University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A behavioral -analytic model for assessing social competence in male batterers

(USC Thesis Other)

A behavioral -analytic model for assessing social competence in male batterers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UM I films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment
can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a complete manuscript and
there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright
material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning
the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to
right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic
prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact U M I directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA
UMI
800-521-0600
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A BEHAVIORAL-ANALYTIC MODEL FOR ASSESSING
SOCIAL COMPETENCE IN MALE BATTERERS
by
Norine Smiley
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Clinical Psychology)
August 1999
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
UMI Number 9955014
UMI
UMI Microform9955014
Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United S tates Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Com pany
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, written by
under the direction of hgf. Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
fate Studies
D ate A u £ u s .P ...3 j ...1 9 .9 9
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank my husband and children for all their support,
encouragement, and especially patience, in addition to my parents, sister, and
brother for their support and confidence in me. I would also like to gratefully
acknowledge the assistance provided by my Dissertation Chairperson, Gayla
Margolin, Ph.D., and the other members of my committee, John Brekke, Ph.D.,
Gerald Davison, Ph.D., and Jerald Jellison, Ph.D. I am also appreciative of the
assistance provided by Vincent B. Van Hasselt, Ph.D. and A 1 Sellers, Ph.D. I am
deeply indebted to my research assistant, Reagan Bennett, for her diligence and
commitment to this project
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Table of Contents
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................ v
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT.................................................................... vii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................... 1
The Domestic Violence Problem............................. 4
The Nature of the Male Batterer............................ 9
Treatment Programs for the Male Batterer 20
The Nature of Social Competence.......................... 26
The Development of the Behavioral-Analytic
Model........................................................................ 34
Situational Analysis (Stage IA).................. 37
Item Development (Stage II)..................... 38
Response Enumeration (Stage III) 38
Response Evaluation (Stage IV)................ 39
Construction of the Inventory and
Rater’s Manual........................................... 39
The Role Play Test.................................................. 41
The Present Study.................................................... 48
2. METHOD - SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS (STAGE IA)... 55
Subjects................................................................................. 55
Procedure.............................................................................. 60
Results................................................................................... 65
Discussion............................................................................. 68
3. METHOD - SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS (STAGE IB)... 70
Subjects................................................................................. 70
Procedure.............................................................................. 72
Results................................................................................... 75
Discussion............................................................................. 79
4. METHOD - ITEM DEVELOPMENT (STAGE II) 81
Procedure.............................................................................. 81
Discussion.............................................................................. 85
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
iv
Page
5. METHOD - RESPONSE ENUMERATION (STAGE III). 86
Subjects................................................................................. 86
Procedure.............................................................................. 90
Results................................................................................... 95
Discussion............................................................................. 102
6. METHOD - RESPONSE EVALUATION (STAGE IV)... 103
Subjects................................................................................. 103
Procedure.............................................................................. 106
Results................................................................................... I l l
Discussion............................................................................. 112
7. METHOD - CONSTRUCTION OF THE RATER’S
MANUAL (STAGE V)................................... 120
Procedure.............................................................................. 120
8. OVERALL DISCUSSION................................................... 121
Summary.................................................................. 121
Limitations.............................................................. 123
Clinical Implications and Conclusions.................. 124
REFERENCES............................................................................................ 135
APPENDICES............................................................................................. 144
A. CONSENT FORMS............................................................. 144
SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS (STAGE IA) 144
SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS (STAGE IB) 146
RESPONSE ENUMERATION (STAGE m)....... 148
RESPONSE EVALUATION (STAGE IV) 150
B. DEMOGRAPHIC FORMS............................................... 152
SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS (STAGE IA) 152
SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS (STAGE IB) 155
RESPONSE ENUMERATION (STAGE III). 158
RESPONSE EVALUATION (STAGE IV) 161
C. RATER’S MANUAL............................................................ 164
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
V
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1. Demographic Breakdown of Stage IA Sample............................. 58
2. Demographic Breakdown of Stage IB Sample............................. 71
3. Scores on Mean Composite Index and Overall Ranking of
Problem Situations................................ 77
4. Summary Abstract for 28 Problematic Situations....................... 78
5. Demographic Breakdown of Stage III Sample.............................. 88
6. Demographic Breakdown of Stage IV Sample............................. 104
7. Rates of Response Meeting Criteria for Each Problematic
Situation............................................................................................ 113
8. Summary Abstract for 9 Problematic Situations......................... 116
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Schematic of Role Play Room and Position of Players................. 94
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
vii
Abstract
The development of a male batterer social competence instrument is
described. The goal is to provide an instrument which can be used in male batterer
treatment programs to target the social problems of male batterers. A behavioral-
analytic model (Goldfried & D’Zurilla, 1969) was used to empirically develop a role-
play test (RPT) of social skill relevant to male batterers using data gathered from
male batterers, victims of violence, and professionals working with a domestic
violence population. Empirically-based problematic interpersonal situations were
systematically identified and written into problematic situations. These situations
were then evaluated by a sample of professionals in the area of domestic violence
according to the situation’s perceived frequency (i.e., how common) and difficulty
for the male batterer. A range of responses to these problematic situations was
obtained from male batterers in treatment programs and men in the community.
These responses were then evaluated by another group of professionals in the area
of domestic violence according to level of social competence. Situation-specific
criteria for assessing level of social competence were established and an item-specific
criterion-referenced rater’s manual was developed. This instrument was designed
to identify strengths and weaknesses in the interpersonal skills repertoires of male
batterers. The final inventory contains nine items and involves problematic
interpersonal situations with partners related to themes of child rearing, anger and
tension, jealousy, communication, sex, quality time together, and physical
violence/intimidation. This study contributes some of the first empirical data
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
viii
concerning the specific problem situations in interpersonal relationships
confronting male batterers and contributes to the assessment and treatment of this
population. Future research needs to validate this measure.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Social incompetence has been associated with a range of psychological
problems and individuals seeking mental health services (Meier & Hope, 1998;
McDonel, 1995). As a result, a social skills approach has been used to assess and
treat a number of these problems such as depression, schizophrenia, and marital
discord (Meier & Hope, 1998). This study aims to identify problematic situations
that male batterers are likely to encounter in their environment and provide
information about situation-specific criteria for assessing levels of social
competence. The goal is to develop an empirically-based social competence
instrument which identifies specific problematic situations representative of the
male batterer’s social environment, responses to these situations, and evaluations of
these responses by professionals or paraprofessionals working with a domestic
violence population.
The procedure used to develop this social competence instrument was
adapted from Goldfried and D’Zurilla’s (1969) behavioral-analytic model. It has
received support from social competence researchers (Bellack, 1979; McFall, 1982)
because it provides a way for developing an empirical evaluation of problem
situations for a specific population with a high degree of social validity (MacNeil &
LeCroy, 1997). It has been used with various populations such as college freshmen
(Goldfried & D’Zurilla, 1969), delinquent boys (Freedman, Rosenthal, Donahoe,
Schlundt, & McFall, 1978), delinquents girls (Gaffney & McFall, 1981), blind
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2
adolescents (Van Hasselt, Kazdin, Hersen, Simon, & Mastantuono, 1985), and
emotionally disturbed youths (MacNeil & LeCroy, 1997). This study’s purpose is to
extend this work to a male batterer population.
There has been a proliferation of treatment programs for male batterers
(Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991: Gondolf, 1987). Many programs are based on
the premise that violent men have social skill deficits, particularly with respect to
assertion and communication problems, and that they may turn to violence when
they are unable to successfully resolve marital conflict using more constructive
means (Gondolf & Russell, 1986; Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smutzler, & Sandin,
1997; Holtzworth-Munroe, 1992).
Social learning theory postulates that behavior is acquired through modeling
and differential reinforcement, and emphasizes the importance of the situation in
determining behavior. Consequently, social learning theorists taking a skills-
oriented approach with this population have created male batterer treatment
programs which teach several skills. These skills include training in assertion,
communication, problem solving, and anger management among others
(Hamberger & Hastings, 1988; Saunders & Hanusa, 1986; Sonkin, Martin, &
Walker, 1985; Tolman & Saunders, 1988). Despite the number of such programs,
the assumption underlying these treatment programs, namely that violent men have
social skill deficits, has rarely been empirically tested (exceptions see Morrison, Van
Hasselt, & Bellack, 1987; Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
3
Often, these programs fail to evaluate whether a person is actually deficient
in the skills being taught. Additionally, such programs often neglect to empirically
establish the content of their training program. Male batterers are generally
introduced to a group treatment program without an empirical assessment of
specific skill deficits. It is assumed that these deficits exist and therefore the content
of the training program would address these deficits. Thus, not only do we know
little about the general level of social skills among male batterers, but we know
almost nothing about the specific patterns of social skills deficits among violent men
(Holtzworth Munroe & Anglin, 1991).
For an intervention to be useful and effective, it is critical to demonstrate
the existence of social skill deficits within a particular clinical population before
applying such a program to that particular population. Freedman et al. (1978)
emphasize the importance of "developing a taxonomy of the particular problem
situations and skill deficits most characteristic of particular clinical populations....
Clearly, basic taxonomic research is a prerequisite to further treatment-oriented
research" (p. 1449). Basic taxonomic research is needed to document and identify
hypothesized skill deficits (Holtzworth-Munroe, 1992). Consequently, this lack of
information necessitates the need to conduct basic descriptive research for the
purpose of documenting and identifying the particular problem situations and skills
deficits which characterize maritally violent men (Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin,
1991).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4
Since many male batterer treatment programs operate within the framework
of a social skills deficit model, the development of an empirically derived assessment
instrument evaluating social competence should be mandated. Moreover, these
domestic violence programs may be impacted by managed care which necessitates
accountability, and the need to document targeted behaviors for interventions and
demonstrate the effectiveness of such therapeutic interventions over time.
Therefore, the long-term goals of this research project are to produce an empirically
developed social competence instrument which could: 1) be used for pre- and post
treatment evaluation, 2) be utilized to monitor change and progress during the
course of treatment, 3) help evaluate the efficacy of intervention programs, and 4)
help to individualize treatment plans for male batterers following validation of this
newly derived instrument To better comprehend the significance for developing
such an instrument and the magnitude of domestic violence, it is important to gain
an understanding of the domestic violence problem.
Background/Significance
The Domestic Violence Problem
Wife abuse is a significant social problem that permeates our society.
Initially, legal institutions responded ambivalently to violence toward partners. The
family was considered a private sanctity of which legal and criminal sanctions did
not apply. Historically, early marriage laws even gave the legal right for a man to
hit his wife (Barnett, Miller-Perrin, & Perrin, 1997). Over two decades of research
and practice have changed partner violence from a private matter to a social
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
5
problem, partly as a result of the evidence of the negative psychological and social
consequences that partner violence has for victims and families (Giles-Sims, 1998).
Initially, theories about partner violence and interventions to stop it focused
primarily on women victims. Etiological assumptions tended to blame women for
their victimization (Eisikovits & Edleson, 1989). However, the resurgence of the
women’s movement in the 1970's led many practitioners and researchers to question
the assumption that being abused was the women’s fault. This catalyzed a shift in
perspective where men were seen as choosing to respond violently in response to
male sex-role socialization. Consequently, many practitioners and researchers
focused their attention on studying and attempting to alter the violent behavior of
men (Eisikovits & Edleson, 1989). Additionally, legislative reforms were initiated to
strengthen the criminal justice response to partner violence (Eisikovits & Edleson,
1989; National Research Council, 1998). Domestic violence units were introduced
in prosecutors’ offices and treatment programs for male batterers were initiated in
probation departments and by community-based groups (National Research
Council, 1998).
In the late 1970's and early 1980's, treatment programs developed quickly
(National Research Council, 1998). Currently, there are approximately 1800
programs in the United States for victims of which approximately 1200 are shelters
(National Research Council, 1998). Intervention to control partner violence reflects
three goals: 1) criminal punishment and deterrence of batterers, 2) rehabilitation of
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6
the batterer, and 3) protective intervention designed to ensure safety and
empowerment of the victim (National Research Council, 1998).
Until 1975 there were no available data for estimating the magnitude of
partner violence. Then, the first National Family Violence Survey (Straus et al.,
1975) was conducted which found that 1.6 million women are abused annually by
their partners in the United States (Straus & Gelles, 1986). It has also been
suggested that one in three marriages may experience marital violence, and that
nearly half of all dating and marital relationships include some form of interpartner
aggression (O’Leary, Barling, Arias, Rosenbaum, Malone, & Tyree, 1989).
