Differential Treatment Response of Proactive and Reactive Partner Abusive Men: Results from a Laboratory Proximal Change Experiment
Objective: The current study reexamines data from Babcock et al. (2011) proximal change experiment to discern the differential utility of two communication skills-based interventions for proactive and reactive partner violence offenders. Method: Partner violent men were randomly assigned to the Edit...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid
2024-01-01
|
| Series: | Psychosocial Intervention |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
https://journals.copmadrid.org/pi/art/pi2024a2
|
| _version_ | 1797362145583693824 |
|---|---|
| author | Julia C. Babcock Sheetal Kini Donald A. Godfrey Lindsey Rodriguez |
| author_facet | Julia C. Babcock Sheetal Kini Donald A. Godfrey Lindsey Rodriguez |
| author_sort | Julia C. Babcock |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective: The current study reexamines data from Babcock et al. (2011) proximal change experiment to discern the differential utility of two communication skills-based interventions for proactive and reactive partner violence offenders. Method: Partner violent men were randomly assigned to the Editing Out the Negative skill, the Accepting Influence skill, or to a placebo/timeout and reengaged in a conflict discussion with their partners. Proactivity was tested as a moderator of immediate intervention outcomes. The ability to learn the communication skills, changes in self-reported affect, observed aggression, and psychophysiological responding were examined as a function of proactivity of violence. Results: Highly proactive men had some difficulty learning the Accepting Influence skill and they responded poorly to this intervention. They responded positively to the Editing Out the Negative technique, with less aggression, more positive affect, and lower heart rates. Low proactive (i.e., reactive) men tended to feel less aggressive, more positive, and less physiologically aroused after completing the Accepting Influence technique. Conclusions: This study lends support for tailoring batterer interventions specific to perpetrator characteristics. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T16:03:13Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1b119e010fa54a3dae2f5e9b841de4ed |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1132-0559 2173-4712 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T16:03:13Z |
| publishDate | 2024-01-01 |
| publisher | Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Psychosocial Intervention |
| spelling | doaj.art-1b119e010fa54a3dae2f5e9b841de4ed2024-01-08T09:02:02ZengColegio Oficial de Psicólogos de MadridPsychosocial Intervention1132-05592173-47122024-01-01331435410.5093/pi2024a211320559Differential Treatment Response of Proactive and Reactive Partner Abusive Men: Results from a Laboratory Proximal Change ExperimentJulia C. Babcock0Sheetal Kini1Donald A. Godfrey2Lindsey Rodriguez3University of Houston, TX , USA, University of Houston, TX, USA;The Lighthouse Arabia, UAE, The Lighthouse Arabia, UAE;University of Houston, TX , USA, University of Houston, TX, USA;University of Florida, Gainesville FL , USA, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USAObjective: The current study reexamines data from Babcock et al. (2011) proximal change experiment to discern the differential utility of two communication skills-based interventions for proactive and reactive partner violence offenders. Method: Partner violent men were randomly assigned to the Editing Out the Negative skill, the Accepting Influence skill, or to a placebo/timeout and reengaged in a conflict discussion with their partners. Proactivity was tested as a moderator of immediate intervention outcomes. The ability to learn the communication skills, changes in self-reported affect, observed aggression, and psychophysiological responding were examined as a function of proactivity of violence. Results: Highly proactive men had some difficulty learning the Accepting Influence skill and they responded poorly to this intervention. They responded positively to the Editing Out the Negative technique, with less aggression, more positive affect, and lower heart rates. Low proactive (i.e., reactive) men tended to feel less aggressive, more positive, and less physiologically aroused after completing the Accepting Influence technique. Conclusions: This study lends support for tailoring batterer interventions specific to perpetrator characteristics. https://journals.copmadrid.org/pi/art/pi2024a2 battering interventionintimate partner violencecouples’ interactionsobservational codingtreatment matching |
| spellingShingle | Julia C. Babcock Sheetal Kini Donald A. Godfrey Lindsey Rodriguez Differential Treatment Response of Proactive and Reactive Partner Abusive Men: Results from a Laboratory Proximal Change Experiment Psychosocial Intervention battering intervention intimate partner violence couples’ interactions observational coding treatment matching |
| title | Differential Treatment Response of Proactive and Reactive Partner Abusive Men: Results from a Laboratory Proximal Change Experiment |
| title_full | Differential Treatment Response of Proactive and Reactive Partner Abusive Men: Results from a Laboratory Proximal Change Experiment |
| title_fullStr | Differential Treatment Response of Proactive and Reactive Partner Abusive Men: Results from a Laboratory Proximal Change Experiment |
| title_full_unstemmed | Differential Treatment Response of Proactive and Reactive Partner Abusive Men: Results from a Laboratory Proximal Change Experiment |
| title_short | Differential Treatment Response of Proactive and Reactive Partner Abusive Men: Results from a Laboratory Proximal Change Experiment |
| title_sort | differential treatment response of proactive and reactive partner abusive men results from a laboratory proximal change experiment |
| topic | battering intervention intimate partner violence couples’ interactions observational coding treatment matching |
| url |
https://journals.copmadrid.org/pi/art/pi2024a2
|
| work_keys_str_mv | AT juliacbabcock differentialtreatmentresponseofproactiveandreactivepartnerabusivemenresultsfromalaboratoryproximalchangeexperiment AT sheetalkini differentialtreatmentresponseofproactiveandreactivepartnerabusivemenresultsfromalaboratoryproximalchangeexperiment AT donaldagodfrey differentialtreatmentresponseofproactiveandreactivepartnerabusivemenresultsfromalaboratoryproximalchangeexperiment AT lindseyrodriguez differentialtreatmentresponseofproactiveandreactivepartnerabusivemenresultsfromalaboratoryproximalchangeexperiment |