88 matrix of inter-item correlations was calculated for the resistance measure. In cases 

in which five or fewer of the resistance measure values were missing, pair-wise deletion was 

used to deal with missing values in the inter-item correlations. In cases in which more than five 

values were missing, data were deleted in a list-wise fashion, resulting in an N of 326. A PCA 

with varimax rotation was performed on the matrix of processes of resistance measure inter-item 

correlations to examine the measure’s dimensionality as the first step in its refinement (see 

Goldberg & Velicer, 2006, for an overview). Using a software program called Component 

Analysis Extended (CAX-Velicer, Fava, Zwick Harrop, 1988), the Minimum Average Partial 

procedure (MAP-Velicer, 1976) and a Parallel Analysis approximation procedure (Horn, 1965) 

were used to determine how many components to retain. These two decision rules are among the 

most accurate available (Zwick & Velicer, 1986; Velicer, Eaton & Fava, 2000). Component 

interpretability, component loadings, items’ correlations with social desirability, and Coefficient 

Alphas including and excluding particular items determined the final number of components to 

retain and their composition. Complex items (items that loaded >.40 on two or more 

components), items with low loadings (loadings of <.40 on all components), and items that 

contribute negatively to the reliability of the scale were deleted. Scale scores for each of the 

processes of resistance components were calculated by taking the sum of the final items 

comprising the components. We calculated Cronbach’s alphas for each of the scales, 

correlations with social desirability, and scale intercorrelations. 

Optimal results were achieved for an 8-component solution. Three to five items were retained in 

each scale to satisfy competing goals of keeping the measure as brief as possible while 

preserving the internal reliability of the individual scales. All items loaded heavily on their 

respective components (average loading = .62) and did not load heavily on other components 

(absolute value of the average loading = .13). The eight components accounted for 57% of the 

total variance. Conceptual definitions of the eight resistance dimensions and retained items are 

presented in Table 3. The final measure is provided in Appendix C. 

The Passive Reactance dimension contains three items initially designed to represent 

Detachment (e.g., “In the last month, how often did you agree with your counselor or the men in 

your group so they'd leave you alone?”), one item designed to represent Self-Justification (“In 

the last month, how often did you feel that you will not be able to finish this program because the 

rules are too strict?”), and one item designed to represent Denial/Minimization (“In the last 

month, how often did you feel that if you really wanted to hurt your partner you would have?”). 

Together, these five items seem to tap a broader construct representing a kind of passive 

reactance—a tendency to resist demands by going through the motions, without meeting 

expectations. The remaining seven resistance dimensions are similar to those identified in the 

initial qualitative analysis. Items representing Denial/Minimization, Negative Feedback, and 

Self-Justification—three dimensions identified in the qualitative analysis but not in the factor 

analysis—loaded on other scales, or on no scales at all. Four items representing 

Denial/Minimization loaded on System-Blaming. 

For individuals who had no more than one missing value on a given scale, scale scores were 

calculated by taking the sum of the items representing each dimension. Scale means, standard 

20

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
deviations, Cronbach’s Alphas, correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne SF-13 social desirability 

scores, and scale inter-correlations are presented in Table 4. Correlations above .11 and below -

.11 reached statistical significance at p<.05. 

Mean scale scores were highest on the System Blaming dimension, followed by Problems with 

Partner, then Isolation. Cronbach’s Alphas ranged from .71 to .82, indicating acceptable to good 

internal consistency. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between social 

desirability and all resistance dimensions, with the exception of System Blaming. Offenders 

with higher social desirability tended to report lower use of processes of resistance. Resistance 

scale intercorrelations ranged from .14 to .55, with an average of .42, suggesting that at least 

some resistance dimensions may in combination represent one or more higher-order constructs. 

PRELIMINARY VALIDATION

Relationship between Processes of Resistance and Stage of Change. The computerized staging 

program yielded the following stage distribution: 23% Precontemplation; 26% Contemplation; 

19% Preparation; 13% Action High Relapse; and 19% Action Low Relapse. A MANCOVA 

examining the relationship between stage of change and processes of resistance found a 

significant effect for the covariate, social desirability (Wilks' Λ = .87, F(8,303) = 5.6, p<.001, η2

= .13), and, after controlling for social desirability, a significant effect for stage of change 

(Wilks' Λ = .79, approximate F(32,1119) = 2.3, p<.001, η2 = .06). Follow-up ANCOVA's 

showed a statistically significant relationship between stage of change and four of the eight 

resistance scales: Social Justification, Hopelessness, Isolation, and Passive Reactance. Adjusted 

means, standard deviations and results of Bonferroni multiple comparison tests are reported in 

Table 5. The relationship between stage of change and Social Justification and Hopelessness 

was curvilinear, with relatively low scores in the Precontemplation, Action High Relapse, and 

Action Low Relapse Action stages, and high scores in the Preparation stage. Isolation showed a 

curvilinear pattern as well, but with a drop only in the Action Low Relapse stage. In contrast, 

Passive Reactance was highest in the Precontemplation stage, and lowest in the Action stages. 

Non-significant declines across the stages were observed for System-Blaming and Problems with 

Alliance. 

Relationship between Resistance and Time in Treatment. Among offenders enrolled in shorter 

(20- to 26-week) programs, a MANCOVA examined the relationship between resistance and 

time in treatment: less than four weeks (n = 32), 4-10 weeks (n = 66), 11-16 weeks (n = 48) and 

more than 16 weeks (n = 73), representing the early, early middle, late middle and late stages of 

treatment. There was a significant effect for social desirability, the covariate (Wilks' Λ = .80, 

F(8,197) = 6.2, η2 = .20, p<.001). After controlling for social desirability, a significant effect 

was found for time in treatment (Wilks' Λ = .83, approximate F(24,572) = 1.5, η2 = .04, p<.05). 

Follow-up ANCOVA's showed a statistically significant effect only for Problems with Alliance 

(F(3,204) = 2.9, p<.05, η2 = .04. Adjusted mean levels of Problems with Alliance were 9.7 (SD

= 3.6), 7.5 (SD = 3.6), 7.6 (SD = 3.6) and 7.8 (SD = 3.6) for individuals enrolled in their 

program less than four weeks, 4-10 weeks, 11-16 weeks, and more than 16 weeks, respectively. 

Post hoc tests showed that Problems with Alliance were significantly higher in weeks 1-3 than in 

weeks 4-10. 

21

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Among offenders enrolled in longer (52-week) programs, a separate MANCOVA examined the 

relationship between resistance and time in treatment: less than eight weeks (n=18), 8-26 weeks 

(n=35), 27-44 weeks (n=40) and more than 44 weeks (n=15). No significant effects were found. 

Relationship between Processes of Resistance and Level of Aggression. Three separate stepwise 

multiple regression analyses examined the relationship between processes of resistance and total 

incidents of (1) psychological aggression; (2) mild physical aggression; and (3) severe physical 

aggression in the last six months. Results are summarized in Table 6. The final models list only 

the significant predictors of each type of aggression. The partial correlation coefficients (partial 

r’s) provide an index of the amount of unique variance in aggression scores accounted for by 

each of the independent variables. Results show that total incidents of psychological aggression 

in the last six months was predicted by Passive Reactance, lower social desirability, and 

Psychological Reactance; total incidents of mild physical aggression was predicted by 

Psychological Reactance and Hopelessness; and total incidents of severe aggression was 

predicted by Psychological Reactance and Social Justification. 

Relationships between Processes of Resistance and Processes of Change. Figure 1 shows that, 

like decisional balance, the processes of resistance exceed the processes of change in the early 

stages, and the processes of change exceed the processes of resistance in the later stages. As 

expected, the crossover takes place before action. There was a small positive correlation 

between the process of resistance and processes of change (r=.14, p<.05), suggesting that the two 

constructs are not merely polar opposites of a single dimension. 

Discriminant Validity. Finally, a series of analyses examined the relationship between processes 

of resistance and demographics, relationship variables, criminal history and alcohol abuse. 

Demographics. MANCOVAs examined the relationship between processes of resistance and 

race (White, Black or African American, “other” or multiracial), ethnicity (Hispanic, nonHispanic), education (<hs, hs, >hs), income (<$10,000, $10,000-$19,000, $20,000-$39,000, 

>$40,000), and employment (unemployed, employed part time, employed full time). Results 

reached significance for ethnicity, education, and employment. The MANCOVA for ethnicity 

showed a significant main effect for social desirability (Wilks' Λ=.82, F(8,290)=8.2, p<.001, 

η2=.18) and, after controlling for social desirability, a main effect for ethnicity (Wilks’ Λ=.90, 

F(8,290)=3.9, p<.001, η2=.10). Follow-up ANCOVA's showed that ethnicity was related to 

System Blaming (F(1,297)=9.2, p<.001, η2=.03), Problems with Partner (F(1,297)=3.9, p<.05, 

η2

=.01), and Psychological Reactance (F(1,297)=4.1, p<.05, η2=.01). Hispanics scored 

significantly lower than non-Hispanics on System Blaming (adjusted mean scores were 12.1 

(sd=5.9) vs. 14.4 (sd=5.9), respectively) and Problems with Partner (adjusted mean scores were 

10.6 (sd=3.6) vs. 11.7 (sd=3.6), respectively). However, Hispanics scored significant higher 

than non-Hispanics on Psychological Reactance (adjusted mean scores were 5.4 (sd=4.7) vs. 4.8 

(sd=4.7). 

For the MANOVA examining education, there was a significant effect for social desirability 

(Wilks' Λ=.82, F(8,300)=7.9, p<.001, η2

=.17) and, after controlling for social desirability, for 

education (Wilks' Λ=.86, F(16,600)=3.1, p<.001, η2

=.08). Follow-up ANCOVA's showed that 

education was significantly related to System Blaming, Hopelessness, and Problems with 

Partner. Adjusted means, standard deviations and results of significance tests and multiple 

22

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
comparison tests for those dimensions are reported in Table 7. Results show that individuals 

with higher levels of education (>hs) had significantly higher System Blaming than individuals 

with lower levels of education (<hs or hs), significantly higher Problems with Partner than 

individuals with a just a high school degree (hs), and significantly lower Hopelessness than 

individuals who had not earned a high school degree (<hs). 

For the MANOVA examining employment, there was a significant effect for social desirability 

(Wilks' Λ=.82, F(8,296)=8.1, p<.001, η2

=.18) and employment status (Wilks' Λ=.91, 

F(16,592)=1.7, p<.05, η2=.04). Follow-up ANCOVA's showed that employment status was 

related only to Hopelessness (F(2,303)=7.0, p<.001, η2=.04). Individuals who were unemployed 

had significantly higher Hopelessness than individuals who were employed full time; adjusted 

mean scores for those two groups were 10.5 (sd=3.5) and 7.9 (sd=3.5), respsectively. 

Relationship Variables. MANCOVAs examined the relationship between processes of resistance 

and marital status, whether cohabiting, whether there were children in the household, and current 

status of relationship with the victim involved in the domestic assault. Only status of 

relationship with victim was significant. In that analysis, there were significant effects for social 

desirability (Wilks' Λ=.82, F(8,297)=8.1, p<.001, η2

=.18) and status of relationship (Wilks' 

Λ=.82, approximate F(40,1297)=1.5, p<.05, η2=.04). Follow-up ANCOVA's showed that status 

of relationship with victim was significantly related only to Problems with Partner 

(F(5,304)=8.1, p<.01, η2=.06). Adjusted mean scores on the Partner dimension was 12.8 

(sd=6.0) for participants who were married to their victims, 13.1 (sd=6.0) those not married but 

living together, 12.5 (sd=6.0) for those who were dating, 14.3 (sd=6.0) for those who were 

separated, 13.9 (sd=6.0) for those who were divorced, and 15.1 (sd=1.2) for those who described 

their relationship with the victim as “other” (i.e., no longer involved). Multiple comparison tests 

showed that participants who were married to their victim scored significantly lower (p<.05) on 

Problems with Partner than participants who were separated or who described their relationship 

as “other.” 

Criminal History and At Risk Drinking. Prior “trouble” for domestic violence, prior domestic 

violence program, prior arrest for violence against someone who was not an intimate partner, 

prior arrest for alcohol- or drug-related offense, prior arrest for any other type of offense), 

alcohol abuse based on the CAGE were unrelated to processes of resistance. 

DISCUSSION

Within a Transtheoretical Model framework, a self-report measure of resistance was developed 

to assess processes, or activities, that might inhibit progress through the stages of change for 

using healthy strategies to stay violence-free, and increase risk of stage regression. The 38-item 

measure assesses eight correlated but distinct dimensions. Denial/Minimization, which seems so 

common among domestic violence offenders in treatment, did not emerge as a unique dimension 

of resistance in this sample. Several survey items representing Denial/Minimization (e.g., I did 

nothing wrong, my behavior wasn’t that bad, the abuse only happened once, I don’t have a 

problem with violence or abuse) loaded on the System-Blaming dimension, suggesting that 

domestic violence offenders’ denial and minimization tend to coincide or overlap with a focus on 

the criminal justice system. It is possible that individuals who deny or minimize their abuse feel 

a need to point to the unfairness of the system to explain their arrest and current predicament (I 

23

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
did nothing wrong...and wouldn’t be here if the laws weren’t so hard on men). It also seems that 

men who focus on the unfairness of the system are implicitly denying or minimizing their abuse 

(the police didn’t listen to my side of the story...to see that my behavior wasn’t that bad). For 

practitioners and researchers who want to assess denial and minimization separately, such 

measures for domestic violence offenders do exist elsewhere (Henning & Holdford, 2006). 

With the exception of Passive Reactance, all eight dimensions of resistance that emerged in the 

quantitative analyses had been identified earlier in the project, in an examination of the negative 

counterparts to the TTM processes of change. We suspect that Passive Reactance is a very real 

phenomenon in domestic violence offenders, and one we need to learn to manage. Commenting 

on Passive Reactance for this project, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Susan Breall wrote, 

“It might be useful to see that ‘Passive Reactance’ is one of the oldest, deepest, and most 

widespread resistances in human society, a passive refusal to cooperate without seeming to 

refuse, the standard, “ Yes sir, I’m doing the best I can boss,” used by powerless people 

everywhere to thwart the efforts of those in charge – and, of course, it is also transferable and 

useable to thwart the efforts of people who genuinely want you to improve” (personal 

communication, May, 2006). 

Passive resistance is a feature of Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder, and thus may tend to 

co-occur with other features of the disorder (e.g., unreasonably criticizes and scorns authority, 

voices exaggerated and persistent complaints of personal misfortune, APA, 1994). However, a 

kind of quiet, passive resistance can occur in the absence of the more overtly aggressive 

behavior. Nearly 50 years ago, in a paper on the “reluctant client,” Sidney Dean identified and 

described the “passive resistant client”: “These clients are often prompt and unfailing for 

appointments; but they just sit. They do their duty by physical presence. Gaining a 

monosyllabic response is a process of extraction” (1958, p. 72). In a discussion of 

psychological reactance among substance abusers who are mandated to treatment, Miller and 

Rollnick (2002) identified a type of reactant client who is willing to “jump through hoops,” but 

participates only minimally and shows little investment in real behavior change. Given the 

ostensible compliance and silence associated with Passive Reactance, it may be more likely to go 

unnoticed, and remain unaddressed, than other types of resistance, and perhaps lead to a false 

sense of accomplishment among counselors, and a false sense of safety among victims who see 

their partners dutifully attending treatment (Gondolf, 1988). 

We expected to find the highest levels of resistance among offenders in the earlier stages of 

change, and lowest levels among offenders in the later stages. This was the case for Passive 

Reactance, and a trend for System Blaming and Problems with Alliance. In contrast, Social 

Justification and Hopelessness peaked in the Preparation stage, and Isolation peaked in the 

Preparation and Action High Relapse stages. This more curvilinear pattern is consistent with the 

“struggle and working through” conceptualization of resistance, which attributes mid-treatment 

rises in resistance to increasing pressure to change from the counselor (Chamberlain et al., 1984; 

Stoolmiller et al., 1993). We wonder, however, whether the struggle is more internal, or 

intrapersonal, rather than interpersonal. Based on the stage classification system used here (see 

Appendix B), batterers in the Preparation stage are becoming more motivated to make changes, 

but also more aware of how difficult change can be. Social Justification, Hopelessness, and 

Isolation seem to represent an anxious recognition of—or focus on—the seriousness of their 

problem and the barriers to change. Social Justification and Hopelessness may begin to drop 

only after offenders begin to take real action in the Action stages, and perhaps see that they can 

24

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
overcome their barriers. Alternatively, offenders may be able to move forward only after they 

begin to manage their sense of Social Justification and Hopelessness. 