Approximately 28% of American couples experience at least one act of violence
during their marriage; 16% experience at least one act of violence a year; and 6%
experience severe violence in any given year (Straus, 1977).
A more recent national survey indicates that one out of 8 husbands engaged
in at least one violent act toward his wife during the year of the study and that 1.8
million wives are beaten by their spouses each year (Straus and Gelles, 1990). Some
even place this number at closer to 2 million/year (Bachman & Saltzman, 1994).
It is believed that these estimates are lower than actual rates in the general
community due to underreporting of violence. Additionally, most estimates of
incidence are seriously flawed methodologically due to: 1) difficulties in locating
subjects and engaging their cooperation; 2) the fact that violent encounters between
partners are usually private events; and 3) issues of confidentiality serve to impede
the data collection process and determination of the actual incidence of marital
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
7
violence (Telch & Lindquist, 1984). Therefore, it is believed that the true incidence
rates are higher than those reported.
Additionally, estimates of dating/courtship violence incidence rates are
similar to married couples. In dating relationships, approximately 31% have
experienced violence (Carey & Mongeau, 1996). Data indicate that approximately
one-third of all high school and college students have experienced violence within
the context of the dating relationship (Carey & Mongeau, 1996).
As evidenced by these numbers, partner violence is not a rare event as many
once thought Due to its prevalence, spousal abuse is thought to be the most
common cause of injury to women (Warnken & Rosenbaum, 1994; Browne, 1987).
Statistics indicate that 30% of all women who are murdered are killed by their
partner during a domestic dispute (as cited in Warnken & Rosenbaum, 1994-
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1982). It has been suggested that violence may
commence early in a relationship and often continues to occur without intervention
(O’Leary et al., 1989). Clinicians treating violent couples believe that such violence
escalates over time (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). Data also suggest that
over half of couples seeking marital therapy have experienced husband violence
(Holtzworth-Munroe, Waltz, Jacobson, Monaco, Fehrenback, & Gottnjan, 1992).
The consequences of this violence are far-reaching. Not only is interpartner
violence associated with physical and psychological problems such as depression,
alcohol abuse, and post-traumatic stress disorder, but it is also associated with
marital dissatisfaction and has been linked to child abuse and several negative
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
8
consequences on the children living in such families (Holtzworth-Munroe, Beatty, &
Anglin, 1995).
At the individual level, there is pain, trauma, fear, helplessness, depression,
anxiety, loss of self-esteem, suicide, and alcohol problems ranging from mild to
temporary to lifetime. The family suffers marital disruption and less satisfying and
responsive marital and parental relationships. The social community suffers from
the high cost for the criminal justice and mental health systems, lost work and lower
work productivity, and lower educational and economic achievement for victim and
family members (Giles-Sims, 1998). Much of this suffering, family disruption, and
cost to the social community could be reduced or eliminated through prevention
programs and effective interventions (Straus & Gelles, 1990).
The cost of partner violence is high both as a personal expense and as an
economic expense. The Bureau of National Affairs estimates costs of $3-5 billion
from health care premiums and lost work (Giles-Sims, 1998). Data indicate an
estimated $1.3 billion in annual medical costs due to adult domestic assaults (Miller,
Cohen, & Wiersema, 1996). Domestic violence is one of the most powerful
predictors of increased health care utilization (National Research Council, 1998). It
is the common point of entry for the battered women as these women often need
extensive medical care. Given that much partner violence is hidden and total
economic costs are undiscoverable, the true economic consequences can only be
roughly calculated but likely exceed the estimates in the literature (Giles-Sims,
1998).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
9
Partner violence also places a huge burden on the police and the criminal
justice system. Police departments respond to a large number of domestic
disturbance calls. The National Institute of Justice reports that the costs of
domestic crimes against adults accounts for approximately 15 % of total crime costs,
namely $67 billion per year (Miller et al., 1996). Recent estimates place the annual
cost of domestic violence in the United States between $1.7 billion to 140 billion
(National Research Council, 1998).
Over the past 20 years, there has been a growing awareness and interest in
domestic violence. Such awareness has helped to instigate change in social and legal
responses to this problem (Rosenbaum & Maiuro, 1990). Yet, the devastation
caused by domestic violence remains. Due to the prevalence and destruction caused
by domestic violence, legal reforms have been implemented. One such reform is
that the male batterer is required to go into a treatment program. As a result of the
data collected in such programs, more information is now available and known
about the male batterer. To further understand the male batterer, the next section
focuses on what we know about the male batterer from the collected data, including
problems with social competence.
The Nature of the Male Batterer
Initially, information about male batterers was collected through the victim’s
descriptions of their abusive partner, particularly women in shelters (Follingstad &
Breiter, 1994). At that time, this approach was the best and only available source of
information. However, with the emergence of treatment programs for perpetrators
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
10
in the 1980's, male batterers became available for assessment (Follingstad & Breiter,
1994). It is not typical for male batterer treatment programs to conduct assessments
prior to treatment for the purpose of treatment planning. Generally, these data are
collected for research purposes (Follingstad & Breiter, 1994).
Research indicates that low income level/social class couples have
significantly higher levels of marital violence (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler &
Bates, 1997; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986). However, not all studies show a
relationship between income and marital violence. Related variables, such as
unemployment and stress factors associated with fewer opportunity resources, may
play a part (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997). It is important to recognize that
partner violence does occur across all socioeconomic status levels (Sonkin et al.,
1985). However, individuals of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to turn to
the criminal justice system, hospital emergency rooms, and social service programs
where the abuse is less likely to be hidden and more likely to be documented (Sonkin
et al., 1985). In contrast, individuals of higher socioeconomic status are more able to
turn to the private therapist for help, where identification or documentation is less
likely to occur (Sonkin et al., 1985).
Many studies have compared batterers and nonbatterers to identify
differences between these groups. Such studies indicate that male batterers had
been witnesses to intraparental violence in their families of origin (Hotaling &
Sugarman, 1986), tend to abuse alcohol (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Telch &
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
11
Lindquist, 1984), and are depressed (Tolman & Bennett, 1990; Hamberger &
Hastings, 1986).
Many studies have found male batterers to have low self-esteem and poor
self-concepts when compared to nonbatterers or distressed men (Goldstein &
Rosenbaum, 1985; Maiuro, Cahn, Vitaliano, Wagner, & Zeree, 1988). Low self
esteem is widely recognized as a correlate of generalized aggressive behavior, and
attacks or perceived attacks on an individual’s self-concept have been seen as an
important source of aggressive behavior (Goldstein & Rosenbaum, 1985). Goldstein
and Rosenbaum (1985) provided evidence showing that abusive husbands were
more likely to perceive their wife’s behavior as self-esteem damaging. Violent
husbands appear to have faulty perceptions of their wive’s behavior (Goldstein &
Rosenbaum, 1985; Holtzworth-Munroe & Smutzler, 1996; Holtzworth-Munroe &
Hutchinson, 1993), and this supports evidence for therapeutic interventions like
cognitive restructuring, communication training, and other techniques to correct
such misperceptions and faulty communication.
In their attempts to communicate, physically violent men tend to display
increased negative emotional/affective arousal and demonstrate overtly negative
behaviors during their communications with spouses when discussing problems in
the laboratory (Margolin, John, & Gleberman, 1988). Specifically, these physically
abusive husbands exhibited more instances of negative voice (e.g., irate, angry,
yelling, accusatory) and more overtly negative behaviors (e.g., dismissal, waving
arms, pointing one’s finger at the other) than either verbally abusive or
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
12
withdrawing husbands. They also reported more negative emotional states like
sadness, fear, anger, feeling attacked in addition to reporting more physiological
arousal. This suggests that violent men may be interpreting their wives’ actions
differently than nonviolent men.
In a home evaluation of couples reenacting problem discussions, physically
aggressive husbands were more defensive, withdrawn, and despairing than verbally
abusive or withdrawing husbands (Margolin, Burman, & John, 1989). Physically
abusive husbands were found to be higher in overt hostile behaviors and lower in
adequate problem solving skills at the end of a reenacted conflictual interaction.
These abusive husbands were high in defensiveness, and showed increasing
uninvolvement, despair, and decreasing warmth by the end of the conflict.
Additionally, Morrison et al. (1987) used a role play test (RPT) of assertion
skills and a problem-solving interaction to examine differences among physically
abusive, maritally discordant, and satisfactorily married couples. They found that
physically abusive males differed from controls on the RPT of assertion skills in that
they experienced more speech disturbances (e.g., pauses, stutters) than the
nonabusive discordant group and used less praise/appreciation than the nonabusive
satisfactorily married men.
Lloyd (1990) found that violent couples may strive for a solution to a
disagreement However, their use of verbal attack, anger, and withdrawal strategies
make this difficult in addition to their low level of negotiation and use of apologies.
The low level of negotiation, combined with the high levels of anger and verbal
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
13
attack, clearly suggest an explosive situation. Moreover, Lloyd (1996) found that
physically aggressive couples displayed significantly more negative interactions than
nonaggressive couples when examining their daily marital interactions.
Other self-report and observational data provide further support that
violent couples display high levels of anger, contempt, and belligerence (Cordova,
Jacobson, Gottman, Rushe, & Cox, 1993; Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, Bates, &
Sandin, 1997; Jacobson, Gottman, Waltz, Rushe, Babcock, and Holtzworth-
Munroe, 1994). They seem unable to exit negative interactional cycles (i.e., negative
reciprocity) once they start which increases the probability of more angry words
(Burman, John, and Margolin, 1992). Other studies have corroborated these
findings (e.g., Burman et al., 1993; Cordova et al., 1993). Moreover, Jacobson et al.
(1994) found that no wife behavior could suppress her husband’s violence once it
began.
Additionally, the work of Eckhardt, Barbour and their colleagues (e.g.,
Eckhardt, Barbour, & Davison, 1998; Barbour, Eckhardt, Davison, & Kassinove,
1997) used the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situation (ATSS) paradigm to
evaluate cognitive processes (e.g., distortions, deficiencies) associated with anger
arousal. This paradigm provides open-ended verbal reporting of thoughts and
feelings as experienced during an emotional reaction. Participants articulated their
thoughts during an anger arousing ATSS procedure. Results indicate that maritally
violent men articulate significantly more irrational thoughts, cognitive distortions,
and cognitive biases in addition to more hostile attributional biases than control
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
14
groups. They articulate more aggressive verbalizations during anger arousal and
are less likely to articulate anger-controlling statements than control groups.
In summary, it appears that violent men lack the social skills to deescalate
the conflict They manifest few constructive communication, social, negotiation,
problem solving, and argumentation skills (Holtzworth-Munroe. 1992; Holtzworth-
Munroe & Anglin, 1991; Margolin et al., 1989). With stressful situations, they tend
to be less able to use reasoning processes (Dutton & Browning, 1988). These studies
provide a convergence of evidence showing that wife abusers exhibit verbal and
nonverbal behaviors which significantly differ from nonabusers.
These studies and others (e.g., Maiuro et al., 1988) show that, in self-report,
ATSS, and observational data, physically abusive males have higher levels of anger,
hostility, contempt, and belligerence. Anger and hostility appear to serve as
primary triggers for domestic violence (Gondolf, 1985; Maiuro et al., 1988).
Additionally, clinical observations suggest that anger may be of critical significance
in such men in that feelings of hurt, fear, and jealousy often appear to be
immediately channeled into anger and aggression (Rosenbaum & Maiuro, 1990).
Tied together with their perception of their wife’s behavior as threatening to their
self-concepts (Goldstein & Rosenbaum, 1985), it can be seen how violence may
erupt Men, particularly those with low social competence, may defend themselves
against feelings of frustration, vulnerability, and personal attack by using violence
against a partner (Jasinski & Williams, 1998).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
15
With physically aggressive men, a common dynamic is their inability to
communicate or negotiate in rational, nonjudgmental ways (Jasinski & Williams,
1998). Such individuals often become involved in hostile and aggressive exchanges
because they lack alternative social skills. They appear to have a response deficit in
communication and problem solving skills. They may not know how to make
requests instead of demands, engage in negotiation, or express their rights or their
displeasure in appropriate ways (Steinfeld, 1986). Lacking these basic social skills
increases the likelihood that they may feel frustrated, and consequently frustrate or
induce anger in others (Steinfeld, 1986). Steinfeld (1986) suggests that through the
use of modeling, role playing, behavioral rehearsal, performance feedback, and the
transfer of training, aggression can be controlled. Researchers have recently begun
to find that social skill deficits of violent husbands are particularly evident in
certain types of marital conflict (e.g., rejection by wife, jealousy; Dutton &
Browning, 1988; Holtzworth*Munroe et al., 1997; Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin,
1991).
