NCJ Number
197545
Date Published
2001
Length
20 pages
Annotation
Following a brief historical review of interventions for women and men in physically abusive relationships, this paper outlines the reasons for and against conjoint interventions (therapy groups that include both partners).
Abstract
In the 1980's, marital therapists began to publish accounts of treating couples that were mutually physically aggressive. Although these programs were often theoretically at odds with the perspective of those who worked in shelters and treatment programs for physically abusive men, it became clear that physical aggression was used by both men and women and was initiated by women at approximately equivalent rates in representative community and nonclinical samples. The author and his colleagues have not advocated conjoint treatment for all couples in physically aggressive relationships. Rather, they have compared gender-specific and conjoint treatments under the following conditions: when the couple is choosing to remain intact; when the violence is not sufficiently severe to elicit substantial fear or serious injury to the female partner; and when both partners acknowledge that aggression is a problem and they are willing to participate in a program that makes it the primary target of treatment. In the author's research, the conjoint treatment involved groups of 6-8 couples with male and female co-therapists. The focus of the treatment was to help the spouses eliminate psychological and physical violence in the home; accept responsibility for escalation of angry interchanges and the resulting violence; recognize and control thoughts associated with anger; communicate more effectively; increase caring and mutually pleasurable activities; and understand that each partner has a right to be treated with respect. Although there are theoretical arguments for conducting conjoint treatment, along with recent data that indicate its effectiveness, some have argued against it. One reason is that discussions in the conjoint therapy sessions may fuel subsequent arguments, which may lead to more physical abuse. It is also possible that anger from an individual session could escalate into an argument leading to physical abuse. Further, it is argued that in conjoint treatment, women may assume more responsibility for the abusive relationship than is warranted, and men may use it as a means of avoiding their own responsibility. The author believes that these potential problems with conjoint therapy can be effectively addressed in the course of group sessions, such that participants become capable of controlling their behavior and recognize that both partners have a responsibility to control aggressive behavior. 2 tables and 59 references