The relationship between the Processes of Change and Processes of Resistance across the stages 

of change is remarkably similar to the relationship between the Pros and Cons across the stages, 

and points to the lawfulness of human behavior. People don’t take action until their evaluation 

of the advantages (Pros) outweigh the disadvantages (Cons), and they don’t take action until 

their facilitative activities (Processes of Change) outnumber their inhibitory activities (Processes 

of Resistance). 

Interestingly, System Blaming and Problems with Partner, the two processes of resistance that 

participants reported using most frequently, were relatively unrelated to partner aggression. In 

contrast, Social Justification, Hopelessness, Passive Reactance, and especially Psychological 

Reactance were related to behavior, with effect sizes in the medium range, and thus should 

become a target for intervention. 

There are several limitations to this study. First, data were collected cross-sectionally, and did 

not allow us to examine resistance over time, or the relationship between resistance and stage 

progression and regression. A longitudinal design would have permitted a more statistically 

powerful within-subjects approach to examine changes in resistance over time among different 

groups of offenders. Also, all measures were completed anonymously. Levels and patterns of 

resistance found here may not generalize to findings under other study (or treatment) conditions. 

Study Two, which uses a longitudinal design, will begin to address these issues. 

25

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
STUDY TWO

In Study Two, the processes of resistance measure was administered to a separate sample of 

domestic violence offenders at batterer program intake and again two months later. The goals 

were to: 1) confirm the factor structure of the measure; 2) to examine changes in resistance 

during the first two months of batterer treatment; 3) to examine the relationship between patterns 

of resistance and the following behavioral outcomes during the first two months of treatment: a) 

stage progression, b) stage regression, c) use of psychological aggression, d) use of mild physical 

aggression, and e) use of severe physical aggression; and 4) to determine whether resistance and 

other TTM variables at treatment intake predict treatment completion and dropout. 

We chose to administer all measures at intake and two months follow-up to provide a snapshot of 

resistance during the early phase of treatment, where levels, patterns, and successful 

management of resistance may be particularly important. Also, a longer follow-up period may 

have led to more incomplete data as participants dropped out of their batterer program and 

became more difficult to locate for the second assessment. 

METHOD

Participants. Study participants were 358 domestic violence offenders recruited from domestic 

violence agencies in Florida (243 subjects from nine agencies), Virginia (46 subjects from two 

agencies), Michigan (15 subjects from two agencies), Rhode Island (45 subjects from one 

agency) and Calgary, Canada (9 subjects from one agency). Five of the Florida agencies had 

participated in Study One; the four remaining Florida agencies and the two Virginia agencies 

were recruited via letters mailed to a total of 226 agencies randomly selected from lists of 

certified batterer programs found on the Internet. Programs in Michigan, Rhode Island and 

Calgary were well known to the project’s PI or consultants, or their colleagues, and were invited 

by e-mail or telephone to participate. We sought to include programs that were approximately 

the same length in duration; all ran from 20 to 26 weeks, with the exception of the Canadian 

program, which consisted of an indeterminate number of individual sessions, depending on the 

client’s individual needs, followed by a 14-week group program. 

Participants received a $20 gift card to a local store or a $20 voucher toward their program fee 

for completing a questionnaire at program intake, and a $30 gift card or voucher toward their 

program fee for completing the follow-up questionnaire. (Agencies decided at the outset which 

kind of incentive they wanted their clients to receive). Agencies received $10 for each 

completed baseline survey, and $15 for each completed follow-up survey. 

Group facilitators reported that only a handful of men (5-10%) declined study participation when 

invited at program intake, primarily because they could not read or write, or because they did not 

trust that their information would remain confidential. Fifty-nine percent of participants 

described themselves as White, 20% described themselves as Black or African-American, and 

21% described themselves as “other” or multiracial. Thirty-seven percent of the sample was 

Hispanic. Nineteen percent of all participants—representing 52% of Hispanics—chose to 

complete the Spanish-language version of the survey. Participants had a mean age of 33.7 years 

(sd=10.0) and mean education level of 11.5 years (sd=2.2). A majority of participants, 66%, 

were employed full-time; 29% had annual incomes below $10,000 and 13% had incomes of 

$40,000 and over. 

26

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Forty-one percent of participants were single, never married, 31% were married, and the 

remainder were separated, divorced or widowed; 40% were living with a wife or girlfriend, and 

37% reported having children in the household. When asked to describe the current status of 

their relationship with the partner involved in the domestic assault, 23% reported that they were 

currently married to the victim, 19% were cohabiting, 8% were dating, 31% were separated, 5% 

were divorced, and 14% reported “other” (generally described as no longer involved). 

In response to questions about criminal history, 29% reported that they’d “been in trouble” for 

domestic violence before, and 14% had attended a prior domestic violence program; 21% had 

been arrested for a violent offense against someone who was not a wife or girlfriend; 24% had 

been arrested for a drug- or alcohol-related offense; and 51% had been arrested for other types of 

offenses. Twenty-eight percent of the sample screened positive for at-risk drinking. 

Participant Surveys. Agency staff and group facilitators administered the baseline (T1) survey 

around program intake, operationally defined as “anytime up to and including the third session, 

but as close to intake as possible.” Surveys were administered in one-on-one or small group 

sessions at the agency, or clients were asked to complete the survey at home and return it the 

following week. On the final page of the T1 survey, participants were reminded that they would 

be asked to complete a final survey in about two months. They were told that if they were no 

longer in the same domestic violence program at that time, Pro-Change would like to send the 

survey to their home, so would they please provide a mailing address. Seventy-four percent of 

participants provided an address. On a monthly basis, agencies received follow-up (T2) surveys 

with a coversheet containing the participant’s name and survey due date. 

Agency staff mailed completed T1 and T2 surveys to Pro-Change in individual postage-paid 

envelopes provided. T2 surveys for participants who had dropped out of the program were 

returned blank, and forwarded by Pro-Change to the participant’s home if a mailing address was 

available. 

At T1, the refined, 38-item resistance measure was administered as part of a 210-item paper-andpencil survey that took approximately 45 minutes to complete. The English-language survey’s 

Flesch Kincaid reading level was grade 7.1. The T1 survey included questions assessing 

demographics; relationship to the domestic assault victim; weeks in batterer treatment; criminal 

history; the Marlowe-Crowne SF-13 to assess social desirability; and the CAGE to assess at-risk 

drinking. The following additional measures were included in both the T1 and T2 surveys: 1) 

Stage of Change; 2) Decisional Balance; 3) Processes of Resistance; 4) Processes of Change; 5) 

Self-Efficacy; and 6) Modified Conflict Tactics Scales. The processes of resistance measure is 

included in Appendix C. At T1, the CTS asked about abusive behavior in the last six months; at 

T2, it asked about abusive behavior since the start of the domestic violence program. All 

measures are described in the Study One Procedure section. 

Program Attendance and Completion Data. Agency staff were asked to provide program 

attendance and completion data on their clients who participated in the study. Near the end of 

the study, agencies received a chart that listed participants’ names and program start dates, and 

contained blank fields for recording the following: 1) program completion date; 2) whether still 

enrolled in program; 3) date of first drop; 4) reason for first drop; 5) number of sessions attended 

before first drop; 6) date of return; 7) whether returning participant had to start the program over 

27

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
from the beginning; 8) date of second drop; 9) reasons for second drop; and so on. Agency staff 

received $15/hour for completing the chart. 

Data Analysis. Unless otherwise noted, analyses were conducted using SPSS for Windows, 

Release 11.0.1. Where appropriate, along with results of significance tests, we report 

standardized measures of effect size, η2 (eta square) or R2, to help readers gauge the magnitude 

of each effect or strength of each relationship. For η2 and R2, .01 generally indicates a small 

effect, .06 a medium effect, and .14 a large effect (Cohen, 1988). 

Confirmation of Factor Structure. To ensure adequate variability, and to approximate the crosssectional nature of the dataset used in Study One, data for the confirmatory analyses (the 

“confirmatory dataset”) were taken from the T2 survey for the first 160 subjects who completed 

it, and from the T1 survey for remaining subjects. A 38 x 38 matrix of inter-item correlations 

was calculated for the 38-item processes of resistance measure. In cases in which fewer than 

three process of resistance items were missing, sample mean replacement was used to deal with 

missing values in the inter-item correlations. In cases in which three or more values were 

missing, data were deleted in a list-wise fashion, resulting in an N of 338. 

Using EQS Version 6.1 (Bentler & Wu, 2003), structural equation modeling (SEM) was 

conducted to compare the data’s fit to a null model that assumed that all items were completely 

independent of each other (Bentler and Bonett 1980) to two measurement models that were more 

likely to represent the data: 1) an 8-factor fully correlated factors model; and 2) a hierarchical 

model containing eight first-order factors and a single second-order factor representing general 

resistance. If both measurement models were found to be deficient, we were prepared to develop 

and test alternative models based on changes suggested by SEM modification indices. 

Goodness of fit was assessed using the Comparative Fix Index (CFI—Bentler, 1990) and the 

Nonnormed Fit Index (NNFI—Tucker & Lewis, 1973), two fit indices that performed well in a 

simulation study examining the robustness of six fit indices against various study conditions 

(Ding, Velicer, & Harlow, 1995). Given the present study’s sample size (>250), anticipated 

factor loadings (>.50), and estimation method (maximum likelihood), the NNFI and CFI were 

expected to perform well. Potential values for these fit indices range from .00 to 1.00, with 

values above .90 indicating good to excellent fit. We also reported the Parsimonious Fit Index 

(PFI—James, Mulaik, and Brett 1982), which adjusts for the greater parsimony of the correlated 

factors model, as well as the χ2

/df ratio, and the Root Mean Square Error Approximation 

(RMSEA). Suggested values for model retention are .60 and higher for the PFI (Williams & 

Podsakoff, 1989), 2.0 and lower for the χ2/df ratio (Jöreskog and Sörbom (1982), and .08 and 

lower for the RMSEA (Browne & Cudek, 1992). 

Scale psychometric properties, correlations with social desirability, and scale inter-correlations 

were calculated to allow comparisons with values found in Study One. 

Changes in Resistance Over Time. This analysis and those that follow used all available T1 and 

T2 data to examine resistance longitudinally. A repeated measures MANCOVA was conducted 

to assess changes in resistance from program intake to two months follow-up. The withinsubjects independent variable was assessment timepoint (T1, T2), the dependent variables were 

scores on the eight resistance dimensions, and the covariate was social desirability. 

28

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Resistance and Stage Progression and Regression during Domestic Violence Treatment. The 

sample size was inadequate to examine all combinations of stage transitions from T1 to T2 (e.g., 

from Contemplation to Precontemplation, from Contemplation to Contemplation, from 

Contemplation to Preparation, from Contemplation to Action, etc.). Instead, the 

Precontemplation, Contemplation and Preparation stages were combined and labeled “PreAction,” and the Action High Relapse and Action Low Relapse stages were combined and 

labeled “Action.” 

Among individuals in the Pre-Action stages at T1, a repeated measures MANCOVA examined 

the relationship between resistance and stage progression (whether the participant progressed to 

one of the Action stages or remained in Pre-Action) from T1 to T2. The dependent variables 

were scores on the eight resistance dimensions. The between-subjects independent variable was 

stage progression (yes, no) from T1 to T2, the within-subjects independent variable was 

assessment timepoint (T1, T2), and the covariate was social desirability. Among participants in 

the Action stages at T1, a separate repeated measures MANCOVA examined the relationship 

between resistance and stage regression (whether the participant regressed to one of the PreAction stages or remained in Action) from T1 to T2. 

Resistance and Use of Psychological Aggression, Mild Physical Aggression, and Severe Physical 

Aggression Since Program Start. Three separate repeated measures MANCOVAs were 

conducted to examine the relationship between perpetration of abuse since the start of the 

domestic violence program and resistance over time. The dependent variables were scores on 

the eight resistance dimensions. The between-subjects independent variable was use of 

aggression (yes, no), the within-subjects independent variable was assessment timepoint (T1, 

T2), and the covariate was social desirability. 

Processes of Change and Processes of Resistance, Stage Progression and Regression. To 

illustrate the relationship between the processes of change, processes of resistance and stage 

progression and regression from T1 and T2, composite measures of processes of change and 

processes of resistance were calculated by taking the sum of the 13 processes of change scale 

scores, and the sum of the 8 processes of resistance scale scores, respectively, at T1 and T2. 

Next, the composite measures were converted to standardized T-scores with a mean of 50 and 

standard deviation of 10. Standardized processes of change and processes of resistance scores at 

T1 and T2 were then plotted for each for the four stage transition groups: 1) Pre-Action at T1, 

progressed to Action at T2; 2) Pre-Action at T1, remained in Pre-Action at T2; 3) Action at T1, 

regressed to Pre-Action at T2; and 4) Action at T1, remained in Action at T2. For comparison, a 

composite measure of the two pros dimensions and the cons were converted to T-scores and 

plotted for each of the four stage transition groups. 

Predictors of Program Completion. A logistic regression was conducted to identify predictors of 

program completion (yes, no) among individuals who had been followed in the study for a 

minimum of 30 months. Predictors included the following dimensions assessed at treatment 

intake: social desirability, stage of change (Pre-Action, Action), pros, cons, processes of change, 

the eight resistance dimensions, race/ethnicty (White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, 

Hispanic, “other” or multiracial), age, and employment status (employed fulltime, not employed 

full time). The logistic regression model was constructed using the forward selection procedure, 

and the Wald statistic was used to test the significance of individual predictor variables. 

29

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
RESULTS

Two agencies initially misunderstood the study instructions and administered the T1 survey to 12 

clients who had been in treatment for several weeks (M=15.6, sd=7.4). Those subjects were not 

administered a T2 survey. Among the remaining 346 subjects, 256 (74%) completed the T2 

survey; 247 completed it at their agency, and 9 completed it through the mail. Six participants 

(2%) refused to complete the T2 survey; one participant (<1%) was incarcerated; 52 (15%) had 

dropped out the domestic violence program and either did not leave a forwarding address for the 

survey or did not return a survey mailed to the home. Another 27 subjects (8%) were lost to 

follow-up for unknown reasons (the agencies did not return the completed survey, and provided 

no further information), and 4 subjects (1%) did not receive T2 surveys because their names had 

not been provided by the agencies. Chi-Square tests showed that T2 survey completion was 

unrelated to demographics, relationship variables, criminal history and alcohol abuse. 

All agencies returned the program attendance and chart. Altogether, agencies provided 

attendance and completion data on 354 (99%) of the 358 study participants. 

Confirmation of Factor Structure. Table 8 presents the results of the null and measurement 

model tests conducted on the confirmatory dataset. As expected, the null model, which assumed 

that all observed variables were uncorrelated, did not fit the data (CFI=.00, NNFI=.00). The 

eight correlated factors model provided a much better, though still inadequate, fit (CFI=.86, 

NNFI=.85). There was a decrement in fit for the hierarchical model containing eight first-order 

factors and a single second-order factor representing general resistance (CFI=.83, NNFI=.82). 

However, the parsimonious fit indices for the correlated factors and second-order factor models 

were the same (PFI=.78), suggesting that the decrement in fit for the second-order factor model 

was due to its greater complexity. 