For example, Dutton and Browning (1988) presented 3 situations
hypothesized to be problematic for maritally violent men. They showed these
situations via videotape of a couple arguing. These situations involved conflicts
around engulfment (i.e., a woman’s attempt to move closer to the man; e.g., requests
by the woman that the man spend more time talking to her and being more open
with his thoughts and feelings), abandonment (i.e., a woman moving away from the
man; e.g., the woman stating that she wished to become more independent or spend
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
16
more time with her friends), and a neutral issue (i.e., no attempted movement; e.g.,
whether they would spend their vacation camping or in a city). The physically
abusive men reported significantly more anger to the abandonment situation than
did the verbally abuse and nonaggressive control groups. Additionally, Eckhardt et
al. (1998) found that maritally violent men exhibit more cognitive distortions and
deficits when presented with anger arousal situations surrounding jealousy and/or
wife abandonment and wife to husband ridicule. These studies suggest that
particular types of situations may be especially difficult for physically abusive men
to handle competently. Additionally, studies (e.g., Dutton & Browning, 1988,
Margolin et al., 1989) suggest that maritally violent men may experience more
negative emotional reactions to their partners when dealing with problematic
relationship interactions than nonviolent men.
The work of Holtzworth-Munroe and her colleagues extends this work even
further. Holtzworth-Munroe and her colleagues propose that violent men lack
behavioral and cognitive skills in marital conflict situations which places them at
risk to engage in physical aggression. They believe that violent spouses lack the
social skills necessary to generate, select, or enact nonviolent solutions when faced
with marital conflict Such skill deficits therefore result in incompetent responding
to problematic interpersonal situations thus increasing the risk of conflict
Holtzworth-Munroe and her colleagues have shown that violent men differ in
their emotional reactions (i.e., more anger) and behavioral responses (e.g., less
competent, more aggression) to actual wife behavior and to behavior husbands
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
17
misinterpret as negative, particularly in response to wife behavior perceived as
aggressive (e.g., criticize or blame the husband; Holtzworth-Munroe & Smutzler,
1996, Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991). For example, Holtzworth-Munroe &
Smutzler (1996) used standardized stimuli of various wife statements and behavior
(e.g., aggressive, distressed, facilitative) and found that in response to a wide range
of wife behaviors and compared to nonviolent men, violent men were less likely to
report sympathy/positive emotions and more likely to experience anger and
irritability. They also reported more negative/aggressive behavioral intentions and
fewer positive/supportive behavioral intentions. Also, maritally violent men offered
less competent responses than nonviolent control groups to standardized
problematic marital situations involving rejection from the wife, jealousy and
challenges from the wife (Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991). Moreover, violent
partners provided less competent responses to marital and nonmarital situations
than nonviolent partners, and that violent-distressed spouses had particular
difficulty with marital situations (Anglin & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997). Another
study found that situations involving jealousy, rejection from the wife, and potential
public embarrassment elicited more attributions of negative intent to the wife from
violent husbands (Holtzworth-Munroe & Hutchinson, 1993).
Among these studies, the data indicate that violent men may respond
negatively, unsupportively, and/or aggressively to almost any wife behavior,
whether it is aggressive, distressed, or neutral/positive. Other studies have found
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
18
similar results (e.g., Burman et al., 1993; Jacobson et al., 1994). In sum, violent men
may respond negatively to a variety of negative and neutral wife behaviors.
Bernard and Bernard (1984) found that upon initial presentation many male
batterers seem socially and interpersonally skilled, amiable and capable of effective
communication. However, once this facade is penetrated during the treatment
process, these men experience intense feelings of social and personal inadequacy and
frustration arising from deep, unmet dependency needs. Additionally, they deny
and minimize their own violent behavior and project blame onto their partner.
They tend to be jealous and have difficulty in identifying or understanding their
own emotions. They also appear to alternate between passivity and explosive
aggression. Moreover, these men experience a basic lack of trust which makes it
difficult for most of these men to establish warm interpersonal relationships with
either gender. As a result, most of these men are loners and appear quick to sense
rejection.
Many suffer from assertion deficits (Maiuro et al., 1988; Rosenbaum &
O’Leary, 1981), which is a risk marker for aggression. These deficits are associated
with greater verbal hostility. At times, they are unable to make their needs known
verbally, and they may resort to violence as a means of control (Hamberger, 1997;
Dutton & Strachan, 1987). Studies have indicated that spouse-specific assertion is a
significant problem for these men (Rosenbaum & O’Leary, 1981; Holtzworth-
Munroe et al., 1997). Assertion studies indicate that assertion training, particularly
targeted on the appropriate expression of requests or needs in a noncoercive and
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
19
nonabusive manner, is a relevant focus of intervention with male batterers (Tolman
& Bennett, 1990).
Often, male batterers are described as being dependent, possessive, and/or
jealous (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1995; Bernard & Bernard, 1984; Mauiro et al,
1988; Faulk, 1974). There is a great dependency on their partner (i.e., spouse-
specific dependency; Murphy, Meyer, & O’Leary, 1994, Holtzworth-Munroe,
Stuart, & Hutchinson, 1997). Related to this dependency and jealousy is extreme
suspiciousness (Sonkin et al., 1985). Violent episodes frequently stem from the male
batterer accusing his partner of infidelity (Sonkin et al., 1985). Violent men have
less trust in their wives (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997) and attribute negative
intentions to their partner’s behavior (Holtzworth-Munroe & Hutchinson, 1993).
Male batterers are often socially isolated. This isolation has a tendency to
create more dependency on the relationship and thus more stress on both partners
in the relationship (Sonkin et al., 1985). Male batterers experience stress,
particularly in terms of the reaction to their partners. Issues of partner control
seem to characterize most battering relationships (Dutton & Strachan, 1987).
Dutton and Strachan (1987) found that male batterers had strong needs to control
or have impact on their wives but that they did not have the verbal means to satisfy
these needs. As a consequence, these factors may produce a chronic state of
frustration in the marriage which may increase the risk of violence to the partner.
Additionally, studies suggest that male batterers tend to score higher on
measures of Axis I symptomatology, including depression, in addition to evidencing
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
20
more personality disorders, primarily antisocial and borderline, than nonbatterers
(Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997). These diagnoses in no way condone, excuse, or
deflect responsibility for partner violence (Hamberger & Hastings, 1988).
As seen from this review, there are a lot of factors and issues affecting the
male batterer in his daily life and in his interpersonal functioning. There are data
suggesting problems with social competence. Yet, little empirical assessment has
been conducted to identify the problematic situations male batterers encounter in
their daily lives (exceptions see Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991; Anglin &
Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997). With an understanding of these issues, the next session
focuses on what treatment programs offer the male batterer.
Treatment Programs for the Male Batterer
Many of the first male batterer treatment programs were developed by
individuals who were actively involved in the battered women’s movement and who
recognized the need for intervention with male perpetrators of violence (Sonkin,
1988). The treatment philosophy of these early service providers tended to reflect
their political ideologies. Thus, early interventions for male batterers focused on
sex-role issues and power and control in intimate relationships.
As the battered women’s movement gained momentum during the 1970's,
social policy changes greatly affected treatment programs for the abuser. The idea
of treating the male batterer did not spread until the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Because of the lack of research and clinical intervention data in this area, these
early programs developed a treatment approach that reflected both a personal
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
21
attitude about the etiology of spousal violence as well as drawing from clinician’s
own personal and professional experiences with counseling (Sonkin, 1988). These
programs progressed and developed a highly structured and behavioral approach to
this problem, utilizing anger and stress management, social problem solving skills,
and the examination of attitudes that support violence toward family members
(Sonkin, 1988). With the enactment of domestic violence diversion law beginning in
the 1980's, many male batterers were mandated into counseling or education
programs and thus an increasing number of community agencies offered services to
batterers.
With the rapid growth of treatment programs that infiltrated the field in the
late 1970's came the need for program evaluation and from these assessments came
some rudimentary principles of treatment with victim’s safety being a core
component The ultimate goal of partner violence is the stop the violence, the safety
of the victim, and changes in sexist societal and cultural biases (Hamberger &
Hastings, 1988).
Men’s groups tend to be the most frequently used form of treatment by male
batterers. This prevalence exists probably due to the programs’ ability to treat
larger numbers of clients at one time, financial expediency, the existence of
programs designed to specifically address the abuse, and utilization of all group
members to address the denial and minimization on the part of the individual clients
(Follingstad & Breiter, 1994). Without the female partner present, such groups are
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
22
able to address the denial, minimization, and externalization of blame by the men
about the abuse and focus on the victim’s safety as well.
Group therapy also provides a forum where the men can be confronted and
supported. Since social isolation and communication deficits represent risk factors
for domestic violence, group therapy also strives to establish a therapeutic
environment that promotes development of a support network for the batterer while
providing a place where violent men can openly discuss their problems (Warnken &
Rosenbaum, 1994). Breaking men’s social isolation, encouraging mutual self-help
among them, and exposing them to a variety of opinion and models is extremely
important to group treatment success (Eisikovits & Edleson, 1989).
There have been many proposed theories to explain the phenomenon of male
battering. Some of these theories may be incorporated into treatment programs
and include the Feminist theory which sees battering as a tool used by men to gain
power and control over women partners. Violence is seen as one of several forms of
controlling behaviors men use against women, that such control is socialized early in
a young boy’s childhood, and is maintained into adulthood through continued
societal messages that legitimize male violence against women. The condoned use of
force is seen as generally intimidating women thereby reinforcing male dominance
(Eisikovitz & Edleson, 1989). Another theory is the Ecological theory where
battering is seen as the result of interacting variables at various levels of social
systems including individual, interpersonal, organization, societal, and cultural. It
dictates intervention at multiple levels. Another theory presented to explain
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
23
battering is Social Exchange theory, which views interactions between victim and
perpetrator from a cost-benefit perspective. This theory assumes that people enter
into relationships and stay in them when they perceive that the benefits (e.g., love,
companionship) outweigh the costs. When the male batterer does not receive the
benefit he expects, he may experience frustration and become aggressive (Yllo,
1997).
However, most available treatment programs are derived from cognitive-
behavioral theories (Follingstad & Breiter, 1994). According to social learning
theory, battering is learned through observation and practice. Observational
learning is the primary means by which individuals learn how to perform behaviors.
They attend to modeled behavior, code it in symbols, and integrate it by motor
reproduction (Ganley, 1989; Dutton, 1988). What the individual learns through
observation is more than just the execution of particular behaviors. Through
observation, the rules and regulations of when, where, and against whom to perform
those behaviors are also learned. Being exposed to violence, knowing how to do it,
and being able to do it does not mean one will be violent An individual’s use of an
acquired behavior pattern like battering depends on: 1) the appropriate
inducement 2) the functional value, and 3) the reward, or absence of punishment,
for performance (Ganley, 1989; Bandura, 1979). These three conditions for
aggression are learned along with the actual behaviors. Thus, for an individual to
batter, he must have learned which are the “appropriate” inducements, when
battering is functional, and what the rewards for this behavior are (Ganley, 1989).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
24
The differences in the learning histories of batterers regarding these three
conditions helps to explain the infinite variety seen in battering episodes (Ganley,
1989).
Cognitive-behavioral theories of partner violence assume that violent men
have difficulty controlling their anger, combined with deficits in relationship and
communication skills (Holtzworth-Munroe, Beatty, & Anglin, 1995). As
Holtzworth-Munroe et al. (1995) state it is assumed that as a socially unskilled
husband encounters marital conflicts and is unable to effectively deal with the
conflict and his anger, he is at increased risk to engage in violence. His inability to
handle negative affect is associated with hostile withdrawal and physical abuse. His
use of violence may inadvertently be reinforced (e.g., it ends the conflict and/or
decreases his anger) and increases the probability that he will choose violence again
in future marital situations, and decreases the probability that he will learn more
constructive methods for handling anger and conflict A victim’s compliance with a
batterer’s demands reinforces the batterer’s use of violence since he gets what he
wants by using violence. Because the victim’s compliance is reinforcing, the
batterer will increase his violence. Failure to punish aggressive behavior of a
batterer allows the batterer to gain practice using violent interpersonal skills.
