Post on 05-Feb-2016
description
Abuser in Intimate Partner Violence
The 9th NSFPStockholm, 24-
26.8.2011
Hannu Säävälä et al
Oulu University Hospital, Department of
Psychiatry
Abuser in Intimate Partner Violence Hannu Säävälä1&2, MD, PhD, forensic
psychiatrist Riitta Hannus2, Social Worker Tuija Korhonen2, Psychologist Riitta Pohjoisvirta2, Social Worker Santtu Salonen2, Social Worker
=====
1Oulu University Hospital, Department of Psychiatry
2Oulu Mother and Child Home and Shelter
Abuser in Intimate Partner Violence
Oulu Mother and Child Home and Shelter
Outpatient and shelter
Services for the victim, the abuser and the children
Population base appr 200 000
Integrated framework
Theoretical socio-cultural: Gendered violence Psychiatric: Individual psychology Systemic: Family dynamics
Practical Individual work Family work Team work
Study data
All Client-cases during 2003-5, N=447
Shelter 62%, outpatient 38% Statistical analysis, 154 variables Abuser 97% male Victim’s violence in 22% of cases
Selection of Study Subjects
All client cases
N=447 victim identifN=431
perp identifN=425
16 cases omitted
6 cases omitted
victim partnerN=383
partner casesN=374
42 cases omitted
9 cases omitted
Aims of the study
Is it possible to differenciate between serious and less serious violence?
What are the differences in serious and less serious violence?
Violence: Problem of the abuser or Culturally determined?
Assessment of violence (Johnson 1995)
Intimate terrorism (IT)
Controlling Serious physical
attacks or traumatizing effect on the victim
Common coupleviolence
(CCV) Non-controlling Non-serious
physical attacks and non-traumatizing effect on the victim
In terror the size matters
Mental traumatization is central to seriousness of violence
Classification of cases(% of all, N=235)
Common couple violence (CCV) 75%
Intimate terrorism (IT) 25%
Intimate terrorism
Abuser’s violence more frequentlyIn previous relationship (N=79, p=0.032)
Lead to previous convictions (N=87, p<0.00)
From the start of the present relationship (N=157, p=0.008)
Towards children (N=146, p<0.00)
Also outside home (N=137, p<0.00)
Unilaterally (N=144, p<0.00)
Intimate terrorismAbuser’s mental problems: More often
Dominant traits (N=168, p<0.00)Labile affective traits (N=176 p<0.00)Paranoid traits (N=157, p<0.00)Dissociative symptoms (N=123, p=0.036)No depressive traits (N=131, p=0.004)Problems with intoxicants (N=178, p=0.001)Violent also when sober (N=124, p=0.027)
Intimate terrorism is a mental problem of the
abuserDutton 2007
Intimate terrorism
The Attitudes of the Abuser:More often patriarchal (N=152, p=0.002)
Did not take responsibility of his/her actions (N=150, p<0.00)
Was not motivated to strive for non-violence (N=163, p<0.00)
Intimate terrorism is a culturally determined phenomenon
Walker 1989, Archer 2006
Problems of the Study
Standardization Reliability of classifications Missing info of clients Generalizability of results
Conclusions of the study
IPV is not a uniform phenomenon We need integrated approaches to
tackle the problem of IPV It is possible to assess IPV
Helps to plan Safety measures Suitable working methods