The second-order factor model is presented in Figure 2. All standardized indicator loadings were 

significant at p<.05. Indicator loadings for resistance items loading on their respective first-order 

factors ranged from λ= .35 to .83, with an average of .64. Only four items had loadings below 

λ=.50. Three low-loading items belonged to the Passive Reactance factor (“How often did you 

not pay attention in group?” “How often did you feel that you will not be able to finish this 

program because the rules are too strict?” “How often did you feel that if you really wanted to 

hurt your partner you would have?”), and one belonged to the Hopelessness factor (“How often 

did you feel afraid about the thought of changing?”). To improve the model’s fit to the data, we 

considered deleting the four items with low loadings, but that would have left only two indicators 

on the Passive Reactance Factor. We then considered dropping the Passive Reactance factor 

altogether, but reasoned that is a potentially important dimension of resistance that should be 

retained. 

Indicator loadings for first-order factors loading on the second-order general resistance factor 

ranged from λ= .40 for System Blaming and .60 for Problems with Partner, to .79 - .94 for the 

remaining factors. Given the relatively low second-order factor loadings for System Blaming 

and Problems with Partner, and Study One findings suggesting that those two types of resistance 

may operate differently than the other types (e.g., they were unrelated to current stage of change 

and to self-reported aggression against a partner during the last six months), we examined an 

30

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
alternative measurement model that excluded System Blaming and Problems with Partner from 

the second-order factor, and included them instead as stand-alone single-order factors that were 

correlated with each other and with the revised second-order factor. This final model and its fit 

indices are presented in Figure 3 and Table 8, respectively. The final model had a very slightly 

improved fit over the simple second-order factor model (CFI=.84, NNFI=.83, PFI=.79). All 

standardized indicator loadings and bi-directional structural paths were significant at p<.05. We 

interpreted the revised second-order factor as a general form of resistance that is more emotional 

and internally based, and thus called it “E-Resistance”; System Blaming and Problems with 

Partner, in contrast, seem to be more externally based. 

The processes of resistance scale means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s Alphas, correlations 

with social desirability, and scale intercorrelations for the confirmatory dataset are presented in 

Table 9. With the exception of the Cronbach’s Alpha for Passive Reactance (α=.63), Alphas 

were similar to those found in Study One, and in the acceptable to good range (α=.73 to .86). 

Correlations with social desirability increased in Study Two, perhaps because Study Two, unlike 

Study One, did not preserve anonymity, leading participants who were especially concerned 

about impression management to present themselves in a more positive light (i.e., to report less 

resistance). However, despite the increased pull for some people to present themselves more 

positively in Study Two, Study Two mean scores are over 0.5 points higher than Study One 

mean scores on Hopelessness, Isolation, and Psychological Reactance, and over 1.0 point higher 

on System Blaming and Problems with Partner. 

Changes in Resistance Over Time. A repeated measures MANCOVA examining changes in 

resistance from T1 (program intake) to T2 (two months follow-up) found a between-subjects 

main effect for social desirability (Wilks' Λ=.55, F(8,222)=22.7, p<.001, η2=.45) and, after 

controlling for social desirability, a within-subjects main effect for assessment timepoint (Wilks' 

Λ=.91, F(8,222)=2.8, p<.005, η2=.09). Adjusted means and results of follow-up ANCOVAs are 

presented in Table 10. Scores on six of the resistance dimensions decreased from T1 to T2, but 

the magnitude of the change reached statistical significance only for System Blaming, Problems 

with Partner, and Hopelessness. Scores on Isolation and Passive Reactance did not decrease over 

time.

Resistance and Stage Progression and Regression during Domestic Violence Treatment. For 

individuals who completed stage measures at T1 and T2 (N=240), the computerized staging 

program yielded the following stage distribution at T1: 28% Precontemplation; 23% 

Contemplation; 19% Preparation; 12% Action High Relapse; and 18% Action Low Relapse; and 

the following stage distribution at T2: 19% Precontemplation; 21% Contemplation; 17% 

Preparation; 14% Action High Relapse; and 29% Action Low Relapse. Stage transitions are 

reported in Table 11. 

Among T2 survey completers who were in one of the Pre-Action stages at T1 (N=155), 71% 

remained in Pre-Action and 29% progressed to Action at T2. A repeated measures MANCOVA 

examining the relationship between resistance at T1 and T2 and stage progression found a 

between-subjects main effect for social desirability (Wilks' Λ=.51, F(8,145)=17.2, p<.001, 

η2

=.49). After controlling for social desirability, there was a within-subjects main effect for 

assessment timepoint (Wilks' Λ=.81, F(8,145)=4.0, p<.001, η2

=.18), and a within-subjects 

interaction effect for assessment timepoint x stage progression (Wilks' Λ=.89, F(8,145)=2.2, 

31

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
p<.05, η2

=.11). Significant timepoint x stage progression interaction effects are presented in 

Figures 4-6. Pre-Action individuals who progressed to Action displayed a sharp decline on 

Problems with Alliance, Social Justification, and Passive Reactance over time, whereas 

individuals who did not progress showed little change, or even a slight increase, on those 

dimensions. 

Among T2 survey completers who were in the Action stages at T1 (N=73), 26% regressed to 

Pre-Action and 74% remained in Action at T2. For this group, a repeated measures MANCOVA 

examining the relationship between resistance at T1 and T2 and stage regression found a 

between-subjects main effect for social desirability (Wilks' Λ=.57, F(8,55)=5.1, p<.001, η2=.43). 

After controlling for social desirability, there was no within-subjects main effect for assessment 

timepoint (Wilks' Λ=.81, F(8,55)=1.6, ns). However, there was a between-subjects main effect 

for stage regression (Wilks' Λ=.76, F(8,55)=2.1, p<.05, η2=.24), and a within-subjects interaction 

effect for assessment timepoint x stage regression (Wilks' Λ=.67, F(8,55)=3.3, p<.01, η2=.33). 

Results of follow-up ANCOVA's for stage regression are reported in Table 12. Individuals who 

regressed from Action to Pre-Action had, across T1 and T2, significantly higher levels of 

Problems with Alliance, Social Justification, Hopelessness, Psychological Reactance, and 

Passive Reactance than individuals who did not regress. 

Significant timepoint x stage regression interaction effects are presented in Figures 7-11. 

Individuals who regressed from Action to Pre-Action showed an increase on Problems with 

Alliance, Social Justification, Passive Reactance, Problems with Partner, and Hopelessness from 

T1 to T2, whereas individuals who remained in Action showed at least a slight decrease on those 

same dimensions. 

Resistance and Use of Psychological Aggression, Mild Physical Aggression, and Severe Physical 

Aggression Since Program Start. At T2, 81% of participants reported that they had engaged in 

psychological aggression since the start of their domestic violence program, 34% had engaged in 

mild physical aggression, and 12% had engaged in severe physical aggression. Three separate 

repeated measures MANCOVAs examined the relationship between resistance at T1 and T2 and 

use of each type of aggression since program start (yes, no). There were large between-subjects 

main effects for social desirability (Wilks' Λ ranged from .54 to .57; F(8,2171

) ranged from 21.1 

to 23.3; η2

 ranged .43 to .46, p<.001) and, after controlling for social desirability, within-subjects 

main effects for assessment timepoint (Wilks' Λ ranged from .90 to .91; F(8,2172

) ranged from 

2.8 to 3.1; η2

 ranged .09 to .10, p<.01). Each MANCOVA also found a between-subjects main 

effect for use of aggression: for psychological aggression Wilks' Λ=.89, F(8,216)=3.4, p<.001, 

η2=.11; for mild physical aggression Wilks' Λ=.86, F(8,217)=4.4, p<.001, η2=.14; for severe 

physical aggression Wilks' Λ=.82, F(8,220)=6.2, p<.001, η2

=.18. There were no assessment 

timepoint x aggression interaction effects. Table 13 reports the results of follow-up ANCOVAs 

examining the relationship between each type of partner aggression and resistance. Individuals 

who engaged in psychological aggression since program start scored significantly higher on the 

Social Justification, Hopelessness, and Psychological Reactance subscales of the processes of 

resistance measure. Individuals who engaged in mild and severe physical aggression scored 

significantly higher on all types of resistance but System Blaming and Problems with Alliance. 

 

1

 Error degrees of freedom ranged from 216 to 220, with a median of 217. 

2

 Error degrees of freedom ranged from 216 to 220, with a median of 217. 

32

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Processes of Change and Processes of Resistance, Stage Progression and Regression. To 

investigate the relationships between processes of change, processes of resistance, and stage 

progression and regression, standardized composite measures of processes of change and 

processes of resistance at T1 and T2 were plotted for the following stage transition groups: 1) 

Pre-Action progressed to Action; 2) Pre-Action did not progress; 3) Action regressed to PreAction; and 4) Action did not regress. For comparison, standardized composite scores on the 

pros and cons measures at T1 and T2 were also plotted for the four groups. Results are presented 

in Figures 12-15. 

The relationships between the processes of change and processes of resistance mirror the 

relationships between the pros and cons for domestic violence cessation: 

• For individuals in Pre-Action who progressed to Action, the processes of resistance and the 

cons decreased by about .25 SD from T1 to T2, and the processes of change and the pros 

increased by about .5 SD to surpass resistance and the cons. 

• For individuals in Pre-Action who did not progress to Action, the processes of resistance and 

the cons exceeded the processes of change and the pros at both T1 and T2. 

• For individuals in Action who regressed to Pre-Action, the processes of resistance and the 

cons increased by about .5 SD to exceed the processes of change and the pros. 

• For individuals in Action who did not regress to Pre-Action, the processes of change and the 

pros exceeded the processes of resistance and the cons at both T1 and T2; processes of 

resistance and the cons decreased by about .5 SD from T1 to T2. 

Predictors of Program Completion. Among the 237 study participants who had completed the 

baseline survey at least 30 weeks earlier and thus had adequate time to complete their program, 

162 (68.4%) did complete. Table 14 presents the results of a logistic regression analysis 

conducted to identify T1 variables and demographics that predicted program completion. Stage 

of change, age, and employment status were the only predictors significant at p<.05. The odds 

ratio for stage of change and employment status were 2.6 and 2.2, respectively, indicating that 

being in one of the Action stages or employed fulltime at baseline more doubled the likelihood of 

completing treatment. The odds ratio of 1.04 for age indicates that each additional year of age 

increase the likelihood of completing treatment by 4%. 

DISCUSSION

One of the goals of Study Two was to confirm the factor structure of the new processes of 

resistance measure. The final measurement model includes two single-order factors, System 

Blaming and Problems with Partner, and a second-order factor, “E-Resistance,” comprised of the 

six remaining factors. Goodness of fit indices for the final measurement model were not as high 

as desired. However, the model was very complex, and the parsimonious fit index, which takes 

into account complexity, is in the acceptable range. Whereas System Blaming and Problems 

with Partner seem more externally based, the E-Resistance factor seems to represent a general 

form of resistance that is more emotionally and internally based. In addition, while System 

Blaming and Problems with Partner are specific to domestic violence offenders and partner 

violence cessation, the dimensions loading on E-Resistance may be more generalizeable to other 

types of behavior change, and thus responsive to strategies used to address resistance in other 

33

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
types of treatment. In his text on resistance, Ellis (2002) describes three common types of 

resistance that overlap with E-Resistance dimensions found here: “resistance stemming from 

feelings of hopelessness” (Hopelessness); “resistance resulting from reactance and 

rebelliousness” (Psychological Reactance), and “resistance connected with therapist-client 

relationships” (Problems with Alliance). 

Zero stage movement appears to be the most common response to treatment during the twomonth follow-up period. Individuals who began in the Precontemplation stage at treatment 

intake were more likely to be in Precontemplation at follow-up than in any in other stage; 

individuals who began in Contemplation were more likely to be in Contemplation at follow-up, 

and so on. The only exception was Preparation, a relatively dynamic stage. Individuals who 

began in Preparation were more likely to move to the Action High Relapse stage than to remain 

in Preparation. 

Overall, 71% of participants who were in the Pre-Action stages at intake remained in Pre-Action 

at two months follow-up, and 74% of participants in the Action stages remained in Action. 

Surprisingly, stage progression and regression seem most clearly related to changes in resistance 

during the first two months of treatment, and not to levels of resistance at intake. Men who 

progressed from Pre-Action to Action displayed a sharp decrease in Problems with Alliance, 

Social Justification, and Passive Reactance from intake to follow-up, whereas men who 

regressed from Action to Pre-Action showed a sharp increase. Individuals who regressed from 

Action also showed a significant increase on Problems with Partner and Hopelessness. Findings 

suggest that those specific types of resistance may be especially important to monitor and 

manage in the early phases of treatment. 

Results of analyses examining the relationship between resistance and partner aggression 

perpetrated since program start suggest that Social Justification, Hopelessness, Psychological 

Reactance, and Passive Reactance may be especially important to target. 

The degree to which the relationships between the processes of change and processes of 

resistance mirror the relationships between the pros and cons for domestic violence cessation is 

striking, and reflects to the tension inherent in human behavior change, as well as its lawfulness. 

Individuals progress to—and remain in—Action only when facilitative behaviors surpass 

inhibitory behaviors, and when positive evaluations of the change’s consequences surpass the 

negative. 

Among individuals who progressed from Pre-Action to Action, the increase in the processes of 

change and pros was twice as large as the decrease in resistance and the cons (.5 SD vs. .25 SD). 

This finding points to the importance of encouraging positive behaviors that facilitate change 

(i.e., the processes of change outlined in Table 2) and not just reducing resistance, and of 

encouraging a careful considering of the benefits (i.e., pros) of changing, and not just reducing 

the cons. 

Among individuals in the Action stages, stage regression was associated with a significant 

increase in resistance, and maintained Action was associated with a significant decrease, pointing 

to the importance of continuing to attend to resistance even among individuals who are actively 

engaged in the change process. Any increases in resistance and the cons should be should be 

34

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
considered indicators of increased risk of regression or relapse; decreases in resistance and cons 

may represent a consolidation of gains. 

In the overall sample, only System Blaming, Problems with Partner, and Hopelessness decreased 

from T1 to T2. One explanation of this finding is that domestic violence programs are most 

attentive to those types of resistance. System Blaming and Problems with Partner may be easier 

than other types of resistance to detect because they are so common (they received the highest 

mean ratings on the resistance measure) and, perhaps, because offenders have relatively little 

difficulty articulating their anger toward the courts and their partners. However, if domestic 

violence counselors choose to address resistance, they may want to look beyond system- and 

partner-blaming to Social Justification, Passive Reactance, and other forms of resistance that 

may be more internally based and difficult to detect, but that are more strongly linked to 

behavior. 

The Processes of Resistance measure now provides a tool for measuring eight types of 

resistance. But do domestic violence counselors have the tools for managing resistance in 

treatment? In Study Three, a series of interviews with domestic violence experts were conducted 

to identify a range of strategies they believed would be effective in managing each of the eight 

types of resistance in batterer treatment.

35

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
STUDY THREE

PROCEDURE

In Study Three, 16 of the 18 domestic violence experts who were interviewed in Study One (see 

Appendix A3) were invited by telephone or e-mail to participate in a one-hour interview on best 

practices for dealing with resistance. Thirteen experts who agreed to be interviewed were 

provided with a list of processes of resistance dimensions and measure items, and asked to give 

recommendations on how domestic violence counselors can respond to clients engaging in those 

behaviors in treatment. 

Interviews were conducted by telephone phone, with an interviewer and note-taker, and 

audiotaped. The note-taker later reviewed the audiotape to ensure that the notes were complete 

and accurate. During the interview, each resistance dimension was discussed, one by one, 

beginning first with the conceptual definition. At the end of the interview, experts were asked to 

report on any additional strategies they believe are particularly effective in dealing with 

resistance. It should be mentioned that at the time of the interviews, Passive Reactance was 

conceptualized and operationally defined as “Detachment,” and focused primarily on the client’s 

emotional withdrawal from group. 

Expert recommendations were sorted by resistance dimension, and then organized into themes 

within each dimension. Themes appearing on four or more instances are reported below. 

Specific examples of each theme are provided in Appendix D. 