As a consequence, many cognitive-behavior therapists teach such men anger
management skills along with communication and conflict resolution skills
(Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). Specific interventions often include
emotional awareness training, training in emotional expressiveness, assertive, anger
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
25
management, stress reduction, relaxation training, exploration of family histories,
developing social support systems, examining sex roles, and communication and
problem-solving training (Faulkner et al., 1992; Margolin et al., 1988). Underlying
these intervention strategies is the assumption of social skill deficits.
Male batterers are trained to monitor, evaluate, and change assumptions
about their partner and attributions about her behavior. Applying skills training
procedures with male batterers requires that a specific set of skills be identified and
then taught to the men, using situations that are personally relevant to them
(Edleson, 1984). Very few studies have empirically examined this issue (e.g.,
Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991). If male batterers do suffer from social skill
deficits, identifying these interpersonal problematic situations are critical to the
treatment process.
In general, such cognitive behavioral programs adopt a preplanned, general
format which does not tailor the sessions to individual client needs. It is assumed
that the general package will address all possible etiological aspects of the male
battering problem. Clinical interventions rarely reflect the heterogeneity of the
male batterer population.
The effectiveness of batterer programs has not been examined in rigorous
scientific studies. There has been a lack of evaluation research in this area (Sonkin,
1988) with respect to content, process, and modality of the programs. Assessments
are usually conducted in order to collect research data and rarely for treatment and
clinical purposes (Follingstad & Breiter, 1994).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2 6
Yet, one of the common findings is that the male batterer appears to have
difficulty in his interpersonal relationships. The literature indicates that the male
batterer is not socially competent; yet, although social skill deficits in this
population are assumed, this particular problem has rarely been empirically
evaluated. To assume that this is a central problem without empirical evidence is a
dangerous assumption and one that needs further evaluation. The next section
focuses on the nature of social competence.
The Nature of Social Competence
Difficulties in social interaction are common among those seeking mental
health services (Meier & Hope, 1998). Thus, it is not surprising that hypothesized
social skill deficits have been associated with many problems such as depression,
schizophrenia, and marital discord (Meier & Hope, 1998). Regardless of the specific
etiology, problems in social interaction are presumed to result in difficulties in
interpersonal relationships and lead to lower levels of psychological adjustment and
functioning (Meier & Hope, 1998; McDonei, 1995). A skill deficit is thought to be
present if an individual does not possess the skills in his repertoire necessary for
successful social interaction.
There is no single universally accepted definition of social skill although a
large literature exists on interpersonal dysfunction. A common characteristic of the
most widely accepted and enduring definitions is the ability to relate to others and
express feelings in such a way as to maximize the social reinforcement received from
others (Morrison, 1990). Researchers tend to agree that social skill comprises a
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
27
group of behaviors that enable a person to effectively engage in, maintain, and
succeed in social interactions (Meier & Hope, 1998). It emphasizes a functional
perspective, reflecting the everyday conversations, encounters, and relationships
that people have with each other (Liberman, 1982). It includes the ability to give
and obtain information, and to express and exchange attitudes, opinions, and
feelings (Liberman, 1982). Therefore, a major function of social skills is to subserve
interpersonal interactions (Liberman, 1982).
Social skills appear to be situation specific (McFall, 1982; Meier & Hope,
1998). Different sorts of social situations call for different interpersonal responses.
What is socially appropriate behavior in one context may not be appropriate in
another. For example, the person who can put his feelings into words, rather than
“act out” his feelings, is considered more socially appropriate and competent
(Liberman, 1982). Social perceptual/cognitive factors are intricately involved in the
situational specificity of interpersonal behavior. How we interpret interpersonal
encounters affects how we respond to these situations.
As human beings, we encounter interpersonal situations on a daily basis
from superficial encounters at the grocery store to more personal and intimate
encounters with family members and friends. Thus, how we act and are perceived
in interpersonal situations impacts our evaluation of social competence.
People differ in their responses to various situations. The situation itself is
an important factor to consider. For example, we probably respond differently
when we are angered by our spouse versus our employer. The consequences for the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
28
conflict in each situation are different Thus, the interaction between the person
and the situation is critical in its effect on social functioning.
There are other associated factors that affect the quality of interpersonal
performance in addition to the individual skill repertoire (e.g, motivation and/or
cognitive factors including a person’s history of reinforcement, affect). Given the
diversity of factors involved in interpersonal behavior, one of the roles of assessment
is to identify the specific factors that are affecting impaired social performance.
Basically, social skills refer to the specific abilities required to perform
competently in interpersonal situations (Hersen & Bellack, 1976,1977; McFall,
1982). Such skills may be innate or may be acquired through training and practice.
It is implied that if an individual’s incompetent behavior on a task is due to a deficit
in the requisite skills, then the individual should perform competently once all of the
necessary skills are acquired. This would help form the basis for therapeutic
interventions (i.e., teach clients to acquire the specific skills they need) once the
assessment identifies the specific skill deficits.
Social learning studies suggest that social skills are acquired early in life
partly through modeling (e.g., family of origin), reinforcement for social behaviors,
the development of cognitive abilities (e.g., processing information, making
inferences regarding consequences of response emitted), and opportunities to
observe and practice social behavior in a range of situations (Morrison, 1990;
Trower, Bryant, & Argyle, 1978). It has been suggested that individuals may
behave maladaptively because they lack the requisite skills to perform competently.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
29
These deficits are presumed to be defineable, measurable, and subject to
remediation via education, practice, and reinforcement
In other words, social competence is a general evaluative term referring to
the quality or adequacy of a person’s overall performance in a particular task
(McFall, 1982). It reflects somebody’s judgment on the basis of certain criteria,
that an individual’s performance on some task is adequate (McFall, 1982). A social
competence model conceptualizes problem behavior as a failure to have acquired
skills appropriate to situational demands (MacNeil & LeCroy, 1997). It looks at the
relationship between the person and his environment Whatever the etiology,
deficits in skills may lead to difficulty in successful adaptation to life tasks (MacNeil
& LeCroy, 1997).
Using the social competence conceptualization, the individual’s environment
places demands on him which are experienced as problem situations and the extent
to which an individual can effectively address these problem situations is
determined by the individual’s competencies to meet the environmental demands
(MacNeil & LeCroy, 1997). Difficulties occur when there is an imbalance between
competence and demands in the person*in-environment system (MacNeil & LeCroy,
1997). Thus, identifying problem situations is critical. It provides a framework for
designing interventions to teach the needed skills to effectively interact in those
situations (MacNeil & LeCroy, 1997).
In evaluating the competence of an individual, McFall (1982) points out that
there are a number of major components involved. The first factor is that
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
30
competence does not actually reside in the performance but is an evaluation of the
individual’s performance by someone. Second, since someone is making the
evaluation, this means that it is subject to error, bias, and judgmental influences. In
other words, different judges utilizing the same criteria may evaluate the same
performance differently. Third, the evaluation is always made in reference to some
set of implicit or explicit criteria so the evaluation cannot be understood or
validated without knowing the employed criteria. Fourth, the evaluation of
competence is always task specific. Fifth, characteristics of the individual
performing may influence the competence judgments, that is, differences in age, sex,
and experience among others can affect performance standards and expectations.
Sixth, when performance is judged to be competent, there is an implicit expectation
for a certain degree of performance consistency within a task. In other words, an
individual who has performed a task competently before is likely to perform the
same task competently in the future under similar conditions. The competence of a
person’s behavior can never be evaluated in the abstract It can be evaluated only
with reference to a particular task (i.e., problematic situation).
McFall (1982) proposed a social information processing model where social
skills are depicted as sequential organismic steps through which incoming stimuli,
or situational tasks, are transformed into the responses, or task performances,
which then are judged as competent or incompetent. Thus an incompetent response
in a social situation is the result of a skills deficit at one or more of the required
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
31
tasks. Each skill is considered to be a necessary-but-not-sufficient condition for
competent responding.
According to McFall (1982), when we are presented with a situation, there
are many levels of processing involved in a social interaction. First, we must decode
the information. This involves the reception, perception, and interpretation of
incoming sensory information. Then, we make some decisions as to how to respond
to the situation presented. At this point, we search for possible responses, test the
match between alternative responses and the task demands, select the best response
for the specific situation, search our behavioral repertoire to implement the
appropriate response, and evaluate the utility of employing the chosen response.
Finally, we encode all the information and execute the selected responses into action.
Processing difficulties may occur at any point and impact on social competence.
This has clear implications for research and training. A profile of skill
deficits could be obtained by measuring proficiencies at each step in this approach.
Skill deficits could then be identified and targeted for treatment that is tailored to
the specific deficits (McDonel, 1995). With this more systematic and detailed
analysis of the underlying skill deficits, treatment programs could be designed to be
more focused and efficiently applied (McDonel, 1995). Once an individual’s skill
deficits are identified, then we can intervene. However, to do this, we must first
identify the problematic situations/tasks confronting male batterers.
The typical skills training program consists of several discrete treatment
strategies (e.g., modeling, feedback, instructions, behavior rehearsal, performance
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
32
feedback, reinforcement) which are employed systematically to teach individual
behaviors related to overall social functioning. In most instances, the vehicle for
assessment and treatment is interpersonal situations designed to depict interaction
with various individuals in diverse settings. The patient/client typically role plays
the interactions in vivo with another individual. Through this procedure the patient
rehearses targeted responses until improvement is noted (Turner, Hersen, &
Bellack, 1978; Edelson, 1984; Steinfeld, 1986).
Considerable effort has been devoted to the analysis of social skill deficits,
and to the development of assessment and treatment procedures (Morrison &
Bellack, 1981). Effects of social skills training have been found to generalize well to
situations that are highly similar to those involved in training, but the effects
become more uncertain as the differences increase (e.g., Bellack et al., 1976,
Bornstein et al., 1980; Hersen & Bellack, 1976). Subjects receiving social skills
training have been found to be more skillful after treatment than before, as well as
more skillful than subjects receiving no treatment or other treatments (Bellack,
Hersen, &Tumer, 1976; Bornstein, Bellack, & Hersen, 1977). Regardless of the
magnitude of response skill, the individual cannot perform effectively if he does not
adequately receive and process the relevant interpersonal stimuli.
Social skills training has been applied to many different problems and
populations. This skill deficit view has been reflected in many experimental skills
training programs aimed at treating such clinical populations as psychiatric
inpatients (Frederiksen, Jenkins, Foy, & Eisler, 1976), shy males (Twentyman &
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
33
McFall, 1975), and male batterers (Hamberger & Hastings, 1988; Saunders &
Hanusa, 1986). To develop the content of skills training programs without first
analyzing the performance problems of a clinical population defeats the intent of
helping people interact effectively with their environment (MacNeil & LeCroy,
1997). Freedman et al. (1978) proposed that a classification system should be
developed of particular problem situations and skill deficits that are associated with
a variety of clinical populations. Such a classification could be individualized to
take into account the specific strengths and weaknesses in the skills repertoire of
any new client Since treatment programs are only as good as the underlying
assessment, those who are involved in social skills training might do well to call for a
moratorium on further elaboration of treatment programs until we have more
systematically assessed both the nature of the clinical problem and the type and
extent of the skill deficits of the individuals with whom we are working (Freedman
et al., 1978).
In sum, early work in social skills research was atheoretical and fragmented
(McDonel, 1995). Training programs were also formulated without a careful
analysis of the requisite skills for competent performance on particular tasks.
Basically, skills were chosen by face validity or the researcher’s own hunch
(McDonel, 1995). Thus, this inefficient and haphazard process of conducting social
skills research actually threatened the utility of the social skills concept (McDonel,
1995). Eventually, researchers realized that social skills was a relativistic concept
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
34
which is meaningful only in a specified context (McDonel, 1995; Goldfried &
D’Zurilla, 1969; McFall, 1982).
It was Goldfried and D’Zurilla’s (1969) classic article that set forth a new
and improved methodology for conducting a systematic analysis of the skills
required for a particular behavioral task (McDonel, 1995). As a result, Goldfried
and D’Zurilla’s (1969) behavior-analytic model has been extensively used and
validated for a variety of behavior problems and populations (e.g., Freedman et al.,
1978; Van Hasselt et al., 1985; Gaffney & McFall, 1981). This model was extended
to empirically identify situations that are problematic for male batterers. The next
section addresses this model.
The Development of the Behavioral-Analytic Model
The behavior-analytic model has been widely used in the literature (e.g.,
MacNeil & LeCroy, 1997; Gaffney & McFall, 1981; Freedman et al., 1978) and
conforms to a very rigid empirical basis for collecting and refining data at every
stage of this model. Goldfried and D’Zurilla’s (1969) assessment approach was a
reaction to previous research. Prior research did not pay attention or paid minimal
attention to the situation in which the behavior in question occurred. However, we
know that social skill is situation specific (Bellack, 1980). Individuals respond and
react differently in situations. Additionally, the conceptual units used in describing
personality were too abstract and far removed from observable behavior. Mischel
(1968) states th a t"... the emphasis is on what a person does in situations rather than
on inferences about what attributes he has more globally (p.10).” Instead of
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
35
looking at “traits”, more of an “ability conceptualization” of personality is the focus.
Namely, the individual personality may be defined in light of his ability to function
in a variety of life situations. From this point of view, the basic unit for the study of
human behavior, rather than being abstract and vague, is more closely tied to
observable behavior.
Traditional approaches to assessing competence determine personality
characteristics required for an individual to operate effectively in a particular
environment. However, the behavioral-analytic model for assessing competence has
its emphasis placed on a functional analysis of the relationship between an
individual's behavior and the environment to which he is reacting and offers a
comprehensive and detailed criterion analysis, which is carried out separately for
the problematic situations in the environment and the potential responses in each of
these situations (Goldfried & D’Zurilla, 1969). It gives emphasis to both individuals
and situations, and evaluates the various possible specific behavior-environment
interactions.
Goldfried and D’Zurilla (1969) proposed a behavioral conceptualization of
competence. The basic unit in their conceptualization of competence is the effective
response of the individual to specific life situations. Competent behavior is
evaluated in terms of its influence on the individual’s environment It is defined as
the “effectiveness or adequacy with which an individual is capable of responding to
the various problematic situations which confront him” (Goldfried & D’Zurilla,
1969, p. 161), and is viewed along a continuum. More specifically, competent
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
3 6
behavior is defined as a response or pattern of responses to a problematic situation
which alters the situation so that it is no longer problematical while at the same time
produces a maximum of other positive consequences and a minimum of negative
ones. Their goal is to give emphasis to both the individual and situation, and to
assess various possible specific behavior-environment interactions.
In Goldfried and D’Zurilla’s (1969) model, individuals who evaluate
competency are called “significant others”. These are influential individuals who
have frequent contact with those individuals to whom the assessment techniques are
applied, who have an important role in judging behavior as competent or
incompetent in the environment, and whose opinions are likely to be respected by
others.
In the behavior-analytic model, if wide disagreement occurs among the
judges with respect to the effectiveness of responses to any given situation, then that
problematic situation is eliminated. Goldfried and D’Zurilla (1969) attempted to
achieve a consensus among judges as to what they regarded as effective responding,
and to improve reliability and validity. They reasoned that if judges disagree
regarding the competence of these particular responses to specific situations,
encouragement and reinforcement of these responses in the real world is also likely
to be inconsistent In Goldfried and D’Zurilla’s (1969) view, such a consensus
would reduce error, improve reliability and validity of this assessment instrument,
and that if a large enough pool of situations were initially obtained then this model
could tolerate attrition of items.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
37
This approach is the recommended choice for developing an inventory where
the focus is on group differences (McFall, 1982). The strength of this model is that it
is empirically driven and identifies levels of social competence. Each stage of this
model empirically defines and refines the data. Goldfried and D’Zurilla (1969)
provided guidelines for identifying problematic situations. They outlined five stages
in their model: 1) situational analysis, 2) item development, 3) response
enumeration, 4) response evaluation, and 5) construction of the inventory and
rater's manual. The purpose and procedures for each step are delineated below.
Situational Analysis
This stage represents a comprehensive survey of relevant, specific,
meaningful situations in the environment with which the individual must cope
effectively to be considered competent These situations are supposed to be
problematic in nature. It involves identifying social situations that male batterers
might find problematic. In order to acquire this information, an item pool of
situations is obtained by asking subjects (i.e., male batterers, victims of domestic
violence, and professionals working with domestic violence populations) to generate
situations that they think would be relevant to the male batterers' social
environment. These individuals are instructed to identify situations on the basis of
their experiences with and observations of the male batterer. Once collected, the
problematic situations are written to provide general background information
which is general enough to be relevant to most individuals, but specific enough to
provide a clear and appropriate context for the situation presented. Care is taken to
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
38
avoid depicting the situations in such a way as to suggest a certain obvious solution
or a socially desirable response.
At this pointy all that is known about these situations are that they occur at
least once in the sample. To evaluate the extent to which each of these situations is
representative of real life events for male batterers in addition to the difficulty of the
situations, each of these situations is rated by another group of professionals. This
adds to the social validity of this model. These ratings evaluate how common and
difficult the rater thinks each situation is for the male batterer to handle. A
composite index of these common and difficulty ratings are calculated and then
based upon the index, each situation is rank-ordered in order to determine
relevance and appropriateness. Items are eliminated for being too uncommon or
too easy.
Item Development
This stage enhances the situation by providing a narrative description
followed by prearranged role-model prompts. For each situation, two prompts are
constructed with the purpose of promoting or facilitating interpersonal interaction
in the RPT.
Response Enumeration
For each problem situation which was reported to have a high likelihood of
occurrence in the situational analysis (i.e., Stage I), a sampling of possible responses
is then collected during this stage in the RPT. This stage helps to: 1) retain only
those problem situations which are most likely to potentially discriminate items for
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
39
the measure, 2) clarify situations, and 3) sample potential responses to then be
evaluated in the Response Evaluation Stage (i.e., Stage IV). It involves collecting
responses which reflect a wide range of social skills for each of the problem
situations.
The entire set of RPT items are administered to subjects in individual
sessions. Each subject is asked to respond to these situations as if these situations
were actually occurring in the real world. Any questions or difficulties are noted
and used as guides in subsequent efforts to refine and clarify instructions and
wording of the items.
Response Evaluation
The information obtained at this stage involves a determination of the degree
of competence of each of the potential courses of action in terms of its likely effects
or consequences for each of the situations (Goldfried & D’Zurilla, 1969). The
judgments are made by the “significant others” discussed earlier, who evaluate
which specific behaviors are competent or incompetent. Participants are given
transcripts of the responses. Judges are asked to rate the responses obtained in the
"Response Enumeration" section using their own subjective criteria for competent
responding. If there is wide disagreement as to competent responding, the item is
dropped.
Construction of the Inventory and Rater's Manual
The final items are further examined, edited, or modified as needed to deter
any ambiguities and to ensure the ready comprehension of subjects. The rater's
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
40
manual details explicit criteria based upon the judges' rating from the previous step.
Sample responses which represent different levels of social competence are included
in the manual.
In sum, Goldfried and D’Zurilla believe that their approach represented an
improvement over previous assessment approaches, not only in terms of reliability
and validity, but also as a useful source of information for intervention programs.
This method has been used successfully to develop social skill programs for a variety
of populations including delinquent boys (Freedman et al., 1978), delinquent girls
(Gaffney & McFall, 1981), and blind adolescents (Van Hasselt et al., 1985).
Overall competence tends to be increased most when an individual learns
general procedures for coping independently with problem situations confronting
him in his daily life. Training would be expected to improve competent responding
in these situations and generalize to other situations.
This model provides a method for developing an assessment device by which
deficits in competence can be discovered and targeted for remediation either as
primary prevention or as treatment (Hawkins, 1986). This careful, empirical
analysis of effective performance may be very useful in selecting target behavior for
individual treatment and it could provide effective screening of potential clients
(Hawkins, 1986). This model is time-consuming and expensive, but research using
this method is quite useful to behavioral assessment (Hawkins, 1986).
A major product of Goldfried and D’Zurilla’s model is the development of
the RPT. The next session discusses the role play test
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4 1
The Role Plav Test
Although self-report measures have been used in social skills research, direct
observation of interpersonal behavior is a preferred strategy with a wide range of
populations (Bellack, 1983). The optimal manner to evaluate whether an individual
exhibits social skill deficits would be to examine such behaviors through an
extended observation of social interaction. However, naturalistic observation is time
consuming and expensive in addition to introducing other ethical and pragmatic
difficulties (Morrison, 1990). Additionally, some social interactions are intimate and
private (e.g., marital arguments). Naturalistic observation is generally impractical,
impossible, or very costly. Consequently, researchers have developed and employed
a wide variety of second best alternatives ranging from self-report devices to
simulated interpersonal interaction to staged naturalistic encounters. Of these
methods, the RPT is the most widely used. As an analogue measure, the RPT has
many advantages such as control over stimulus to which clients/subjects are exposed
and options for recording client/subject’s behavior (Torgrud & Holborn, 1992).
Such advantages help to facilitate behavioral assessment like screening, defining
problematic behavior, designing interventions, and evaluating treatment outcome
(Torgrud & Holborn, 1992).
Direct observation is generally seen as more desirable than self-report scales
and interview ratings of social skill because of the increased objectivity and
specificity. The RPT involves measuring specific social responses in a contrived
setting designed to simulate actual interpersonal problem situations.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
42
RPT’s appear to tap the ability to make quick, pointed responses to a variety
of different situations (Bellack, 1983). They focus on the beginning of interactions
and are suited for assessment of discrete responses. The rule of thumb has been face
validity.
An advantage to using the RPT in the present study involves the population
under study. Male batterers often know that their violent behavior is being studied
and know that the researcher disapproves of violence. Such demand characteristics
allow the subjects to seek a more socially desirable response in the experimental
setting (Dutton & Strachan, 1987). This image management response style may
impact all research on the causes of partner violence when the socially desirable
answer is apparent to the subject population (Dutton & Strachan, 1987). Those
studies cuing subjects as to the nature of the study, namely, their violent behavior,
may increase the risk of socially desirable responses. One way of decreasing socially
desirable responses in the male batterer is the use of assessment instruments that do
not cue the subject (Dutton & Strachan, 1987). Techniques that are more
ambiguous, unstructured, or evoking a more spontaneous response may reduce
socially desirable responding.
The advantage of the RPT for the male batterer population is that it would
reduce the tendency for such men to appear socially desirable. They cannot predict
or anticipate what is being evaluated or guess what the “correct” response is as they
could on self-report measures. Self-report measures are perceptions of the subject’s
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
43
own behavior. Male batterers often do not see their behavior as wrong and blame
the victim.
It has been in the area of social competence that has made the greatest use of
role play assessments (McNamara & Blumer, 1982). Role play formats evaluating
social competence have been diverse (e.g., instructions, confederate behavior,
number of prompts, recording equipment). Regardless of the format used, role play
assessment is based on the assumption that behavior displayed in a role play reflect
behavior of that person in a similar non-role play setting (McNamara & Blumer,
1982).
RPT’s have been used to assess social skill level, to identify target behaviors
for social skills training, and to evaluate the effectiveness of training. Studies
treating social skill deficits are strong in their support as valid indicators of
behavioral differences (McNamara & Blumer, 1982). However, the underlying
assumption that role play behavior is representative of behavior in the real world
and, therefore, that RPT has external or criterion validity, has not been tested
adequately. With few exceptions (e.g., Freedman et al., 1978), little empirical
justification for particular items and procedures has been provided and
psychometric issues have been neglected. This is not the case in the application of
Goldfried and D’Zurilla’s (1969) methodology.
Prior to the late 1970's, no study adequately evaluated external validity of
RPT’s. Until that point, primary support came from numerous studies in which
“known groups” were differentiated by their performance on RPT’s, and reflected
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
44
the effects of social skills training (Beilack, Hersen, & Turner, 1978; Torgrud &
Holborn, 1992). These findings provide important convergent validational support,
but they are far from conclusive.
There are limitations to the RPT. Such validity is affected by the precise
form and content of the RPT procedure. The instructions given to subjects play a
critical role in any assessment procedure. They are a defining feature of any role
play procedure (Torgrud & Holborn, 1992) and different instruction sets may have
widely divergent results (Beilack, 1983). Minimal instruction appears to influence
role play behavior in such a way that it reduces its external validity (Torgrud &
Holborn, 1992). Subjects are expected to get into role and imagine that they are
actually engaged in the respective situations. The more vivid and realistic the
interaction, the more subjects are likely to experience affect and respond in a
natural fashion. Participants should be given a practice scene and a clear
orientation to the task as well as an opportunity to think about each situation
(Helzel & Rice, 1988). Additionally, having subjects really imagine and place
themselves in the situation and then reading the situation again allows subjects time
to think of what they would really say and/or do in the situation which also helps
increase external validity.