RESULTS

Recommendations for managing System Blaming (believing that the criminal justice system 

treats men unfairly in domestic violence cases and that women abuse the laws): 

1. Acknowledge that the criminal justice system is indeed unfair in some instances. 

2. Empathize with the client’s experience to build the therapeutic alliance. 

3. Let the client know that this program may be helpful, even if he was unjustly arrested. 

4. If system blaming continues, it may be appropriate to confront, or to just move on. 

Recommendations for managing Problems with Partner (blaming the partner for the violence, 

diminishing or feeling discouraged about the relationship): 

1. Stress that while the client cannot control or change his partner’s behavior, he has choices 

about how he will respond to it. 

2. Assist the client in deciding whether to continue his relationship, and whether he will be 

able to make healthy changes if he decides to continue it. 

3. Provide support during the breakup. 

Recommendations for managing Problems with Alliance (focusing on the counselor’s use of 

confrontation and inability to help the client feel understood, safe, and supported): 

 

3

 Two experts were not asked to participate in this round of interviews. One had left the field, and another was not a 

counselor, but a long-term batterer treatment client. 

36

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1. Examine your own attitudes about domestic violence offenders and domestic violence 

treatment. 

2. Address potential problems with alliance and your responsibilities to the criminal justice 

system openly and proactively. 

3. Present the client’s change as a collaborative effort between the client and counselor. 

Recommendations for managing Social Justification (believing that changing would be 

difficult—or impossible—in one’s environment, given social and religious norms and 

expectations): 

 

1. Challenge the client’s beliefs about what is normal behavior in his culture, and what it 

means to be a man. 

2. Help the client think back to his own childhood and how he learned what they learned, 

and to consider the impact of his behavior on his own children. 

3. Help the client identify and practice alternatives to violence that are acceptable to him 

and will work in his environment. 

4. Assess with the client whether he may need to change people, places, or things that 

support or encourage his violent behavior. 

Recommendations for managing Hopelessness (feeling hopeless, overwhelmed, depressed or 

anxious about making changes): 

Acknowledge and address other difficulties in the client’s life; provide referrals. 

Increase self-efficacy through skill-building. 

Provide support. 

Recommendations for managing Isolation (lacking support from family and friends because of 

social isolation, distrust, or discomfort seeking help): 

1. Encourage support among group members. 

2. Encourage the client to identify and reach out to positive sources of support in the 

community. 

3. Help the client think more about his need for friendships and social support, and any 

barriers to finding them. 

Recommendations for managing Psychological Reactance (responding to pressure to change 

with an angry or negativistic stance): 

1. Acknowledge and show acceptance for the fact that some people don’t like being told 

what do to. 

2. Remind the client that he has the option of accepting or rejecting what the group has to 

offer. 

3. Remind the client that he can choose whether or not to make changes. 

4. Be aware of how your own behavior may be contributing to psychological reactance. 

Recommendations for managing Passive Reactance (responding with pressure to change by 

participating only superficially, without meeting expectations or responding appropriately): 

37

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1. See Recommendations #1-#4 for Psychological Reactance4

. 

2. Encourage real involvement by making the group as stimulating as possible. 

Recommendations can be further distilled into a smaller list of guidelines: 

• Avoid debates 

• Empathize with concerns without excusing behavior 

• Help clients recognize that they do have choices 

• Collaborate and problem-solve 

Believe that most clients ultimately do want to improve their lives and relationships, despite their 

resistance. 

DISCUSSION

The experts who participated in the interviews represented a combined total of over 250 years 

experience with domestic violence treatment. In all of the interviews, only one expert mentioned 

the words “excuse” or “excuse-making” (e.g., “Yes, there are shortcomings and challenges, but 

that does not justify the excuse,” and “It’s a matter of finding excuses or finding change”). 

Instead, most experts commented that some forms of resistance seem to be based, at least in part, 

on real barriers to change. Experts’ recommendations are sensible, compelling, and 

compassionate. It is unclear, however, whether their perspectives and approach to resistance 

match those of most counselors in the field. 

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

To begin to examine resistance in domestic violence offenders, three studies were conducted. 

The products of this research include a validated 38-item measure of resistance; information on 

the levels and patterns of resistance during the first two months of batterer treatment, and the 

relationship between resistance and stage progression, stage regression, and partner aggression; 

and a summary of experts’ recommendations for managing each type of resistance in domestic 

violence treatment. While developed within TTM framework, the measure can be used outside 

the TTM framework to assess resistance in research and practice guided by other theoretical 

models. 

The findings provide an impetus for several lines of future research. First, it is recommended 

that the Passive Reactance dimension of the processes of resistance measure be re-examined to 

improve its conceptual coherence and internal reliability. Passive Reactance was associated with 

some of the largest effect sizes in external validity analyses, and thus may be especially 

important to assess reliably and address in treatment. 

 

4

 At the time of the interviews, this resistance dimension was conceptualized and operationally defined as 

“Detachment,” and focused primarily on the client’s emotional withdrawal from the group. Thus, experts’ 

recommendations focused primarily on methods for increasing engagement (Recommendation #2). We now 

understand this dimension to represent Passive Reactance, which, like Psychological Reactance, is elicited by 

pressure to change. We reasoned that strategies for managing Psychological Reactance are appropriate for 

managing Passive Reactance as well. 

38

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Second, all data were collected via self-report surveys. It will be important validate the new 

measures against data from other sources—including, for example, partner reports of offenders’ 

violent and abusive behavior, and group facilitators’ assessments of offenders’ engagement or 

motivation to change. 

Third, about 50% of Hispanic men chose to complete the Spanish-language version of the 

survey. It was beyond the scope of this project to examine differences in the psychometric 

properties and factor structure of the English- and Spanish-language measures. Backwards 

translation, cognitive interviews with bi-lingual offenders, and a more intensive review by 

cultural experts might also be conducted to ensure the content equivalence of the two measures. 

Factorial invariance analyses could determine the structural equivalence of the two measures. 

Fourth, Study Two examined resistance on only two occasions, at program intake and two 

months later. It will be important to determine what happens to resistance over a greater number 

of assessment timepoints, and over the entire course of the batterer program. For example, a 

minimum of three assessment timepoints would be required to adequately rule out that resistance 

follows a curvilinear pattern over time. Furthermore, a longer follow-up would allow us to see 

whether the resistance dimensions that did not decrease significantly during the first two months 

of treatment do decrease eventually, at a slower rate or with an initial lag in their decline. 

Fifth, it would be helpful to identify external factors that influence changes in resistance over 

time. Variables of interest would include the nature of the relationship with the counselor, level 

of confrontation used in the group, the nature of the relationship with the partner, whether one’s 

social environment is hospitable or inhospitable to change, and total number of serious life 

stressors. 

Finally, to improve batterer treatment outcomes, it will be important to develop and test 

interventions designed to reduce—or at least minimize—resistance. The processes of resistance 

measure could be used as an outcome measure in such research. It could also be used as an 

intervention tool to monitor resistance, identify individuals at risk, or even serve as a vehicle for 

discussing resistance with offenders. 

The current project and future research on resistance can help the field become more attuned to 

resistance and its potential impact on partner violence and engagement in treatment. Assessing 

and managing resistance more effectively can complement established practices and, over time, 

potentially increase the impact of programs for domestic violence offenders. 

39

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 

Disorders (4th Ed). Washington, DC: Author. 

Babcock, J.C., Green, C.E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers' treatment work? A metaanalytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-

1053. 

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. 

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. 

Begun, A.L., Murphy, C., Bolt, D., Weinstein, B., Strodthoff, T., Short, L., & Shelley, G. 

(2003). Characteristics of the Safe at Home instrument for assessing readiness to change 

intimate partner violence. Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 80-107. 

Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 

107, 238-246. 

Bentler, P. M. & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of 

covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. 

Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2003). EQS for Windows user’s guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate 

Software. 

Beutler, L.E., Moleiro, C.M., & Talebi, H. (2002). Resistance. In J.C. Norcross (Ed.), 

Psychotherapy relationships that work (129-143). New York: Oxford University Press. 

Brehm, J.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press. 

Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J.W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. 

New York: Academic. 

Browne, M.W., & Cudek, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological 

methods and research, 21, 230-258. 

Bush, B., Shaw, S., Cleary, P., Delbanco, T.L., & Aronson, M.D. (1987). Screening for alcohol 

abuse using the CAGE questionnaire. American Journal of Medicine, 82, 231-235. 

Burke, B.L., Arkowitz, H., & Menchola, M. (2003). The efficacy of motivational interviewing: 

A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology, 71, 843-86.1 

Chamberlain, P., Patterson, G., Reid, J., Kavanagh, K., & Forgatch, M. (1984). Observation of 

client resistance. Behavior Therapy, 15, 144-155. 

Cantos, A.L., Neidig, P.H., & O'Leary, K.D. (1993). Men and women's attributions of blame for 

domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 8, 289-302. 

40

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Second Edition. 

Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ. 1988. 

Comrey, A.L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical 

psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754-761. 

Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of 

psychopathology, Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 349-354. 

Daly, J.E., & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of dropout among men who batter: A review of 

studies with implications for research and practice. Violence and Victims, 15, 137-160. 

Daniels, J.W., & Murphy, C.M. (1997). Stages and processes of change in batterers’ treatment. 

Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 4, 123-145. 

Dean, S.I. (1958). Treatment of the reluctant client. American Psychologist, 13, 627-630. 

Ding, L., Velicer, W.F., & Harlow, L.L. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number of 

indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. 

Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 119-144. 

Dowd, E.T. & Wallbrown, F. (1993). Motivational components of client reactance. 

Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 533-538. 

Dowd, E.T., Wallbrown, F., Sanders, D., & Yesenosky, J.M. (1994). Psychological reactance 

and its relationship to normal personality variables. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 

601-612. 

Eckhardt, C.I., Babcock, J., & Homack, S. (2004). Partner assaultive men and the stages and 

processes of change. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 81-93. 

Ellis, A. (2002). Overcoming resistance: A rational emotive behavior therapy integrated 

approach (2nd ed). New York: Springer. 

Ewing, J. A. (1984). Detecting alcoholism: The CAGE questionnaire. Journal of the American 

Medical Association, 252, 1905-1907. 

Evers, K.E., Prochaska, J.O., Johnson, J.L., Mauriello, L.M., Padula, J.A., & Prochaska, J.M. 

(2006). A randomized clinical trial of a population- and Transtheoretical model-based 

stress-management intervention. Health Psychology, 25, 521-529. 

Feder, L., & Wilson, D.B. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer 

intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers' behavior? Journal of Experimental 

Criminology, 2, 239-262. 

Forsyth, B., & Lessler, J. (1991). Cognitive laboratory methods: A taxonomy. In P. Biemer, R. 

Groves, L. Lyberg, N. Mathiowetz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Measurement errors in surveys 

(pp. 393-410). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

41

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Ganley, A. (1987). Perpetrators of domestic violence: An overview of counseling the courtmandated client. In D.J. Sonkin (Ed.), Domestic violence on trial: Psychological and 

legal dimensions of family violence (pp. 155-173). New York: Springer. 

Goldberg, L. R., & Velicer, W. F. (2006). Principles of exploratory factor analysis. In S. Strack 

(Ed.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (2nd Ed.) (pp. ). New York: 

Springer. 

Golding, J.M. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A metaanalysis. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 99-132. 

Gondolf, E.W. (1988). The effect of batterer counseling on shelter outcome. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 3, 275-289. 

Gondolf, E.W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A difficult task showing some 

effects and implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 605-631. 

Hall, K.L., & Rossi, J.S. (2002). Meta-analysis of the structure, function, and effect size of 

decisional balance across the stages of change for 25 health behaviors. Annals of 

Behavioral Medicine, 24, S51. 

Hamberger, L.K. & Hastings, J.E. (1986). Characteristics of spouse abusers: Predictors of 

treatment acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 363-373. 

Henning, K., & Holdford, R. (2006). Minimization, Denial, and Victim Blaming by Batterers: 

How Much Does the Truth Matter? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 110-130. 

Hockenberry, S.L., & Billingham, R.E. (1993). Psychological reactance and violence within 

dating relationships. Psychological Reports, 73, 1203-1208. 

Horn, J.L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. 

Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.

Jackson, D.N. (1971). A sequential system for personality scale development. In C.D. 

Spielberger (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community psychology (vol. 2) (pp.61-

96). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. 

Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D.A., Wilson, S., & Zak, L. (1986). Family violence and child adjustment: A 

comparative analysis of girls’ and boys’ behavioral symptoms. American Journal of 

Psychiatry, 143, 74-76. 

James, L.R., Mulaik, S.S., Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. 

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Janis, I.L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice 

and commitment. New York: Free Press. 

42

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1982). Recent developments in structural equation modeling. 

Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 404–416. 

Kilpatrick, K.L., & Williams, L.M. (1997). Potential mediators of post-traumatic stress disorder 

in child witnesses to domestic violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 319-330. 

King, M. (1986). At risk drinking among general practice attenders: Validation of the CAGE 

questionnaire. Psychological Medicine, 16, 213-217. 

Levesque, D.A. (1998). Violence desistance among battering men: Existing interventions and 

the application of the Transtheoretical Model of Change. Doctoral dissertation, 

University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. 

Levesque, D.A. (2006). Stage of change profiles for domestic violence offenders: Scoring and 

interpreting URICA measures. Manuscript in preparation. 

Levesque, D.A., & Driskell, M.M. (2001). Unpublished data. 

Levesque, D.A., Driskell, M.M., Castle, P.H., Greene, R.N., Prochaska, J.M., & Prochaska, J.O. 

(2005, July). Efficacy of a computerized stage-matched intervention for domestic 

violence offenders: Preliminary findings.Paper presented at the 11th International Family 

Violence Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH. 

Levesque, D.A., Driskell, M.M., & Prochaska, J.M. (2001, July). Development of a situational 

temptation scale for domestic violence offenders. Paper presented at the 7th International 

Family Violence Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH. 

Levesque, D.A., Driskell, M.M., & Prochaska, J.M. (in press). Acceptability of a stage-matched 

expert system intervention for domestic violence offenders. Violence and Victims. 

Levesque, D.A., Gelles, R.J., & Velicer, W.F. (2000). Development and validation of a stages 

of change measure for men in batterer treatment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 

175-199. 

Levesque, D.A., Velicer, W.F., Prochaska, J.O., & Fava, J.L. (1999, March). Development of 

measures of “negative processes of change” in cigarette smokers. Paper presented at the 

20th annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, San Diego, CA. 

Mahalik, J.R. (1994). Development of the client resistance scale. Journal of Counseling 

Psychology, 41, 58-68. 

Marcus, B.H., Bock, B.C., Pinto, B.M., Forsyth, L.H., Roberts, M.B., & Traficante, R.M. (1998). 

Efficacy of an individualized, motivationally-tailored physical activity intervention. 

Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 174-180. 

Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd

ed). New York: Guilford Press. 

43

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Morgan, R., Luborsky, L., Crit-Christoph, P., Curtis, H., & Solomon, J. (1982). Predicting the 

outcomes of psychotherapy by the Penn Helping Alliance Rating Method. Archives of 

General Psychiatry, 39, 397-402. 

Murphy, C.M., & Baxter, V.A. (1997). Motivating batterers to change in the treatment context. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 07-619. 

Murphy, C.M., & Eckhardt, C.I. (2005). Treating the abusive partner: An individualized 

cognitive-behavioral approach. New York: Guilford. 

Neidig, P.H., & Friedman, D.H. (1984). Spouse abuse: A treatment program for couples. 

Champaign, IL: Research Press Company. 

Pan, H.S., Neidig, P.H., & O’Leary, K.D. (1994). Male-female and aggressor-victim 

differences in the factor structure of the Modified Conflict Tactic Scale. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 9, 366-382. 

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. 

New York: Springer Publishing. 

Prochaska, J.O., & DiClemente, C.C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: 

Toward and integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 

51, 390-395. 

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., Velicer, W.F., & Rossi, J.S. (1993). Standardized, 

individualized, interactive, and personalized self-help programs for smoking cessation. 

Health Psychology, 12, 399-405. 

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., Velicer, W.F., Ginpil, S., & Norcross, J. (1985). Predicting 

change in smoking status for self-changers. Addictive Behavior, 10, 395-406. 

Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F., DiClemente, C.C., & Fava, J. (1988). Measuring processes of 

change: Applications to the cessation of smoking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology, 56, 520-528. 