Single prompt responses have been criticized for not being realistic in
interpersonal encounters (Beilack, 1983). Single prompts do not parallel real life
encounters which do not end after one prompt. Multiple responses are a better
choice in that this parallels real life. However, the second response has been
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
45
criticized in the literature for sometimes being unrelated to the subject’s initial
response (Beilack, 1983; but see Beilack et al., 1990). Yet, having standard prompts
does ensure consistency in the confederate behavior (Becker & Heimberg, 1988).
Confederates are trained to be neutral in tonal quality, but responsive and
consistent across subjects so the responses of subjects would be affected by their
own behavior and not be affected by the confederate’s behavior.
Often times, background into the narration of the situation is not given to
subjects. The brief narrations typically employed do not contain sufficient cues for
the subject to visualize a real life counterpart and develop a reasoned reaction,
hence the subject cannot respond in a truly representative manner (Helzel & Rice,
1985). Also taped narration and taped prompts are criticized for their lack of
realism, and do not appear to be justified (Helzel & Rice, 1985). Overall, there have
been widespread inconsistencies in role play format and content across empirical
investigations making comparison difficult
Despite such findings in the literature, many (e.g., Helzel & Rice, 1985;
Merluzzi & Biever, 1987; Beilack et al., 1990) have found support for the external
validity of the RPT. Helzel and Rice’s (1985) results indicate that the RPT should
be used primarily for screening of subjects and clients, or in group studies. They
found that valid social skills assessments can be obtained from simulated
interactions, and they provided support for the continued use of well designed role
play assessments. They conclude that the data are sufficiently positive to justify
continued use of this strategy, especially in the absence of viable alternatives.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
46
Additionally, the initial studies of external validity focused on single prompt
research and should not be generalized beyond that (Becker & Heimberg, 1988).
Some studies have shown a correspondence between behavior seen in RPT’s and
that seen in naturalistic analogs (Blumer & McNamara, 1982; Merluzzi & Biever,
1987; Beilack et al., 1990). Overall RPT’s appear to account for a moderate
proportion of variance in ratings derived from naturalistic test (Beilack et al., 1990).
Beilack et al. (1990) found RPT’s to be a relatively stable m arker of social
competence in diverse situations that can be an economic alternative to other
assessment procedures. Molar ratings are comparatively easy to secure and account
for a large proportion of the variance in performance (Beilack et al., 1990). RPT’s
have been shown to reflect changes produced in short term treatment and can target
areas for treatment.
Beilack (1983) contends that the RPT stimuli should be made as relevant as
possible for subjects and that subjects should imaginally prepare for each
interaction. Whether or not RPT’s have external validity may not be such a
relevant question in that if a person exhibits the skill, then it exists, by definition in
his or her behavioral repertoire. Thus, the RPT is not invalid. Overall, it has been
found that the RPT remains a viable clinical and research tool (Beilack et al., 1990).
The functional analysis offers an integrative framework on which to base the
process of role play construction (Torgrud & Holborn, 1992). Most role play
procedures have been constructed on the bases of their face validity with respect to
generic client problems opposed to a coherent theoretical basis (Torgrud &
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
47
Holborn, 1992). Behavior analytic principles encourage researchers and clinicians
to refine and expand the external validity criteria applied to role play assessment
The use of correlational criteria to evaluate external validity of role play becomes
questionable in light of behavior analysis’ acceptance that behavior is to some
degree situation specific rather than relatively consistent across situation (Tolgrud
& Holborn, 1992). Another advantage is that role plays capable of occasioning
behavior which is functionally externally valid is more likely to fulfill explicit goals
of behavioral assessment like the selection of treatment strategies, and the accurate
monitoring of treatment-produced behavior change (Nelson & Hayes, 1986), and to
serve as a context for effective generalizable treatment change (Torgrud & Holborn,
1992).
Irrespective of the origin of a particular social skill deficit, the general
consensus is that an individual with such a deficit requires a period of reeducation
or training, during which time adaptive responses to interpersonal situations must
be taught (Hersen & Beilack, 1977) and often it is done through role playing. Many
studies have supported this training process and have provided evidence of
improved social functioning as a result of training (e.g., Fredericksen et al., 1976).
In sum, studies support the continued use of social skills training using the
RPT. RPT’s are able to detect differences between treatment and control groups in
studies modifying social competence. They are able to discriminate between groups
high and low in social competence (McNamara & Blumer, 1982). The RPT appears
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
48
to be the best next alternative in order to evaluate social competence despite some of
its limitations.
The Present Study
The magnitude of the domestic violence problems has significant impact on
the individual, the family, and the community at large. If the underlying
assumption of many of the group treatment programs is that these men suffer from
social skill deficits, then a sound methodological instrument to evaluate this must be
constructed. This represented the goal for the present study.
The rush to study the problem of partner violence has often proceeded faster
than the development of theories to guide this work. Many studies on partner
violence were conducted without a guiding theoretical orientation. Researchers
have often simply compared violent and nonviolent samples on a wide variety of
measures since the demand to provide treatment had frequently outpaced the ability
to develop therapeutic interventions from existing theory or data (Holtzworth-
Munroe, 1991).
Social learning theory views battering as a learned behavior. Violence is
learned through direct observation of role models (e.g., observing parental violence
in one’s family of origin) and indirect observation (e.g., television, peers). Once
learned, violence continues to be used because it is functional for the abuser (i.e., it
may release tension or achieve victim compliance). It appears that the abuser lacks
skills to generate competent solutions in certain types of marital conflict (Dutton &
Browning, 1988; Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991). He also tends to possess
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
49
extremely limited skills when it comes to resolving conflict with others. As a result,
coercion and violence are used often to resolve conflict in stressful situations. Thus,
one component of a program for batterers should involve teaching the men new
interpersonal skills in resolving conflicts and in defusing stressful situations without
resorting to the use of any type of violence (Edleson, 1984).
In light of the literature describing the male batterer as manifesting fewer
constructive communication and problem solving skills with his partner among
other interpersonal difficulties, social skills training seems like a viable intervention
strategy. Such training begins by identifying specific interpersonal situations in
which a person has experienced difficulties. Following this identification process,
various ways of achieving a more positive outcome in that interaction are discussed.
The alternative behaviors are then modeled by others more skilled than the person
who is experiencing the difficulties. The person having difficulties rehearses the
new skills in a role play. Feedback is offered on the person’s performance and
reinforcement is provided. The person rehearses the new skills in order to gain the
social skills necessary to generate, select, or enact nonviolent solutions when faced
with partner conflict
The batterer needs to identify and state clearly the parameters of a problem
situation, be able to identify and express his own feelings about what is happening,
be able to identify and state his partner’s point of view, be able to offer solutions
from which both he and his partner may benefit, and be able to negotiate a final
compromise (Edleson, 1984). This process is not always done or even consistently
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
50
done in treatment programs. We need to identify these interpersonal situations
relevant to the male batterer’s experiences which is the critical task and which is
addressed by the present study.
Applying skills training procedures in work with battering men requires that
a specific set of skills be identified and then taught to the men, using situations that
are personally relevant to them (Edleson, 1984; Holtzworth-Munroe, 1992). There
are few studies that have empirically defined such personally relevant situations.
If male batterers do suffer from social skills deficits, then it seems critical to
determine what situations pose interpersonal difficulty for the male batterer. Will
these interpersonal situations be partner specific or more generalized to a variety of
people and situations? Will they tend to focus on certain thematic issues? Will
these situations be uniquely problematic for the male batterer? Few studies have
examined these questions even indirectly (e.g., Dutton & Browning, 1988;
Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991; Anglin & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997).
Although Holtzworth-Munroe and her colleagues (1991) used a similar
approach to developing situations problematic for the male batterer, the present
study improved upon their methodology. They did not 1) have professionals
evaluate how common and difficult these situations were for the male batterer to
handle (Stage IB) which lends to the social validity of the instrument, 2) develop a
RPT or develop prompts in the RPT to generate a variety of responses to increase
the realism, or 3) have professionals rate the competency of responses generated
during the RPT to form the basis of an objectively identified and quantifiable
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
51
manual. These authors determined what constituted a competent response and
developed the criteria for competence in their own construction of the rater’s
manual. They also appeared to be aware of group membership (i.e., male batterer
or control group), which may influence competency judgments. As subjects were
not aware of group membership in the present study, this minimized any influence
on the rater’s judgment process. This is a critical stage in the model.
Additionally, Anglin and Holtzworth-Munroe (1997) improved their
methodology in that they had “significant others” rate the competence of the
responses instead of providing the criteria themselves. However, this study still
suffered from the other methodological flaws previously discussed under the
Holtzworth-Munroe and Anglin (1991) study.
In sum, the present study improved upon previous methodology and
included more elements of realism to parallel the real world. No RPT involving a
live role play partner has been done using the Goldfried and D’Zurilla (1969) model
with male batterers. This would greatly enhance the realism and potential use for
treatment and outcome evaluation.
Moreover, our methodology improved upon previous research using RPT
procedures to increase external validity in that subjects 1) were read the situations
twice and subjects cued the experimenters when ready to hear the situation
repeated, which allowed subjects to be able to visualize themselves better in the
situation, 2) role played with a live model instead of a tape, 3) were provided with
clear, specific instructions to allow them to know their role in the study, 4) included
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
52
more than one prompt to extend the social interaction, 5) were given a practice item
to better understand their role, and 6) provided background information to
situations in which to have a context to role play to increase the realism. An
advantage of the methodology in the current study is that the male batterers did not
know that this study’s focus was on male batterers. They were not cued regarding
socially desirable responses to which they are susceptible.
Another advantage to the development of the RPT in this project is that
although many of the observational studies (Margolin et al., 1988,1989; Burman et
al., 1992,1993) have provided valuable data regarding behavioral competencies of
the male batterer, the use of standardized situations allows us control over the
frequency and intensity of various partner behaviors displayed during partner
interactions (Holtzworth-Munroe & Smutzler, 1996). Observing couples’
naturalistic problem discussions maximizes external validity but raises potential
problems with internal validity in judging behavioral competence (Anglin &
Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997). Group differences in responses, where male batterers
are rated negatively, may be due to differences in the stimuli confronted by subjects
(e.g., partners in violent relationships are more negative than in nonviolent
relationships) (Anglin & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997). Using standardized stimuli,
group differences cannot be attributed to the differing stimuli but instead to the
variable of theoretical interest (Anglin & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997). Having
situations presented consistently and neutrally by a role play partner, and in a
standardized format across subjects allows the subject to impose himself in each of
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
53
the situations. Standardized stimuli appear to be a viable and complementary
counterpart to observational work.
Although many of the social skill studies looked at the assertive and
communicative components involved in interpersonal relationships, they did not
focus on problems necessarily specific to the male batterer. As Holtzworth-Munroe
(1992) points out, the first step in identifying problematic situations is to examine
whether male batterers display social skill deficits in general (i.e., with a variety of
people, across a variety of situations) or whether they exhibit deficits only in certain
situations (i.e., marital situations). If marital situations are found to be problematic
for such men, the question would arise as to whether certain types of marital
interactions and issues are particularly problematic (Holtzworth-Munroe, 1992).
Thus, it is suggested that researchers should systematically attempt to identify the
types of interpersonal situations that are difficult for maritally violent men to
handle competently (Holtzworth-Munroe, 1992).
As yet, little empirical work has been done to identify problem situations
(exceptions see Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991; Anglin & Holtzworth-Munroe,
1997). As many (e.g., Edleson, 1984; Holtzworth-Munroe, 1992) suggest, we need to
know what situations are interpersonally difficult for the male batterer to intervene
effectively. An instrument using a more reality-based approach to parallel real
world events adds practical and substantive utility.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
54
This was accomplished using Goldfried and D’Zurilla’s (1969) behavior-
analytic model. It was used because of its empirical, rigorous nature. Each stage in
this model refines and defines the data in a quantifiable, objective manner.
Therefore, the goals of this study were to:
1. Empirically identify problem situations facing male batterers, and
2. Develop situation-specific criteria for evaluating level of social competence.
As a result of this process and with future validational work to support this
model, specific behaviors may be identified and targeted for intervention. The RPT
may help in social skills training and may help to evaluate change in behavior. The
development of the RPT allows it to have the potential not only to identify problems
with social competence, but also to target such problems, which are unique to that
individual, in intervention programs, and to help monitor and evaluate change in
behavior over time. Additionally, it will help evaluate the efficacy of the
intervention program. This research is among the first to empirically identify
problematic interpersonal situations encountered by male batterers. No other study
to date has empirically developed a social competence measure with this population
using this methodologically improved RPT.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
55
CHAPTER 2
METHOD
Subjects
The goal of this stage was to collect a large, representative sample of the
relevant, specific, and meaningful problematic situations which were likely to
confront male batterers in their daily lives. Toward this goal, 30 subjects, including
10 male batterers, 10 female victims of domestic violence, and 10 clinicians with
expertise in the area of domestic violence, voluntarily participated. These subjects
were selected due to their familiarity with issues effecting male batterers. Subject
selection and recruitment strategies are discussed below according to group
membership.
Male Batterers:
Male batterers were recruited from various domestic violence agencies in
South Florida that serve male batterers and victims. Of the male batterers, 9 were
court ordered to a group treatment program and 1 voluntarily consented to
treatment.
Recruitment procedures for male batterers involved the principal
investigator giving oral presentations about the study to male batterer groups.
Potential subjects signed up following the presentation. A voluntary sign>up sheet,
requesting names and telephone numbers, was distributed after the presentation.
The principal investigator then called these potential subjects to arrange an
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
56
appointment. Additionally, flyers were left at those participating domestic violence
agencies.
Victims:
Victims of domestic violence were recruited from various domestic violence
agencies in South Florida that serve male batterers and victims. Recruitment
procedures for female victims involved: 1) the principal investigator giving oral
presentations about the study to victim groups and 2) clinicians with domestic
violence cases asking their clients to participate. Recruitment via the oral
presentations allowed potential subjects to sign up following the presentation. A
voluntary sign-up sheet requesting names and telephone numbers was distributed
after the presentation. The principal investigator then called these potential
subjects to arrange an appointment Additionally, flyers were left at those
participating domestic violence agencies. Subjects recruited by their clinicians
either called the principal investigator directly or gave permission for their clinician
to leave their name and telephone number with the principal investigator. Sixty
percent of victims of domestic violence came from domestic violence programs while
40% were recruited by their clinicians.
Clinicians:
Clinicians with domestic violence experience from a program that services
male batterers and victims were contacted via telephone call to participate.
Clinicians were recruited by the principal investigator. All clinicians who
participated were graduate students in either the Masters of Mental Health
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
57
Counseling program, the Psy.D program, or Ph.D program in a clinical psychology
at a university in South Florida. Additionally, they were all practicum graduate
students specialized in working with the domestic violence population. Clinicians
were recruited via telephone using a list provided to the principal investigator by
the agency which included all the clinicians involved in the program.
In order to participate in the study, all subjects had to meet the following
criteria: 1) be English speaking, 2) be over 18 years of age, and 3) be either a male
batterer, female victim of domestic violence, or a clinician working with male
batterers. The victims and clinicians had extensive interactions with male batterers.
Demographic information is presented in Table I for the entire sample as
well as for the subgroup samples, namely, the male batterers, victims of domestic
violence, and clinicians working with a domestic violence population. Chi square
analysis could not be performed comparing the subgroups as there were insufficient
numbers in many of the cells which invalidated the chi square measure. However,
when possible, analysis comparing groups were performed.
Overall, subjects who participated were between 19 and 52 years of age with
a mean age of 32.93 years (SD=7.71). The mean age of male batterers, victims, and
clinicians was 39.90 (SD=5.84), 32 (SD=7.67), and 26.90 years (SD=1.85),
respectively. A oneway Analysis of Variance revealed a significant difference
between the groups on age; F(27) = 13.35, £<.001. Post hoc Tukey’s HSD test
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Table 1
Demoaraphic Breakdown of Stage IA Sample
58
Percentages
Entire Male
Variable Sample Batterers Victims Clinicians
(n=30) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)
Current Marital Status
Married 23.3 40 0 30
Separated 13.3 10 30 0
Divorced 26.7 40 40 0
Never Married 26.7 10 10 60
Living with
Someone 3.3 0 10 0
Engaged 6.7 0 10 10
Combined Yearly Income
$0-5k 6.7 0 10 10
$>5-10k 16.7 10 20 20
$>10-20k 6.7 10 10 0
$>20-35k 26.7 40 30 10
$>35-40k 6.7 10 10 0
$>40k-50k 13.3 10 10 20
$>50k 20 20 10 30
Not applicable 3.3 0 0 10
Ethnicity
White 70 90 70 50
Black 13.3 10 20 10
Hispanic 6.7 0 0 20
Other 10 0 10 20
Table 1 continued
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
59
Percentages
Entire Male
Variable Sample Batterers Victims Clinicians
(n=30) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)
Highest Completed Education
Less than 7 Grade 3.3 10 0 0
Junior High School 3.3 0 10 0
Partial High School 6.7 10 10 0
High School Graduate 23.3 50 20 0
Partial College 23.3 10 60 0
College Graduate 10 10 0 20
Graduate/Professional Degree 30 10 0 80
Full-Time Occupation (n=28) (n=8)
Service Workers/
Manual Labor 10.7 10 25 0
Service Jobs 32.2 50 50 0
Self-employed/
Business Owners 7.1 20 0 0
Students 39.3 0 12.5 100
Professionals 3.6 0 12.5 0
Laid off/Out of Work 7.1 20 0 0
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
60
showed that male batterers were significantly older than both the victim and the
clinician groups (£<.05).
Of the subjects, 28 were employed full-time or were full-time students while 2
victims worked part-time in service-related jobs. In the clinician group, there were
8 females and 2 males who participated. Five male batterers and 7 victims had
between 1-3 children each.
Procedure
Prior to the commencement of this stage, the procedures were piloted to
ensure that subjects could understand the task and what was required of them and
to get an estimate of how long it would take to complete. Individual appointments
were scheduled for all subjects. At the appointment, the experimenter introduced
herself and then a standardized verbal introduction was given to each male batterer
with the purpose of having him identify problematic interpersonal situations which
confront him in his daily life. The following is the verbatim introduction given to
each male batterer:
“We are in the business of studying and understanding men’s thoughts and
feelings, particularly men in relationships where there is conflict with a wife or
girlfriend. I have been asking men to give me information about various situations
with people which arise in their daily lives. I am not interested in the personal or
psychological problems of individuals, but am interested in the day to day situations
which confront men. Your involvement today is very important and I want you to
know that.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
61
You will be asked to identify problem situations which you have come across
in your daily life. I want to point out that this is research and not therapy. The
information that you provide will be combined with the information from all the
other people who are part of this project. There are no right or wrong answers.
You may stop at any time or feel free not to answer any of the questions.
It is important that you be aware that everything you tell me is confidential.
The information you provide will only have code numbers on them and only the
project experimenters and directors will have access to your names. However, there
are two exceptions to this confidentiality rule. First, I am legally obligated to report
if I receive information from a participant that someone is in danger of seriously
hurting themselves or others in the future. Second, I am legally obligated to report
any physical injury to children or the elderly caused by other than accidental
means. Do you have any questions about this?
Generally, it is expected that it will take about one hour to identify these
situations. As mentioned earlier, there are no right or wrong answers. You may
identify as many situations as you wish; however, it is expected that you will identify
at least 4-5 problem situations. In a minute, I will give you some examples of what I
mean by a problem situation. Do you have any questions so far about anything I
have told you?”
At this point, informed consent was obtained. The principal investigator
read the informed consent form (see Appendix A) to each subject unless the subject
requested to read on his own. Once informed consent was obtained, the principal
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
62
investigator read the demographic information form (see Appendix B) to each
subject unless the participant requested to read on his own. Once completed, each
subject was given the following verbal instructions:
“As a man in today’s society, you must face many challenges and problem
situations each day such as work, personal relationships, and social activities among
others. It is important to say that these problem situations are not necessarily
unusual or unique to certain individuals. In fact, life can be seen in general as a
continuous process of facing new situations and solving them, with varying degrees
of effectiveness, of course, depending on one’s knowledge of the effective solutions in
a particular situation and a person’s skill or ability in carrying them out.
You will be asked to identify problem situations which you have come across
in your daily life. Let me give you an example of what I mean by a problem
situation. You are out on a first date at a restaurant. Being a first date, you want to
make a good impression to your date. The bill comes and the woman you are with
picks up the check and wants to pay. You may be in a problem situation. For many
of you, this may be a relatively new situation. The effective course of action may not
have been immediately apparent to you. You may have felt confused. You may
have become anxious. You may have fumbled around for a time trying to think of
what to say or do since you wanted to pay for dinner and you may have made some
mistakes. However, you probably ended up handling the situation reasonably well.
What you will do is to think about and identify those problem situations in
which you have found yourself or currently find yourself. I am going to ask you to
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
63
describe those situations you find to be a problem when you interact or deal with
people. These people can be family members, friends, people from work — anyone
actually as long as these are situations you deal with in your daily life. I just want
to learn more about you and how men think about things. I will be writing down
what you say so that I do not forget it.
There is no limit as to how many situations you can describe. Try to recall as
many of these situations as you can. However, I would appreciate at least 4-5
problem situations that you could identify. I would like you to be as specific as
possible. For example, the statement “my wife (girlfriend) and I got in a fight”
would be too general. Instead, what I am interested in would include something like
“It was late at night, my wife (girlfriend) wanted to go to bed but I wanted to go out.
I like going out and having a good time; but, my wife (girlfriend) is more of a home
body. We have been married for 2 years. We haven’t been getting along well the
last couple of weeks. We screamed at each other. She called me selfish and said I
never spend time with her. I was really angry with her and said some nasty things
to her. I was really upset and stormed out. When I came home after hanging out
with the guys, she was still up. We talked about it and we both apologized. We
made up.” For each situation, I want you to tell me about:
1) the specific problem situation confronting you,
2) the background information leading to the situation
3) your response to the situation (actual or anticipated), and
4) the outcome.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
64
In the above example, the specific problem situation would be the part about
‘It was late at night, my wife (girlfriend) wanted to go to bed but I wanted to go
out’; the background information leading to the situation would be the part about,
‘I like going out and having a good time; but, my wife (girlfriend) is more of a home
body. We have been married for 2 years. We haven’t been getting along well the
last couple of weeks;’ your response to the situation (actual or anticipated) would be
the part about ‘We screamed at each other. She called me selfish and said I never
spend time with her. I was really angry with her and said some nasty things to her.
I was really upset and stormed out;’ and the outcome would be the part about
‘When I came home after hanging out with the guys, she was still up. We talked
about it and we both apologized. We made up.’
I will help you go through this process. I will also give you a printed copy of
the 4 parts which I want you to describe to me about each situation you identify
(hand subject copy). At this point, do you have any questions? Should you later
have questions, my phone number is located on the consent form. Are you ready to
begin?”
Each subject was debriefed upon completion to ensure that he was not
experiencing any discomfort with the procedures and to see if he had any questions.
Victims of domestic violence and clinicians were given similar instructions
given to the male batterers except that they were asked to identify problematic
situations they observed pertaining to men in relationships characterized by
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
65
marital/relationship discord rather than to themselves. No subjects reported any
problems associated with their role in the project.
The principal investigator and a Master’s level female research assistant,
hereafter known as the research assistant, then evaluated the situations for any
redundancies or clarification of any ambiguities to refine the situations, and to
identify the thematic content of the situations.
Results
The aim of this stage was to collect a large, representative sample of
problematic situations. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to see if there were any
group differences among male batterers, victims, and clinicians in the number of
situations generated. The results were not significant (p.>.05). The mean number of
scenarios for male batterers, victims, and clinicians was 4.90 (SD=1.10), 4.70
(SD=1.57), and 5.20 (SD=.92), respectively. Male batterers generated between 4-7
situations. Victims offered between 4-9 situations. Clinicians produced between 4-7
situations.
Subjects generated 147 total problematic situations. A sample of these
problematic situations are presented below, and whose referent is the male batterer:
1. Your fiance works everyday, goes to school, and is involved in other
recreational activities. In her free time, she is running around doing
errands. You feel that she does not spend quality time with you since she is
so busy running around doing things. You are concerned that she does not
love you. (Example of spending quality time together)
2. Your girlfriend works and deals a lot with people in her job. She gets asked
out a lot although it is mostly business-related. She has always been open
with you about her job. Sometimes she does get asked out on dates which she
never accepts. However, you know the possibility exists that someone could
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
66
ask her out which makes you feel insecure. You get jealous of other men.