Prochaska J.O., Velicer W.F., Fava J.L., Rossi J.S., & Tsoh J.Y. (2001). Evaluating a populationbased recruitment approach and a stage-based expert system intervention for smoking 

cessation. Addictive Behaviors, 26, 583-602. 

Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F., Rossi, J.S., Goldstein, M.G., Marcus, B.H., Rakowski, W., Fiori, 

C., Harlow, L.L., Redding, C.A., Rosenbloom, D., & Rossi, S.R. (1994). Stages of 

change and decisional balance for twelve problem behaviors. Health Psychology, 13, 39-

46. 

Reynolds, W.M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne 

Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125. 

44

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Shoham-Salomon, V., Avner, R. & Neeman, R. (1989). You’re changed if you do and changed if 

you don’t: Mechanisms underlying paradoxical interventions. Journal of Consulting and 

Clinical Psychology, 57, 590-598. 

Scott, K.L. (2004). Predictors of change among male batterers: Application of theories and 

review of empirical findings. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 260-284. 

Sternberg, K.J., Lamb, M.E., Greenbaum, C., Cicchetti, D., et al. (1993). Effects of domestic 

violence on children’s behavior problems and depression. Developmental Psychology, 

29, 44-52. 

Stoolmiller, M., Duncan, T., Bank, L., & Patterson, G.R. (1993). Some problems and solutions 

in the study of change: Significant patterns in client resistance. Journal of Consulting and 

Clinical Psychology, 61, 920-928. 

Stosney, S. (1994). “Shadows of the heart”: A dramatic video for the treatment resistance of 

spouse abusers. Social Work, 39, 686-694. 

 Taft, C.T., Murphy, C.M., Elliott, J.D., & Morrel, T.M. (2001). Attendance-enhancing 

procedures in group counseling for domestic abusers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 

48, 51-60. 

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of 

violence against women: findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. 

(Department of Justice Publication No. NCJ183781). Internet address: 

www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/nij/183781.txt. 

 

Tucker, L.R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor 

analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10. 

Turkat, I.D., & Meyer, V. (1982). The behavior-analytic approach. In P. Wachtel (Ed.), 

Resistance: Psychodynamic and behavioral approaches. New York: Plenum Press. 

Ware, J.E. (1998). The SF-36 Health Survey. In: M.E. Maruish (Ed.). The use of psychological 

testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 1227-1246). Mahwah, NJ: 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Ware. J., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S.D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction 

of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220-233. 

Velicer, W.F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial 

correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321-327. 

Velicer, W.F., DiClemente, C.C., Prochaska, J.O., & Brandenburg, N. (1985). Decisional 

balance measure for assessing and predicting smoking status. Journal of Personality and 

Social Psychology, 48, 1279-1289. 

45

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Velicer, W.F., DiClemente, C.C., Rossi, J.R., & Prochaska, J.O. (1990). Relapse situations and 

self-efficacy: An integrative model. Addictive Behaviors, 15, 271-283. 

Velicer, W.F., Eaton, C.A., & Fava, J.L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or 

component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining 

the number of factors or components. In Goffin, R. D., & Helmes, E. (Eds.), Problems 

and Solutions in Human Assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at Seventy (pp. 41-

71). Boston: Kluwer. 

Velicer, W.F., Fava, J.L., Zwick, W.R., & Harrop, J.W. (1988). Component Analysis Extended 

[Computer Software]. Kingston, RI: University of Rhode Island. 

Wexler, D.B. (2000). Domestic violence 2000: An integrated skills program for men: Group 

Leaders’ Manual. New York: Norton. 

Williams, L.J., & Podsakoff, P.M. (1989). Longitudinal field methods for studying reciprocal 

relationships in organizational behavior research: Toward improved causal analysis. 

Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 247-292. 

Willis, G.B. (1994). Cognitive interviewing and questionnaire design: A training manual. Office 

of Research and Methodology, National Center for Health Statistics. 

Zwick, W.R., & Velicer, W.F., (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of 

components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442. 

46

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
47

TABLES AND FIGURES

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.

Labels, Conceptual Definitions, and Sample Items for Eleven Initial Processes of ResistanceProcess of Resistance Process of Change Counterpart Conceptual Definition Sample ItemDenial/Minimization Consciousness Raising Minimizing the level, frequency or consequences of the 

violence or abuse; denying that one has a problem with violence or abuse, or should be in the batterer program. 

How often did you feel that you're leswomen than other men you know?

Detachment Dramatic Relief Withdrawing emotionally or just “going through the motions.” How often did you feel bored or unin

domestic violence group?

Problems with Partner Environmental 

Reevaluation

Blaming the partner for the violence, or focusing on the partner’s difficult behavior. 

How often did you feel that your partproblem, not you.

Self-Justification Self-Reevaluation Believing that changing would be difficult—or 

impossible—given more personal (versus social) barriers and deficits (financial problems, competing demands, lack of skills, ability, or control). 

How often did you feel that you cannbecause of other things going on in y

Hopelessness Self-Liberation Feeling hopeless, overwhelmed, depressed or anxious about 

making changes. 

How often did you feel that your life weven if you try to change?

Isolation Helping Relationships Lacking support from family and friends because of social 

isolation, distrust, or discomfort seeking help. 

How often did you feel like you cannabout your problems with your partn

Problems with Alliance Helping Relationships Focusing on the counselor’s use of confrontation and inability to 

help the client feel understood, safe, and supported.

How often did you feel that you canncounselor?

Negative Feedback Contingency Management Trying new behaviors, only to find that they don’t have the 

expected positive consequences (e.g., behaviors don’t work, partner won’t cooperate, others don’t appreciate efforts to change). 

How often did you try a new behaviogroup, only to find that others would 

Social Justification Counter Conditioning & 

Stimulus Control

Believing that changing would be difficult—or impossible—in one’s environment, given social and religious norms and expectations (supposed to be tough, everyone else does it, violence in family of origin). 

How often did you think that people wwimp if you changed the way you be

System Blaming Social Liberation Believing that the criminal justice system treats men unfairly in 

domestic violence cases and that women abuse the laws. 

How often did you feel that law enforthe women's side?

Psychological Reactance Social Liberation Responding with an angry or negativistic stance to pressure to 

change.

How often did you get mad about bethis program?

48

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
49

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 2.

Conceptual Definitions and Sample Survey Items for Decisional Balance and Processes of Change Dimensions for Partner Violence CessationTTM Dimension Conceptual Definition Sample ItemsDecisional Balance

General Pros Advantages, positive consequences of changing If I ended the violence, I’d receive more love a

partner.

Children-Related Pros Advantages, positive consequences for children Children are safer in a violence-free home.General Cons Disadvantages, negative consquences of changing My community expects men to act macho.

Processes of Change

Consciousness Raising Considering information about domestic violence and strategies for 

change

How often did you pay attention to information violence?

Dramatic Relief Experiencing negative emotions about domestic violence or its 

consequence

How often did it scare you to think that your paif you don’t end the violence?

Environmental Reevaluation Thinking about the impact of ones behavior on others, especially 

children and partner

How often did you remind yourself that by endare setting a good example for your children?

Self-Reevaluation Thinking about the kind of man one does want to be, and experiencing 

emotions that go along with that image

How often did you think of yourself as someondifficult situations without violence?

Self-Liberation Realizing one's ability to choose to be non-violent and making a 

commitment to change

How often did you promise yourself that you wyour relationship better?

Helping Relationships Seeking and using social support to make and sustain changes How often did you have someone you could co

manage your anger?

Reinforcement Management Increasing the rewards to oneself for non-violence, and decreasing 

rewards for violence

How often did you feel good about yourself for strategies to manage your anger?

Counter Conditioning Substituting violence with healthier behaviors and cognitions (e.g., 

assertive communication, exercise, time-out)

When it felt like your partner was pushing youdid you stop and think about healthy ways of r

Stimulus Control Removing cues to engage in violence against a partner, and adding 

cues to engage in healthier behavior

How often did you avoid people who treat wom

Social Liberation Realizing that social norms are changing to support non-violence How often did you notice that there are toughe

domestic violence?

Stress Management Reducing general stress by controlling exposure to—or response 

to—stressful people and events, and by planning ahead

How often did you try to keep your life simple sless overwhelmed?

Partner Collaboration Seeking and using support and encouragement from one’s partner; 

involving the partner in the change process by sharing information, etc.

How often did your partner give you support foare trying to make?

Negative Self-Reevaluation Thinking about the kind of man one doesn’t want to be, and 

experiencing negative emotions (disappointment, frustration) that go 

along with that image

How often did it bother you to think of yourself uses violence against your partner?

50

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
51

1. How often did you feel that the police do not investigate domestic violence cases properly?

2. How often did you feel that law enforcement always takes the women's side?

3. How often did you feel that you're in this program because the police would not listen to your side of the story?

4. How often did you feel that women take advantage of domestic violence laws to put men in jail?

5. How often did you feel that the domestic violence laws in this state are too hard on men?

1. How often did you feel that you got involved with the wrong woman?

2. How often did you feel that if your partner had treated you better, you would not be in this program?

3. How often did you feel depressed about your relationship with your partner?

4. How often did you feel that you don't care about your partner or your relationship anymore?

5. How often did you feel that your partner is the one with the problem, not you?

1. How often did you feel that you cannot trust your counselor?

4. How often did you feel that you will not be able to finish this program because the rules are too strict? (For example, you're only 

allowed a certain number of absences).

5. How often did you feel that if you really wanted to hurt your partner you would have?

2. How often did you feel that your counselor was criticizing you?

3. How often did you feel that your counselor blames you for everything?

4. How often did you feel that your counselor is there only for the money?

5. How often did you feel that what your counselor talks about in group has nothing to do with the real world?

1. How often did you feel that you cannot make changes because you're surrounded by violence in your day-to-day life?

2. How often did you feel that changing will not help because it's too late?

3. How often did you feel that changing would be hard because you grew up seeing domestic violence?

4. How often did you think that people would see you as a wimp if you changed the way you behave in relationships? 

5. How often did you want to give up your efforts to change because you were not getting the results you expected?

1. How often did you feel afraid about the thought of changing?

2. How often did you feel hopeless about making changes in your life? 

3. How often did you feel that you cannot change given the way your life is now?

4. How often did you feel that your life will never get better, even if you try to change?

5. How often did you feel that you cannot change right now because of other things going on in your life?

1. How often did you feel that you cannot talk to your friends about your problems?

2. How often did you feel that there's no one you can talk to about your problems?

3. How often did you feel that you cannot talk to your friends about the things that happen in your domestic violence group?

4. How often did you feel that you cannot trust others with your relationship issues? 

5. How often did you feel like you cannot talk to your family about your problems with your partner?

1. How often did you get angry when someone told you what you should and should not do in your relationship?

2. How often did you tell people to mind their own business when they told you how to behave in your relationship?

3. How often did you get mad when people told you that you need to change?

1. How often did you feel bored or uninterested in your domestic violence group?

2. How often did you agree with your counselor or the men in your group so they'd leave you alone?

3. How often did you not pay attention in group? 

Eight Final Processes of Resistance Scales

Psychological Reactance: Responding to pressure to change with an angry or negativistic stance. 

Passive Reactance: Responding with pressure to change by participating only superficially, without meeting expectations or 

responding appropriately.

System Blaming: Believing that the criminal justice system treats men unfairly in domestic violence cases and that women abuse the 

law.

Social Justification: Believing that changing would be difficult—or impossible—in one’s environment, given social and religious norms 

and expectations. 

Hopelessness: Feeling hopeless, overwhelmed, depressed or anxious about making changes. 

Isolation: Lacking support from family and friends because of social isolation, distrust, or discomfort seeking help.

Table 3, continued

Table 3.

Eight Final Processes of Resistance Scales

Problems with Partner: Blaming the partner for the violence, diminishing or feeling discouraged about the relationship.

Problems with Alliance: Focusing on the counselor’s use of confrontation and inability to help the client feel understood, safe, and 

supported.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics, Coefficient Alphas, Correlations with Social Desirability, and Scale Intercorrelations for Eight Processes of 

M-Crownea 12345

1) System Blaming 5 13.5 5.9 .82 -.072) Problems with Partner 5 11.5 4.8 .71 -.21 .523) Problems with Alliance 5 8.2 3.9 .75 -.24 .36 .374) Social Justification 5 7.5 3.6 .80 -.26 .28 .38 .505) Hopelessness 5 8.4 4.0 .80 -.36 .14 .27 .49 .556) Isolation 5 9.8 4.6 .78 -.28 .28 .42 .48 .52 .57) Psychological Reactance 3 5.1 2.5 .71 -.29 .26 .34 .48 .55 .48) Passive Reactance 5 8.2 4.0 .75 -.19 .37 .43 .50 .53 .4

aMarlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form

Correlations

Scale Items Mean SD Alpha

52

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 5.

Processes of Resistance by Stages of Change

Precontemplation Contemplation Preparation Action HRelapse Action LRelapse

(n=70) (n=80) (n=63) (n=41) (n=62)

System Blaming 14.7 (5.9) 13.9 (5.9) 13.9 (6.0) 11.6 (6.0) 13.0 (5.9) 2.1 Problems with Partner 11.3 (4.7) 11.4 (4.7) 12.0 (4.8) 11.9 (4.8) 10.9 (4.7) 0.5 Problems with Alliance 8.4 (3.7) 8.6 (3.7) 8.3 (3.7) 7.4 (3.7) 7.3 (3.7) 1.6 Social Justification 7.5 (3.3) 7.3 (3.3) 8.4 (3.3) 6.7 (3.3) 6.5 (3.3) 3.0* Hopelessness 8.7 (3.7) 8.1 (3.7) 9.4 (3.7) 7.9 (3.7) 7.4 (3.7) 2.7* Isolation 8.4 (4.4) 9.8 (4.4) 10.8 (4.4) 11.3 (4.4) 9.0 (4.4) 4.2** Psychological Reactance 5.0 (2.4) 4.6 (2.4) 5.6 (2.4) 5.2 (2.4) 4.5 (2.4) 2.0 Passive Reactance 9.0 (3.8) 8.5 (3.8) 8.6 (3.8) 7.0 (3.8) 6.9 (3.8) 3.7** 

aAdjusted for Social Desirability

*p<.05, **p<.01

Resistance Dimension

Adjusted Meansa (SDs)

 F 

Stage of Change

53

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 6.

Multiple Regressions of Social Desirability and Processes of Resistance onPsychological Aggression, Mild Physical Aggression, and Severe Physical Aggression

B β t r partial r

Verbal Aggression

Passive Reactance 1.4 .22 3.7 .31 .21

 Social Desirability -1.7 -.17 -3.1 -.25 -.18 Psychological Reactance 1.4 .14 2.2 .28 .13

R 2 = .15

Adjusted R 2 = .14 Constant = 13.5

R = .39

F (3,305) = 18.0***

B β t r partial r

Mild Physical Aggression

Psychological Reactance .44 .18 2.9 .25 .16

 Hopelessness .23 .15 2.4 .23 .13

R 2 = .08

Adjusted R 2 = .07 Constant = -2.0

R = .28

F (2,308) = 13.1***

B β t r partial r

Severe Physical Aggression

Psychological Reactance .09 .14 2.1 .21 .12Social Justification .07 .14 2.1 .21 .12

R 2 = .06

Adjusted R 2 = .05 Constant = -0.6

R = .24

F (2,309) = 9.3***

*** p<.001

54

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
55

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 7.

Processes of Resistance by Level of Education

<hs hs >hs

(n=71) (n=173) (n=67)

System Blaming 13.0 (5.8) 13.1 (5.8) 15.8 (5.8) 5.7** .04 1,2<3Hopelessness 9.0 (3.6) 8.3 (3.5) 7.1 (3.5) 5.0** .03 3<1Problems with Partner 11.3 (4.6) 11.0 (4.6) 12.6 (4.6) 3.0* .02 2<3

aAdjusted for Social Desirability

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Post Hoc Comparisons (p<.05)

Resistance Dimension

Adjusted Meansa (SDs)

 F η2

Education Level

56

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 8.

Modeling the Processes of Resistance by Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Model χ2 df χ2/df CFI NNFI PFI RMSEA

Null 5973.9 703 8.5 .00 .00 -- .149Correlated Factors 1361.2 637 2.1 .86 .85 .78 .058Second-Order Factor 1562.8 657 2.4 .83 .82 .78 .064Final Model 1500.9 658 2.3 .84 .83 .79 .062

57

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 9.

Study Two Descriptive Statistics, Coefficient Alphas, Correlations with Social Desirability, and Scale Intercorrelationsfor Eight Processes of Resistance Scales

M-Crownea 12345

1) System Blaming 5 15.1 6.4 .86 -.092) Problems with Partner 5 12.7 5.5 .78 -.30 .493) Problems with Alliance 5 8.3 4.5 .84 -.22 .30 .264) Social Justification 5 7.8 3.5 .76 -.35 .26 .41 .565) Hopelessness 5 9.3 4.2 .73 -.47 .25 .48 .50 .736) Isolation 5 10.4 5.0 .79 -.45 .29 .47 .43 .52 .67) Psychological Reactance 3 5.6 2.9 .77 -.45 .32 .40 .46 .63 .68) Passive Reactance 5 8.3 3.5 .63 -.37 .31 .32 .68 .59 .5

aMarlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form

Correlations

Scale Items Mean SD Alpha

58

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
59

Table 10.

Changes in Resistance from Program Intake to Two Months Follow-Up

T1 

Mean (sd)

T2 

Mean (sd) η

2

System Blaming 15.4( 6.7) 14.1 (6.3) 10.2* .04

Problems with Partner 12.6 (5.1) 12.1 (4.9) 10.3* .04

Problems with Alliance 8.1 (4.4) 7.4 (3.4) 2.0 .01

Social Justification 7.8 (3.0) 7.5 (3.0) 3.6 .02

Hopelessness 9.3 (3.7) 8.6 (3.6) 8.0* .03

Isolation 10.0 (4.1) 10.2 (4.2) 0.0 .00

Psychological Reactance 5.4 (2.5) 5.1 (2.3) 2.2 .01

Passive Reactance 7.9 (3.4) 7.9 (3.0) 0.0 .00

*p<.01 a

Marginal means, adjusted for social desirability

 Assessment Timepointa

 F(1,229)

Resistance Dimension

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 11.

Stage Transitions from Program Intake to Two Months' Follow-Up

Precontemplation Contemplation Preparation Action High Relapse 

43.3% 19.4% 19.4% 1.5% 

(29) (13) (13) (1) 

21.8% 38.2% 12.7% 3.6% 

(12) (21) (7) (2) 

4.4% 22.2% 24.4% 28.9% 

(2) (10) (11) (13) 

3.4% 3.4% 24.1% 41.4% 

(1) (1) (7) (12) 

2.3% 13.6% 6.8% 11.4% 

(1) (6) (3) (5) 

ContemplationBaseline Stage of Change % (n)

Follow-Up Stage of Change

PrecontemplationPreparationAction High RelapseAction Low Relapse

60

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
61

Table 12.

Resistance x Stage Regression among Offenders in Action at T1

Yes 

Mean (sd)

No 

Mean (sd) η

2

System Blaming 14.7 (6.2) 13.9 (6.2) 0.2 .00

Problems with Partner 13.3 (3.7) 12.3 (3.7) 0.9 .01

Problems with Alliance 8.3 (2.5) 6.6 (2.5) 6.0* .09

Social Justification 10.1 (2.8) 7.1 (2.8) 13.5*** .18

Hopelessness 11.3 (3.1) 8.5 (3.1) 9.6** .13

Isolation 12.0 (3.8) 10.4 (3.8) 2.1 .03

Psychological Reactance 6.3 (2.1) 4.9 (2.1) 5.6* .08

Passive Reactance 9.0 (2.4) 6.9 (2.4) 8.8** .12

Resistance Dimension

 Stage Regressiona

 F(1,62)

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 a

Marginal means, adjusted for social desirability

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 13.

The Relationship between Resistance and Psychological Aggression, Mild Physical Aggression, and Severe Physical Aggression Since 

Yes 

Mean (sd)

No 

Mean (sd) η

2 Yes 

Mean (sd)

No 

Mean (sd) η

2 Yes 

Mean (sd)

N

Mea

System Blaming 14.8 (6.0) 14.6 (6.0) 0.0 .00 15.8 (5.9) 14.2 (5.9) 3.8 .02 15.6 (6.0) 14.7 Problems with Partner 12.5 (4.3) 11.8 (4.3) 0.8 .00 13.4 (4.2) 11.8 (4.2) 7.1** .03 14.2 (4.3) 12.1 Problems with Alliance 7.6 (3.1) 8.1 (3.1) 1.0 .00 8.3 (3.1) 7.5 (3.1) 3.5 .02 8.8 (3.1) 7.6 Social Justification 8.0 (2.4) 6.5 (2.5) 12.0*** .05 8.8 (2.4) 7.1 (2.4) 26.0*** .10 8.7 (2.5) 7.5 Hopelessness 9.2 (3.1) 8.1 (3.1) 4.0* .02 10.3 (3.0) 8.3 (2.9) 23.0*** .09 11.3 (3.0) 8.7 Isolation 10.1 (3.5) 10.1 (3.5) 0.0 .00 11.0 (3.4) 9.7 (3.4) 8.0** .03 12.0 (3.5) 9.9 Psychological Reactance 5.4 (1.9) 4.6 (1.9) 6.2* .03 6.0 (1.8) 4.9 (1.8) 20.5*** .08 6.9 (1.9) 5.0 Passive Reactance 8.0 (2.5) 7.5 (2.5) 1.3 .01 8.8 (2.4) 7.6 (2.4) 12.4*** .05 10.0 (2.4) 7.7 

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

aMarginal means, adjusted for social desirability

Resistance Dimension

 F(1,223)

Verbal Aggression 

Since Program Starta

Severe P

Since 

Mild Physical Aggression 

Since Program Starta

 F(1,224)

62

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 14.

Predictors of Program CompletionOutcome Variable Variables in the Equation SE (β) df Model χ2 Test Nagel

R

Program Completion

In Action at Baseline 0.96 .42 2.62*Age 0.03 .02 1.04*

Employed Full Time 0.80 .33 2.24*Constant - 1.12 .64 

*p<.001

.1

Logistic Regression 

Coefficient (β) Odds Ratio ( eβ)

3 16.9***

63

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 1.

Processes of Change and Processes of Resistance, Pros and Cons by Stage of Change

4045505560

PC C PR AHR ALR

T-Scores*

Processes of ChangeProcesses of Resistance

4045505560

PC C PR AHR A

T-Scores*

ProCo

Stage of Change Stage of Change

*Adjusted for Social Desirability PC=Precontemplation, C=Contemplation, PR=Preparation, AHR=Action High Relapse, ALR=Action Low 

64

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
18. How

ne

 often did you feel that your life will 

ver get better, even if you try to change? 

26. How

ch

 often did you feel that you cannot 

ange given the way your life is now?

10. How

ma

 often did you feel hopeless about 

king changes in your life?

2. How

th

 often did you feel afraid about the 

ought of changing? 

34. H

ch

go

ow often did you feel that you cannot 

ange right now because of other things 

ing on in your life? 

19. H

be

ru

ow often did you feel that you will not 

 able to finish this program because the 

les are too strict? 

27. H

un

gr

ow often did you feel bored or 

interested in your domestic violence 

oup? 

11. Ho

co

th

w often did you agree with your 

unselor or the men in your group so 

ey'd leave you alone? 

3. Ho

gr

w often did you not pay attention in 

oup? 

20. H

y

ow often did you feel that there's no one 

ou can talk to about your problems? 

28. Ho

tr

w often did you feel that you cannot 

ust others with your relationship issues? 

12. Ho

ta

h

w often did you feel that you cannot 

lk to your friends about the things that 

appen in your domestic violence group? 

4. Ho

ta

w often did you feel that you cannot 

lk to your friends about your problems? 

25. How often did you feel that you don't care 

about your partner or your relationship 

anymore? 

17. How often did you feel depressed about 

your relationship with your partner? 

9. How often did you feel that if your partner 

had treated you better, you would not be in 

this program? 

1. How often did you feel that your partner is 

the one with the problem, not you? 

33. How often did you feel that you got 

involved with the wrong woman?

65

35. Ho

ta

w

w often did you feel like you cannot 

lk to your family about your problems 

ith your partner? 

24. How often did you feel that changing 

would be hard because you grew up seeing 

domestic violence? 

32. How often did you think that people 

would see you as a wimp if you changed 

the way you behave in relationships?

16. How often did you feel that changing will 

not help because it's too late? 

8. How often did you want to give up your 

efforts to change because you were not 

getting the results you expected? 

38. How often did you feel that you cannot 

make changes because you're surrounded 

by violence in your day-to-day life?

22. How often did you get mad when pe

told you that you need to change?

ople 

14. How often did you get angry when

someone told you what you should

should not do in your relationship?

 and 

6. How often did you get angry when

someone told you what you should

should not do in your relationship?

 and 

5. How often did you feel that your 

counselor is there only for the money?

29. How often did you feel that your 

counselor was criticizing you? 

36. How often did you feel that you ca

trust your counselor? 

nnot 

21. How often did you feel that your 

counselor blames you for everything?

23. How often did you feel that law 

enforcement always takes the wom

side? 

en's 

31. How often did you feel that women t

advantage of domestic violence law

put men in jail? 

ake 

s to 

15. How often did you feel that you're in

program because the police would

listen to your side of the story? 

 this 

 not 

7. How often did you feel that the poli

not investigate domestic violence cas

properly? 

ce do 

es 

37. How often did you feel that the dom

violence laws in this state are too h

men? 

estic 

ard on 

.673

.693

.656

.561

`

.605

.678

.670

.610

.530

.604

.730

.679

.561

.634

.353

.448

.543

.436

.414

.659

.656

.541

.753

.585

.795

.725

.659

.828

.749

.624

.771

.590

.766

.757

.670

.819

.689

.600 .942

.791 .440

.917 .751

.973 .863

30. H

w

ha

ow often did you feel that if you really 

anted to hurt your partner you would 

ve?

.690

Figure 2. Processes of Resistance 

Second-Order Factor Model

Problems with 

Partner

Hopelessness Psychological 

Reactance

Processes of 

Resistance

Passive 

Reactance

Problems with 

Alliance

Isolation System 

Blaming

13. How often did you feel that what yo

counselor talks about in group has n

to do with the real world? 

Social 

Justification

ur 

othing 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
66

18

26

E

102

34

.735

.678

.561

.633

.355

19

27

113

.690

.548

.438

.417

20

28

124

35

.658

.658

.542

.753

.587

.672

24

32

168

38

.680

.611

.532

.603

22

146

.443

.658

.797

.725

.749

21

29

135

36

.829

.625

.771

.591

.755

23

31

157

37

.769

.651

.814

.639

.694

17

2591

33

.665

.693

.537

.652

.976

.918

.786

.949

.862

.755

.572

.412

.651

30

Problems with 

Partner

Hopelessness

Passive 

Reactance

Isolation

Psychological 

Reactance

Social 

Justification

Problems with 

Alliance

System 

Blaming

Figure 3. Processes of 

Resistance Final Model

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6.0

6.57.07.58.08.59.09.5

Time 1 Time 2

Mean Scores*

Pro(n=Re(n=

F(1,145)=5.3, p<.05, η2=.03

Figure 4.Problems with Alliance at T1 to T2 for Pre-Action Groups that Did and Did Not Progress to Action

*Means adjusted for social desirability

Assessment Timepoint

67

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6.0

6.57.07.58.08.59.0

Time 1 Time 2

Mean Scores*

Progres(n=47)Remain(n=112

Figure 5.Social Justification at T1 to T2 for Pre-Action Groups that Did and Did Not Progress to Action

Assessment Timepoint

F(1,145)=8.7, p<.01, η2=.05

*Means adjusted for social desirability

68

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7.0

7.58.08.59.09.5

Time 1 Time 2

Mean Scores*

Progres(n=45)Remain(n=110

Assessment Timepoint

Figure 6.Passive Reactance at T1 to T2 for Pre-Action Groups that Did and Did Not Progress to Action

F(1,145)=8.0, p<.01, η2=.05

*Means adjusted for social desirability

69

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5.0

5.56.06.57.07.58.08.59.09.5

10.010.511.0

Time 1 Time 2

T-Scores*

Regress(n=16)Remain(n=49)

Figure 7.Problems with Alliance at T1 to T2 for Action Groups that Did and Did Not Regress to Pre-Action

Assessment Timepoint

F(1,62)=16.2, p<.001, η2=.21

*Means adjusted for social desirability

70

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6.0

6.57.07.58.08.59.09.5

10.010.511.011.512.0

Time 1 Time 2

Mean Scores*

Regress(n=16)Remain(n=49)

Figure 8.Social Justification at T1 to T2 for Action Groups that Did and Did Not Regress to Pre-Action

Assessment Timepoint

F(1,62)=9.7, p<.01, η2=.14

*Means adjusted for social desirability

71

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6.0

6.57.07.58.08.59.09.5

10.010.511.011.512.0

Time 1 Time 2

Mean Scores*

Regre(n=16)Rema(n=49)

Figure 9.Passive Reactance at T1 to T2 for Action Groups that Did and Did Not Regress to Pre-Action

Assessment Timepoint

F(1,62)=19.4, p<.001, η2=.24

*Means adjusted for social desirability

72

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
11.0

11.512.012.513.013.514.014.515.0

Time 1 Time 2

Mean Scores*

Regress(n=16)Remain(n=49)

Figure 10.Partner Blame at T1 to T2 for Action Groups that Did and Did Not Regress to Pre-Action

Assessment Timepoint

F(1,62)=5.0, p<.05, η2=.08

*Means adjusted for social desirability

73

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7.0

7.58.08.59.09.5

10.010.511.011.512.012.513.0

Time 1 Time 2

Mean Scores*

Regr(n=16Rem(n=49

Figure 11.Hopelessness at T1 to T2 for Action Groups that Did and Did Not Regress to Pre-Action

Assessment Timepoint

F(1,62)=8.5, p<.01, η2=.12*Means adjusted for social desirability

74

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 12.

Processes of Change and Processes of Resistance, Pros and Cons at T1 and T2 for Pre-Action Groups that Progressed to Action

4045505560

Time 1 Time 2

T-Scores*

Processes of ChangeProcesses of Resistance

Assessment Timepoint

*Adjusted for Social Desirability

4045505560

Time 1 Time 2

T-Scores*

ProsCons

Assessment Timepoint

75

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 13.

Processes of Change and Processes of Resistance, Pros and Cons at T1 and T2 for Pre-Action Groups that Did NProgress to Action

4045505560

Time 1 Time 2

T-Scores*

Processes of ChangeProcesses of Resistance

Assessment Timepoint

*Adjusted for Social Desirability

4045505560

Time 1 Time 2

T-Scores*

ProsCons

Assessment Timepoint

76

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 14.

Processes of Change and Processes of Resistance, Pros and Cons at T1 and T2 for Action Groups that Regressed Pre-Action

4045505560

Time 1 Time 2

T-Scores*

Processes of ChangeProcesses of Resistance

Assessment Timepoint

*Adjusted for Social Desirability

4045505560

Time 1 Time 2

T-Scores*

ProsCons

Assessment Timepoint

77

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 15.

Processes of Change and Processes of Resistance, Pros and Cons at T1 and T2 for Action Groups that Did Not Regress to Pre-Action

4045505560

Time 1 Time 2

T-Scores*

Processes of ChangeProcesses of Resistance

Assessment Timepoint

*Adjusted for Social Desirability

4045505560

Time 1 Time 2

T-Scores*

ProsCons

Assessment Timepoint

78

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDICES

79

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX A 

EIGHTEEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERTS 

Expert Affiliation/ Title 

1. Anonymous Long-time member of domestic violence group 

Long Beach, CA 

2. Barnes, Graham Trainer/Program Developer 

Battered Women’s Justice Project 

Minneapolis, MN 

3. Cabarcas, Araceli Private Practice 

Murrieta, CA 

4. Carillo, Ricardo Psychological Consultant

Consultation and Training Practice

Oakland, CA 

Clinical Director/EAP Consultant/Trainer

Tulare County Hispanic Commission on Alcoholism, Inc. 

Visalia, CA,

Director of Latino Mental Health 

Kaweah Delta Health Care District 

Visalia, CA 

 

5. Dutton, Donald Professor of Psychology 

University of British Columbia 

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 

6. Gondolf, Edward Professor of Sociology 

Indiana University of Pennsylvania 

Indiana, PA 

Associate Director of Research 

Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute (MAATI) 

Indiana, PA 

7. Hamberger, Kevin Professor of Family and Community Medicine 

Medical College of Wisconsin 

Milwaukee, WI 

80

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
81

Expert Affiliation/ Title 

8. Lapierre, Richard Domestic Violence Program Director 

Center for Social Work Practice 

Mapleville, RI 

9. LaViolette, Alyce Psychotherapist/Trainer/Consultant 

Long Beach, CA 

10. Mederos, Fernando Consultant/Trainer/Supervisor 

Boston, MA 

11. Murphy, Christopher Associate Professor of Psychology 

Director of Clinical Training 

Department of Psychology 

University of Maryland, Baltimore County 

Baltimore, MD 

Director of the New Behaviors Program 

Domestic Violence Center of Howard County 

Columbia, MD 

12. Murphy, Kevin Domestic Violence Program Director 

Tri-Hab, Inc. 

Fall River, RI 

13. Paymar, Michael Resource Specialist 

Battered Women's Justice Project 

Minneapolis, MN 

14. Perillo, Julia Program Developer/Trainer 

Decatur, GA 

15. Rosenbaum, Alan Professor of Psychology 

Department of Psychology 

Northern Illinois University 

DeKalb, IL 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
82

Expert Affiliation/ Title 

16. Saunders, Daniel Professor of Social Work 

School of Social Work 

Co-Director 

Interdisciplinary Research Program on Violence Across the 

Lifespan 

University of Michigan 

Ann Arbor, MI 

17. Sonkin, Daniel Independent Practice 

Sausalito, CA 

18. Williams, Oliver Associate Professor 

School of Social Work 

Director 

Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American 

Community 

University of Minnesota 

St. Paul, MN 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX B 

THE URICA-DV-R AND STAGE OF CHANGE PROFILES

The six profiles below emerged in three separate samples of domestic violence offenders. Description 

of the samples and methods, and external validity data are provided in Levesque (2006) or on request 

from the author. 

Precontemplation

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PC C A R

T-Score

URICA-DV Dimension 

Precontemplation 1 and 2: The two Precontemplation profiles are 

characterized by average or above average scores on the 

Precontemplation scale, with considerably (about two SDs) lower scores 

on the Contemplation and Action scales. Individuals with 

Precontemplation profiles don’t seem to recognize—or acknowledge—

the need to change, and are doing relatively little to achieve change. 

 

Contemplation

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PC C A R

T-Score

URICA-DV Dimension 

Contemplation: The Contemplation profile is flatter than the 

Precontemplation profile. Individuals with this profile continue to 

score at or above the mean on the Precontemplation scale; however, 

their scores on the Contemplation and Action scales are higher than 

Precontemplators’ and closer to the mean, suggesting an increasing 

concern about their behavior and some participation in the change 

process. 

Preparation

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PC C A R

T-Score

URICA-DV Dimension 

Preparation: In the Preparation profile, Contemplation and Action 

scores now exceed Precontemplation scores; above average scores on 

the Relapse Risk dimension suggest that individuals with this profile are 

concerned about their ability to control their violent and abusive 

behavior, which may be motivating them to make changes. 

Action High Relapse

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PC C A R

T-Score

URICA-DV Dimension 

Action High Relapse: Compared to Preparation, the Action High 

Relapse profile is characterized by even lower Precontemplation scores 

and higher Contemplation and Action scores. Contemplation and 

Action scores are well above the mean and exceed Precontemplation 

scores by about two SDs, suggesting a more committed and active 

engagement in the change process. High Relapse Risk scores suggest 

that these individuals recognize that they need to work hard to maintain 

their changes. 

Action Low Relapse

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PC C A R

T-Score

URICA-DV Dimension 

Action Low Relapse: This profile is similar to the Action High Relapse 

profile, except that the Relapse Risk score has dropped to below the 

mean. While still committed to change, these individuals are more 

confident and may not need to work as hard as individuals in Action 

High Relapse to stay free of violence and abuse. 

83

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX C 

FINAL PROCESSES OF RESISTANCE MEASURE

Listed below are thoughts and feelings that you may experience. HOW OFTEN have you experienced each of 

the following in the LAST MONTH? For each question, please choose a number from the following scale: 

1=Never 

2=Seldom 

3=Occasionally 

4=Often 

5=Very often 

Never ←⎯⎯⎯⎯→ Very often 

1 2 3 4 5 

1. In the last month, how often did you feel that your partner is the one with the 

problem, not you? $ $ $ $ $

2. In the last month, how often did you feel afraid about the thought of changing? $ $ $ $ $

3. In the last month, how often did you not pay attention in group? $ $ $ $ $

4. In the last month, how often did you feel that you cannot talk to your friends about 

your problems? $ $ $ $ $

5. In the last month, how often did you feel that your counselor is there only for the 

money? $ $ $ $ $

6. In the last month, how often did you get angry when someone told you what you 

should and should not do in your relationship? $ $ $ $ $

7. In the last month, how often did you feel that the police do not investigate 

domestic violence cases properly? $ $ $ $ $

8. In the last month, how often did you want to give up your efforts to change 

because you were not getting the results you expected? $ $ $ $ $

9. In the last month, how often did you feel that if your partner had treated you 

better, you would not be in this program? $ $ $ $ $

10. In the last month, how often did you feel hopeless about making changes in your 

life? $ $ $ $ $

11. In the last month, how often did you agree with your counselor or the men in your 

group so they'd leave you alone? $ $ $ $ $

12. In the last month, how often did you feel that you cannot talk to your friends about 

the things that happen in your domestic violence group? $ $ $ $ $

13. In the last month, how often did you feel that what your counselor talks about in 

group has nothing to do with the real world? $ $ $ $ $

14. In the last month, how often did you tell people to mind their own business when 

they told you how to behave in your relationship? $ $ $ $ $

15. In the last month, how often did you feel that you're in this program because the 

police would not listen to your side of the story? $ $ $ $ $

16. In the last month, how often did you feel that changing will not help because it's 

too late? $ $ $ $ $

84

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1=Never 

2=Seldom 

3=Occasionally 

4=Often 

5=Very often

Never ←⎯⎯⎯⎯→ Very often 

1 2 3 4 5 

17. In the last month, how often did you feel depressed about your relationship with 

your partner? $ $ $ $ $

18. In the last month, how often did you feel that your life will never get better, even if 

you try to change? $ $ $ $ $

19. 

In the last month, how often did you feel that you will not be able to finish this 

program because the rules are too strict? (For example, you're only allowed a 

certain number of absences). 

$ $ $ $ $

20. In the last month, how often did you feel that there's no one you can talk to about 

your problems? $ $ $ $ $

21. In the last month, how often did you feel that your counselor blames you for 

everything? $ $ $ $ $

22. In the last month, how often did you get mad when people told you that you need 

to change? $ $ $ $ $

23. In the last month, how often did you feel that law enforcement always takes the 

women's side? $ $ $ $ $

24. In the last month, how often did you feel that changing would be hard because 

you grew up seeing domestic violence? $ $ $ $ $

25. In the last month, how often did you feel that you don't care about your partner or 

your relationship anymore? $ $ $ $ $

26. In the last month, how often did you feel that you cannot change given the way 

your life is now? $ $ $ $ $

27. In the last month, how often did you feel bored or uninterested in your domestic 

violence group? $ $ $ $ $

28. In the last month, how often did you feel that you cannot trust others with your 

relationship issues? $ $ $ $ $

29. In the last month, how often did you feel that your counselor was criticizing you? $ $ $ $ $

30. In the last month, how often did you feel that if you really wanted to hurt your 

partner you would have? $ $ $ $ $

31. In the last month, how often did you feel that women take advantage of domestic 

violence laws to put men in jail? $ $ $ $ $

32. In the last month, how often did you think that people would see you as a wimp if 

you changed the way you behave in relationships? $ $ $ $ $

85

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1=Never 

2=Seldom 

3=Occasionally 

4=Often 

5=Very often

Never ←⎯⎯⎯⎯→ Very often 

1 2 3 4 5 

33. In the last month, how often did you feel that you got involved with the wrong 

woman? $ $ $ $ $

34. In the last month, how often did you feel that you cannot change right now 

because of other things going on in your life? $ $ $ $ $

35. In the last month, how often did you feel like you cannot talk to your family about 

your problems with your partner? $ $ $ $ $

36. In the last month, how often did you feel that you cannot trust your counselor? $ $ $ $ $

37. In the last month, how often did you feel that the domestic violence laws in this 

state are too hard on men? $ $ $ $ $

38. In the last month, how often did you feel that you cannot make changes because 

you're surrounded by violence in your day-to-day life? $ $ $ $ $

86

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX D 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERTS’ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

MANAGING EIGHT TYPES OF RESISTANCE IN BATTERER TREATMENT 

System Blaming: Believing that the criminal justice system treats men unfairly in domestic 

violence cases and that women abuse the laws. 

Recommendation #1: 

Acknowledge that the criminal justice system is indeed unfair in some instances. 

• We acknowledge that the criminal justice system can be racist and sexist. 

• We acknowledge that the criminal justice system doesn’t have the resources to 

investigate each case thoroughly. 

• I tell them, “That may be true, the system is designed to protect the weak.” 

• We validate their viewpoint but not their violence. 

• I roll with the resistance: “Well, you're right. It’s an imperfect world.” However, I might 

add that the system often has good intentions, and ask what those intentions might be. 

• We don’t blame them, because we don’t know the truth. 

• We try to let them vent some of their anger at the courts. 

• We let them know that it’s OK to feel anger toward the system. 

• I tell them, “If I’d experienced that, I’d be angry, too.” 

Recommendation #2: 

Empathize with the client’s experience to build the therapeutic alliance. 

• If we don’t acknowledge that they may have been mistreated, we will be discounted. 

• I empathize with their experience. If I dismiss it, it creates a hierarchical situation of 

whose experience is going to count. 

• I want him to see me as someone who cares. When he expresses anger at the system for 

not wanting to hear his side of the story, I let him know that I am interested in what he 

has to say. Providing a permissive environment decreases his defenses, and allows us to 

develop a therapeutic relationship. 

• I say: “Men don’t come in a lot of times, or they come in and don’t say anything. I can 

see that you’re really pissed off. It’s great that you’re opening up and telling me how you 

feel.” 

• The men say, “I’m very angry because no one would listen to my side of the story.” I 

have to stand apart from the system and say, “I need to know how to best help you.” 

• Depending on the guy, you may be able give two or three quick responses to empathize 

with the anger and then move on. 

Recommendation #3: 

Let the client know that this program may be helpful, even if he was unjustly arrested. 

• The challenge is to distinguish ourselves from the court, but at the same time to be 

accountable to it. 

87

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• One way to get past the feeling that the system is unfair is for men to believe that they’re 

going to get something out of the group. 

• I try to help them see this as an investment: “We have X weeks together, so let’s try and 

make it helpful to you. Instead of being sent to jail, you’re going to get lots of 

information. Let’s start by letting me have a fair shot at giving you some of that 

information.” 

• I tell them that there’s a benefit to being here. All of us have challenges; none of us is 

perfect. Now here’s a chance to learn some skills to improve their relationship. 

• I say: “The system is not your friend. It’s not here to make you feel good. If you don’t 

like being in the system, let’s figure out what you need to change to avoid it in the 

future.” 

• “So the cops came... What did you do to get to the situation where cops where called?” 

From a cognitive-behavioral therapy perspective, there are certain stimuli in our 

environment that affect how we think, which leads to certain feelings, and then our 

decisions about how we will behave. How can men modify their thoughts, feelings, or 

behaviors in the future to avoid getting involved with the system? 

• I tell them that if the room is bright, I can sit and obsess about it, or I can do more 

productive things to deal with the problem, like turn off the lamp or put on sunglasses. I 

want them to expand their horizons and their sense of what their choices are: “Let’s find 

different strategies for dealing with events that led up to your arrest.” 

Recommendation #4: 

If system blaming continues, it may be appropriate to confront, or to just move on. 

• I ask: “Do you think the police might have seen things differently than you?” 

• Educate them about the reasons for DV laws. 

• I express amazement: “I don’t understand why you’re here. This program is for guys 

who have been violent.” 

• For some men, looking at the police reports may help break through the minimization. 

Antisocial types want to know what you have on them. 

• We often interview the victim to get her side of the story. If the client is lying we pick 

spots for confrontation; if the violence was bilateral, we show him that he still had 

options about how to respond. 

• If system blaming continues no matter what I do, I say, “Look, I’m not going to be able 

to respond to you in a way that’s useful. We’ll need to move on.” 

• If system blaming does not abate, we address it as a sad missed opportunity to get 

something out of the intervention. 

Problems with Partner: Blaming the partner for the violence, diminishing or feeling 

discouraged about the relationship. 

Recommendation #1: 

Stress that while the client cannot control or change his partner’s behavior, he has choices about 

how he will respond to it. 

88

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• We tell men: “Relationships are the place where we have the best of times and the worst 

of times. That’s why a lot of saints weren’t married and were celibate. In relationships 

people will feel deeply wounded, but they don’t have to respond with violence.” 

• We bring guys back to their responsibility for self-control. We ask: “If that is your 

reality, how do you want to deal with it? What is controllable? What do you want to do 

if you don’t want to feel the way you’re feeling?”

• We acknowledge that they may be in a difficult relationship, but it all comes down to 

how they want to resolve those conflicts. 

• The client needs to understand that no matter what his partner has done, he is responsible 

for his own behavior. 

• We remind the client that he has the power to change his own behavior, not someone 

else’s. 

• Choice is the big theme here, but men have to have a certain level of awareness to 

recognize that they do have choice. 

Recommendation #2: 

Assist the client in deciding whether to continue his relationship, and whether he will be able to 

make healthy changes if he decides to continue it. 

• If a guy says that his partner is cheating on him, or that he’s miserable in his relationship, 

we ask, “So why are your staying with her?” 

• Sometimes relationships are toxic and can’t be fixed. 

• We ask: “If she is that uncooperative, you have to choose if you want to be with her.” 

• From the beginning we help clients to acknowledge that they may have to change jobs, 

friends, or partners. 

• We may say, “If you love someone, it doesn’t mean you are a good match. This is not a 

healthy relationship, and you might consider changing it.” 

• We address that they may not want to stay with their partner. That does not make them 

or their partner a bad person; they just can’t get over their differences. 

• Most of men are still with their partners. We have dialogues about whether they want to 

continue their relationship or not. Hopefully, they’re making those choices in a way in 

which coercion and control no longer form the arena where these things get decided. 

• It can be very empowering for men to realize that they don’t have to stay in their 

relationship. 

Recommendation #3: 

Provide support during the breakup.

• Sometimes there is a grieving process when men give up hope that they’ll be able to get 

along with their partner. 

• We want to empathize with depression and hopelessness men may experience when their 

relationship ends. 

• Depression can be quite intense. 

• There may be a risk of lethality if you hear things like, “If I can’t have her then what is 

the sense of living?” or “If I can’t have her nobody else can have her.” It can be 

dangerous if these thing are not talked about. Acknowledge how powerless they feel. 

89

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Hold them in this place and have the group help them. Let them know that they are not 

alone. 

Problems with Alliance: Focusing on the counselor’s use of confrontation and inability to 

help the client feel understood, safe, and supported. 

Recommendation #1: 

Examine your own attitudes about domestic violence offenders and domestic violence treatment. 

• Problems with alliance are mainly a function of counselors and their attitudes. Do they 

think that these men are despicable, or do they see them as people who need help? 

• It’s important to see a man who batters not as an evil person, but as someone who has 

made bad choices. The problem is with his behavior. I don’t need to label people, and I 

want to support them. 

• You can do so much with people if they think you think they can change, that they’re 

more than their abusive behavior, that you like them. 

• Do you see your main objective as helping these men, or not? 

• It’s a Zen process to commiserate, apprehend, and comprehend the guys’ worldview, but 

also to challenge him to change his behavior. We must walk a tightrope. 

Recommendation #2: 

Address potential problems with alliance and your responsibilities to the criminal justice system 

openly and proactively.

• Let them voice their feelings about it. 

• This is a real topic for more therapeutic counselors to bring up. 

• If a guy thinks you have been too hard, explore this with him: “Maybe I’ve been too hard 

on you, or maybe you’ve been so hurt in the past that you’ve exaggerated what I said.” 

(Some guys do take criticism too hard). Group leader can also be willing to change. 

• It’s difficult when they know I have to report to probation and/or to their partner if they 

stop attending or become disruptive to the group. They know I have a commitment to 

report any violence. But I’m open about this from the beginning. They’re not suckered 

into it. And they know it’s because I have to protect other people. 

• We see this the most at the very beginning. They don’t know me, and they don’t know 

what to expect. I tell them I will be reporting to the court, but it’s my job to explain these 

things to them in an environment that creates trust. That’s where communicating about 

expectations, rules, policies and procedures is very important. 

• I deal proactively with these things. I let them know that they may not always agree with 

me: “I want you to question me and challenge me. Some things I say may not agree with 

your experience.” I try to keep an open environment. As they struggle to confront 

themselves and accept responsibility, I’m part of that struggle. 

Recommendation #3: 

Present the client’s change as a collaborative effort between the client and counselor. 

• I acknowledge that I have to report things, but tell them that what I put in the report is up 

to them. 

90

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• I tell them, “Whenever I have to report something to probation, we can work on 

something to help you, and I will include that in the report, too. I want you to use the 

therapy.” 

• I say, “My gig is to help you with the criminal justice system and with your partner, so 

you don’t find yourself in the same place. Will you work with me on this?” 

• I tell them that I am here to help them make changes. 

• If they’ve admitted that they’re unhappy, I tell them that I’m here to help them have a 

better life. 

• Early in the program I list out different topics we’ll cover, and ask them which ones will 

be most helpful to them. 

Social Justification: Believing that changing would be difficult—or impossible—in one’s 

environment, given social and religious norms and expectations. 

Recommendation #1: 

Challenge the client’s beliefs about what is normal behavior in his culture, and what it means to 

be a man. 

• Challenge the way they look at things. In the film “Shifting Gears,” a guy confronts his 

friend about being abusive. The friend throws him out of the car, and the guy says, “I am 

not going to hit you back.” In the group we discuss whether the choice not to hit back is 

a sign of weakness. We reframe what is meant by strength and weakness. 

• What I get is, “What I do is normal; anyone in my situation would respond the same way. 

Everyone’s violent.” I ask, “Are you telling me that everyone is violent? Everyone? 

What about ministers? It’s hard to believe that there is no one who doesn’t use violence.” 

• As far as culture, where I start is for them to teach me their culture. It’s rare that 

someone says that in their culture it’s okay to beat your wife. Being the center of the 

family has more to do with being the primary decision-maker and bread winner. Show 

him how else he can be a good leader without resorting to force. 

• We talk about machismo...Its root means “He who knows,” not “He who controls.” 

• We chip away at it. We discuss common sayings and ancient wisdom, like “The woman 

is at home and the man is on the street,” “The man who drinks is neither with you nor 

with me.” We process these things, maybe re-interpret, and do some teaching. 

• Some people have come to this country for freedom, but have held on to some of the 

oppressive positions. I help them to see that. Otherwise, they’re holding onto the same 

oppressive regimes that they moved from. 

Recommendation #2: 

Help the client think back to his own childhood and how he learned what they learned, and to 

consider the impact of his behavior on his own children. 

• The best way to deal with this is to talk about the family of origin and the culture of 

origin. When they grow up and observe domestic violence, there’s a normalcy that can 

continue into adulthood. 

• We would get people to talk about what they learned, then ask, “Do you want your kids 

to keep repeating the pattern?” There are still choices. 

91

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• If I can get a guy to reflect on what it felt like for him as a child when his father beat his 

mother, or when his mother was unfaithful, or when he was beaten himself, he may be 

able to see that he is doing the same to his family. There is then hope that he can change 

that. 

• We help him reflect on childhood experiences, try to get him to remember feelings he 

had, and how his own children must feel. “How do you think your kids feel about you 

now? They must be really mad at you, too. Do you think you can change that?” If he 

says, “Yeah,” he may be able to feel more optimistic. 

• Most people, once you peel back the bravado, really do want a loving relationship and for 

their children to feel safe. 

Recommendation #3: 

Help the client identify and practice alternatives to violence that are acceptable to him and will 

work in his environment. 

• We can talk about how violence and aggression are adaptive. Someone in a tough 

neighborhood learns violence as a basic survival skill. We explore the rules of the 

playground and street versus having that in your home. We acknowledge the way things 

have been, but encourage a different way to go about it: “If you don’t want things to be 

like that, what are the alternatives?” 

• The fact of the matter is that violence works. I think men batter to stop their partners 

from doing something, to shut them up, or to punish them. If they can’t get what they 

want then they learn to deal with it by intimidation or violence. We can give them 

alternatives, and help them think through ways of compromise. 

• We talk to them about the group being a place to practice and learn new things that they 

can then use out in the world and see that it works. We ask them to tell us specific 

situations where it didn’t work, and role-play it with them. 

• I tell them, “You have to at least try it. Try it and tell me if it works.” Ninety-five 

percent of the time it works semi-well. Other times they look at me like I am weird, and 

then we try something else. 

• I tell them that, with my husband, when company is around I serve him, but when no one 

is around he mops the floor: “You can play the role when people are around, but it can 

be your secret when no one’s around.” 

Recommendation #4: 

Assess with the client whether he may need to change people, places, or things that support or 

encourage his violent behavior. 

• We talk about how they may need to make new friends, and that this domestic violence 

group is one of those places where they can make new friends. 

• My therapeutic contract states they may have to change friends, jobs, etc. 

• People have choices. Sometimes circumstances make it impossible to choose; but people 

can choose their social environment. 

• Occasionally, I encourage people to move. I’ve heard them say, “I got out of that place.” 

• Some people may need to avoid alcohol or drugs to make real changes. 

92

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Recommendation #5: 

Encourage patience in response to frustration about the change process, or lack of appreciation 

from others. 

• Ask them to think about other things they’ve learned and how long it took to get good at 

it. 

• Most of the guys expect partners and children to be very appreciative of how they’ve 

changed. I tell them that in this group we can look at this change differently because we 

haven’t been hurt by what they’ve done. It takes a long time for people who have been 

hurt to forgive. We do an empathy exercise that looks at the long-term effects of trauma. 

• I am certainly not going to get over something the moment that I am supposed to, and it’s 

not fair to expect that from partners. 

Hopelessness: Feeling hopeless, overwhelmed, depressed or anxious about making 

changes. 

Recommendation #1: 

Acknowledge and address other difficulties in the client’s life; provide referrals. 

• A lot of men have many serious life challenges, in addition to being violent. There’s 

poverty, unemployment, a sense of feeling defeated or powerless in their lives. The way 

to deal with this is to validate challenges or obstacles to change, and offer well-targeted 

referrals, like employment programs, education programs, and skills training. There may 

be mental health and trauma issues, also. 

• DV happens for a variety of reasons. One is the level of stressors in someone’s life and 

his capacity to deal with them. Our goal is to increase protective factors. Plus, people 

believe that they are getting help with things that are important to them. 

• We sit down and think about what we really can do for a guy, and what kind of 

treatments we can get him. How can we work on his strengths, and what areas are in 

crisis? Sometimes we have to lower our expectations. 

• We work on practical things—like in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Men aren’t going to 

make changes if their basic needs aren’t being met. No one will think about mental 

health if they don’t have food to eat and a roof over their heads. We’ll work on job skills 

before family of origin issues. We’ll help them find a place to live. Guys in the group 

will work to help someone get a job. 

• I’ve had guys exchange numbers, network and get a job through other group members, 

and support each other that way. 

• Often I would encourage the men that I was working with to get additional counseling. 

Recommendation #2: 

Increase self-efficacy through skill-building. 

• We have guys who are going to three or four programs, and their lives are chaotic. We 

help them deal with this by being positive and sharing life skills. Men need to learn how 

to manage stress, to problem-solve, and use different social skills appropriately. 

• Some men need how-to-get-through-the-day skills. 

93

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• As men learn simple skills, like conflict resolution and avoidance techniques, they start to 

see small effects, and this counters the sense of hopelessness. 

Recommendation #3: 

Provide support. 

• Other men in the group share how they’ve dealt with the same issues. 

• We do a lot on hope. Guys who have been here a long time are able to counteract 

hopelessness for newer guys. Through role-playing and homework assignments, we talk 

about confrontation of your own fear. Human beings, not just you, feel this way. 

• These men need a kind benevolent figure to reassure them and understand them. They 

probably have never gotten that before. 

• It’s good to explore fears about changing, how to change without giving up too much of 

your identity. 

Isolation: Lacking support from family and friends because of social isolation, distrust, or 

discomfort seeking help. 

Recommendation #1: 

Encourage support among group members. 

• We have assignments for men to reach out to others in the group. Men in some groups 

go out to dinner, and around the holidays they invite each other to their homes. We 

encourage them to be supportive of each other. 

• Some groups don’t mind sharing their phone numbers. We encourage relationships, and 

for them to talk to each other rather than trying to do all the work by themselves. 

• In the 4th or 5th group, men select triads, like a buddy system, and they’re on call for 

each other. It’s a way at cutting down isolation. We explain how it works: “These guys 

are here for you in a crisis. First, use the-timeout, and if that doesn’t work call these guys 

to stay over on the couch if you have to.” It’s remarkable, but at an 11-year-follow-up, 

some of these guys were still living with each other. They hadn’t formed other social 

relationships. 

• We tell them, “We’re all going to change together.” This kind of co-support models 

better relationships. 

• In general, a lot of the batterers programs try to help men identify with this new reference 

group—the other men in the group—and that in itself represents an opportunity to break 

down isolation. 

Recommendation #2: 

Encourage the client to identify and reach out to positive sources of support in the community. 

• If I feel that I’ve failed, it’s been in this area. We haven’t done enough to get our clients 

connected to other men in the community who could be positive role models for them, to 

give them help when they need it. 

• We encourage men to look for other outlets like church or other groups. 

94

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Men Against Violence in Atlanta requires men to bring in someone from the community 

to hear what they’re doing, to understand what the program’s about, and to understand 

the process of change. 

• Latino men look for a compadre, someone who mentors you and you mentor them, and 

they know about your intimate life. They’re recognized by family as someone to call in 

if there’s a problem. 

• When it’s me, me, me, men need other avenues. Any situation that helps them become 

more involved furthers their recovery. We offer on-going activities. 

Recommendation #3: 

Help the client think more about his need for friendships and social support, and any barriers to 

finding them. 

 

• We talk about friends, friendship, and what it takes to build friendships 

• We have a topic on social support. 

• We talk about how, as they grow, they need to keep evaluating what their needs are. 

They’ve never even thought about what their needs are in this area. 

• We talk about this in the context of defining manhood: “If you did open up with friends, 

would you feel like you are less of a man?” Getting help changing may relate to how 

men define manhood. 

• We talk about how they may be having a hard time confronting their friends, or finding 

new friends who are supporting your change. 

Psychological Reactance: Responding to pressure to change with an angry or negativistic 

stance. 

Recommendation #1: 

Acknowledge and show acceptance for the fact that some people don’t like being told what do to. 

• Sometimes it’s helpful just to acknowledge that some people don’t like being told what to 

do. 

• The word “should” will rankle anybody. We help to normalize it: “A lot of people don’t 

like to be told to change, or how to feel.” 

• We discuss different learning styles. We tell them that some people grapple with ideas, 

they like to see how things work or don’t work. They don’t assume that what you say is 

right. 

• When a person is resisting, he’s at least putting energy into it. Instead of trying to 

overpower the resistance, go with it. Going with the energy and giving him acceptance 

gets him to the point of making changes. 

Recommendation #2: 

Remind the client that he has the option of accepting or rejecting what the group has to offer. 

• At the beginning of group, we tell them our policy that they take what they want and 

leave the rest. We acknowledge that not everything will be useful to them, and they can 

decide. 

95

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• We talk a lot a about how every relationship has boundaries about what you should or 

should not do. They have the option of defending their boundary in group. 

• If someone wants to challenge me, I deflect it: “I want us to be successful. Let’s just see 

if anything here makes sense.” At the end of the session, I ask if anything was helpful. 

It’s important to give them a voice. 

• Acknowledge that they may not want to be here, but they can still get something positive 

from the group if they want to. 

Recommendation #3: 

Remind the client that he can choose whether or not to make changes. 

• My program does not tell men to change, but asks them if they are happy with the way 

things are. If the guy says, “I’m miserable,” we say, “Then what do you think we need to 

do? Maybe you ought to do something different.” 

• We tell them, “There’s power in doing what you want to do. But the bottom line is, how 

effective have your strategies been? Do you really get what you want when you behave 

that way?” They may see that their strategies really haven’t been very effective; they just 

don’t know how to behave in a different way. 

• We ask them, “How do you want to be remembered as a father, as a stepfather? How do 

you want to be remembered?” 

• We ask them to write their own violence policy: “I think it’s okay to use violence 

when________.” They fill in the blank and hopefully they say “for self-defense.” 

Recommendation #4: 

Be aware of how your own behavior may be contributing to psychological reactance. 

• It’s better if the client is approached and not labeled, confronted, or pushed against a 

wall. Instead, if he is told that he is a person who has done bad things and has hurt 

people, but that he is not a bad person and he can change, you can sidestep a lot of anger. 

• Counselors often think of resistance as coming from the men, but it’s really comes from 

the interaction. 

• Minimize reactance by not going too fast, and by establishing an alliance first. 

• In our groups we should be modeling for them how to deal with conflict. 

Passive Reactance: Responding with pressure to change by participating only superficially, 

without meeting expectations or responding appropriately.

Recommendation #1: 

• See Recommendations #1-#4 for Psychological Reactance5

. 

Recommendation #2: 

 

5

 At the time of the interviews, this resistance dimension was conceptualized and operationally defined as 

“Detachment,” and focused primarily on the client’s emotional withdrawal from the group. Thus, experts’ 

recommendations focused primarily on methods for increasing engagement (Recommendation #2). We now 

understand this dimension to represent Passive Reactance, which, like Psychological Reactance, is elicited by 

pressure to change. We reasoned that strategies for managing Psychological Reactance are appropriate for 

managing Passive Reactance as well. 

96

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Encourage real involvement by making the group as stimulating as possible. 

• The more we talk at them, the more they zone out. The more we get at their experiences, 

the better. Are we developing plans to pull them into it? 

• We try to find a way to engage everyone: “This is your group. If things are not 

happening in your group that you would like to happen, if your needs aren’t being met, 

come to us, or bring it up in group.” 

• Try to make the group as interesting, stimulating and inspirational as possible. 

Other Comments from Experts

Several experts mentioned general ways of conceptualizing and approaching resistance that cut 

across resistance dimensions. For example: 

• We need to find out what they love and are working towards in their lives, and align our 

goals with their goals. 

• For all these forms of resistance I would have a basic approach: heavy doses of empathy. 

• We can’t expect them to act like us. 

• Anticipate resistance before you get it. Probe immediately, and find out how he feels 

about being there. Respond to resistance before you get resistance, and show that you are 

there to align with what he wants. 

• Don’t respond directly to resistance by arguing or responding to it rationally. 

• Roll with the resistance. 

• There is room for confrontation, but do it at the end. Also explain what confrontation is: 

“We are confronting you because we think you can change and grow.” If it’s done too 

early, then they just shut down. 

97

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.