You And it hard to accept (Example of jealousy)
3. You’re married and have children. Through the years, you and your wife
have struggled financially. You both work. You’ve had pressures with
paying bills and meeting monthly expectations. Your wife’s paycheck goes
for food and groceries and yours goes for everything else, including the
mortgage. You’ve always been a hard worker and did your best to meet your
financial obligations but when you can’t do i t you just can’t do it. Many
times the mortgage went unpaid. Your wife would throw it in your face.
She’d say that you did not hold your end of the deal. (Example of financial)
4. You and your wife argue over how to discipline the kids. You don’t agree
with each other and it causes you a lot of conflict She ignores the kids’
behavior until it gets to the point where she screams and yells. You would
never allow it to get that far; you’d stop it before that point. (Example of
parenting/child rearing)
5. You come home with a six pack after a stressful day at work. You’ve had
problems with drinking in the past and you’ve promised your wife you would
stop drinking. She threatens that she’ll leave you if you keep on drinking.
(Example of alcohol issue)
6. You and your brother work together. There has been a history of animosity
between you and your brother. One day your brother got mad at you and
threw water on you. You got angry and told him to stop but he threw a hose
at you. You got really angry and punched your brother. After work you
went home. Your wife knew something was wrong but you didn’t want to
tell her about it. Your wife got angry with you because you wouldn’t tell her
about it. She thought you were upset with her. (Example of communication)
7. Your girlfriend likes to argue with you in front of your daughter who is
young. One night you came home and she started nagging you by asking
where were you, were you cheating on me, who were you with, were you out
drinking with your friends? She went on and on with this. (Example of
nagging)
8. You've been living with your girlfriend. You have a history of restraining
her and hitting her. Sometimes you just go off on things. Your relationship
was great in the beginning but has gotten bad. She was sitting in a chair and
you went off on her and yelled at her for anything. (Example of physical
violence/intimidation)
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
67
9. One day, your wife asks you to help her take out the trash. You tell her that
you’ll do it but you procrastinate doing i t She likes when you immediately
do what she asks you to do or else she wouldn’t ask for your help. Since you
didn’t do it, she ended up doing it herself. (Example of household issue)
10. You like to have sex in the morning and also more frequently than your wife.
You’d get upset with her about i t (Example of sexual issue)
The themes reflected in these 147 situations included issues around jealousy
and cheating, lack of quality time spent together, anger and tension, finances,
parenting/child rearing, sex, household, communication, control, physical
violence/intimidation, nagging, work, friends, and alcohol. Among male batterers,
victims, and clinicians, almost all gave examples of each of these themes as being
problematic for the male batterer. However, male batterers did not indicate any
problem with physical violence/intimidation. Victims did not report any problems
with nagging for the male batterer. Clinicians did not state any issues over friends
or work problems for the male batterer. Most of the situations revolved around
interpersonal issues with a partner; however, some relate to other people such as a
person in a bar, people at work (e.g, the boss, the service manager), and other family
members (e.g., a parent, sister-in-law, child).
Following the generation of these problematic situations, the principal
investigator and research assistant examined these situations to eliminate and/or
merge any redundancies or clarify any ambiguities. Ten situations were eliminated
in this way resulting in 137 situations being retained. These remaining situations
were then rated by a second set of subjects (discussed under Stage IB).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
68
Discussion
One hundred forty seven problematic situations were initially generated.
There were no differences in the number of situations generated across participant
groups in the study. However, in the introduction given to subjects, it was expected
that they would generate at least 4-5 problematic interpersonal situations. Perhaps
subjects attempted to meet only this minimal goal. Yet, if no minimal number of
responses was set at the introduction of the study, it was believed that the male
batterers, who represent a challenging population with which to work in terms of
resistance, might have produced even fewer responses. Moreover, clinicians who
are supposedly helpful and diligent in their work also produced the same mean
number of responses as the other groups. This tends to indicate that all subjects
equally applied themselves to the required task of identifying relevant problematic
situations likely to confront the male batterer.
Additionally, the themes reflected in these situations such as jealousy and
cheating support the findings from previous research (e.g., Dutton & Browning,
1988; Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991) in an empirically, socially valid way
where even the male batterers identified such issues as problematic for themselves.
Overall, there was agreement among male batterers, victims, and clinicians as to
what issues are problematic for the male batterer. Those that they did not agree
upon were not surprising. For example male batterers did not report any physical
violence/intimidation, which is consistent with the literature that male batterers
minimize their behavior (Follingstad & Breiter, 1994). Additionally, victims did not
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
69
report that nagging their partners was a problematic issue for the male batterer
perhaps because whether true or not, it would represent a negative quality of the
victim.
Following the deletion of the 10 items which were redundant, 137 situations
remained. At this point, all we knew about the situations was that they had
occurred at least once in the sample. We needed to know how representative of real
life these situations were and how difficult these situations were for male batterers
to handle. If a problematic situation is easy for the male batterer to solve, then it
really is not a problem. Therefore, it was necessary to evaluate how common and
difficult the remaining situations were. The second part of the Situational Analysis
stage (i.e., Stage IB) was thus conducted to further refine the data.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
70
CHAPTER3
METHOD
Subjects
The purpose of this stage was to retain situations that were common yet
difficult for male batterers to handle. Subjects were selected due to their expertise
in working with male batterers and of knowing what situations are common and
difficult based upon their own professional experience with male batterers.
Therefore, subjects included 10 domestic violence workers who were not involved in
the development of the initial item pool. They were recruited from various domestic
violence agencies in South Florida. Recruitment procedures for these experts in the
area of domestic violence involved: 1) the principal investigator being invited to give
oral presentations about the study to domestic violence agencies and 2) telephone
calls. In order to participate in the study, all subjects had to meet the following
criteria: 1) be English speaking, 2) be over 18 years of age, and 3) be a clinician
working with male batterers.
Demographic information is presented in Table 2. The mean age of subjects
participating was 37.70 (SD=9.33) with a range of 28-51. Sixty percent of subjects
worked full-time while 40% were part-time professionals. Subjects have been in
practice for a mean of 105.60 months (SD=79.76) with a range of 36-300 months.
The mean length of time working with male batterers was 51 months (SD=25.18)
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
71
Table 2
Demographic Breakdown of Stage IB Sample
Percentages
Entire
Variable Sample
(n=10)
Ethnicity
White 70
Black 10
Hispanic 20
Gender
Females 80
Males 20
Current Marital Status
Married 80
Divorced 10
Living with Someone 10
Combined Yearly Income
$0-5000 0
$>5-10K 0
$>10-20K 0
$>20-35K 10
$>35-40K 0
$>40-50K 10
$>50K 80
Full-Time Occupation
(n=6)
Professional 83.3
Student 16.7
Professional Status
Licensed Professional 60
Graduate Student 10
Other (almost licensed) 30
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
7 2
with a range of 24-108 months. Half of the subjects had 1-3 children while the rest
had no children.
Procedure
Prior to the commencement of this stage, the procedures were piloted to
ensure that subjects could understand the task and what was required of them and
to get an estimate of how long it would take to complete. Recruitment via the oral
presentations allowed potential subjects to sign up following the presentation. The
experimenter then called these potential subjects to arrange an appointment. For
those recruited via telephone, an appointment was scheduled. Individual
appointments were scheduled for all subjects. At the appointment, the experimenter
introduced herself and then a standardized verbal introduction was given to each
clinician with the purpose of having him/her rate the problematic interpersonal
situations obtained from the previous stage of the study. The following introduction
was given to each subject:
“We are in the business of studying and understanding men’s thoughts and
feelings, particularly men in relationships characterized by conflict or discord. This
study is part of a larger study examining men’s interpersonal relationships. The
purpose of the study will be to identify situations that men in relationships
characterized by marital/relationship discord And problematic, particularly male
batterers. We seek to discover the specific factors that influence male batterers’
interpersonal relationships with other adults.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
73
Your role today will be to rate how common and how difficult you think
these situations are for the male batterer. The problematic situations I want you to
rate were obtained from a previous stage of this research project where others
provided me with information about various interpersonal situations which
confront the male batterer in his daily life. Your involvement today is very
important and I want you to know th at As a participant in this study, you may stop
at any time or feel free not to answer any of the questions.
It is important that you be aware that everything you tell me is confidential.
The information you provide will only have code numbers on them and only the
project experimenters and directors will have access to your names. However, there
are two exceptions to this confidentiality rule. First, I am legally obligated to report
if 1 receive information from a participant that someone is in danger of seriously
hurting themselves or others in the future. Second, I am legally obligated to report
any physical injury to children or the elderly caused by other than accidental
means. Do you have any questions about this?
Generally, it is expected that it will take about 1-2 hours to complete the
ratings. There are no right or wrong answers. If you have any questions, please feel
free to ask me. Should you later have questions, please call me at (954) 262-5730
(it’s on the consent form). Do you have any questions so far about anything I have
told you?”
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
74
At this point, informed consent was obtained (see Appendix A). A
demographic information form was then completed by subjects (see Appendix B).
Once completed, the following verbal instructions were given to each subject:
“Due to your experience in the area of domestic violence, I would like you to
evaluate these situations obtained from a previous part of this study on two 5-point
scales. The first scale rates how common or applicable you think each problematic
situation is for the male batterer. This is what the scale means:
Mostly Fairly Neither Fairly Mostly
Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon/ Common Common
Nor Common
1 2 3 4 5
The second scale rates how difficult you think each problematic situation is for the
male batterer. This is what the scale means:
Mostly Fairly Neither Fairly Mostly
Easy Easy Easy/ Difficult Difficult
Neither
Difficult
1 2 3 4 5
To summarize, for each problematic situation, you will make two ratings. Do you
have any questions? I appreciate your time and participation.” Subjects completed
the rating scales at their own leisure at home or at work. Once completed,
participants called the principal investigator to arrange for the materials to be
picked up.
Subjects completed ratings for 137 problematic situations. A sample of the
items that subjects rated is presented below:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
7 5
1. Trust has been an issue in your relationship with your wife. Before you got
married, your wife had an affair with another man. Your wife goes out to a
bachelorette party. While she is gone, the telephone rings. You answer the
phone but the person hangs up. You think it is your wife and that she is
somewhere she should not be.
Mostly Fairly Neither Fairly Mostly
Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon/ Common Common
Nor Common
1 2 3 4 5
Mostly Fairly Neither Easy/ Fairly Mostly
Easy Easy Nor Difficult Difficult Difficult
1 2 3 4 5
2. Your fiance works everyday, goes to school, and is involved in other
recreational activities. In her free time, she is running around doing
errands. You feel that she does not spend quality time with you since she is
so busy running around doing things. You are concerned that she does not
love you. When she comes home at night, she is tired and falls asleep on the
couch. You want to be with her. Sometimes it is hard to support her being
tired when you know that she makes the time to work out and see her
mother.
Mostly Fairly Neither Fairly Mostly
Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon/ Common Common
Nor Common
1 2 3 4 5
Mostly Fairly Neither Easy/ Fairly Mostly
Easy Easy Nor Difficult Difficult Difficult
1 2 3 4 5
Results
The purpose of this stage was to retain only those problematic situations
which were common and difficult for the male batterer. The two ratings across
subjects for each situation were combined to provide a composite index for each
situation. Each subject’s ratings were multiplied and then added to the other
subject’s ratings to calculate the composite index for each situation. Then the mean
of the composite index was derived by dividing the composite index by the number
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
76
of subjects. If this number was “16" or above, the situation was retained. If this
number was below “16:, it was discarded. This cutoff was chosen because a “4" on
each of the independent rating scales indicated that the situation was common and
difficult. Thus, a “4" on the common rating scale and a “4" on the difficulty rating
scale provided a “16" overall. Since the goal of the project was to have common
and difficult items retained, anything below this number would not fulfill the
purpose of the project, and therefore that situation was not retained. Then, the
situations were ranked according to the size of the composite index and was ranked
in descending order. Table 3 details the mean composite index ratings and the
overall rankings of each retained situation.
Of the 137 situations presented to subjects, 34 met the criteria of the cutoff of
“16" and were retained. Next, each was examined and rewritten into a comparable
wife and girlfriend version. The number of situations was further reduced to 28 to
eliminate those situations which were thought to be too intrusive (e.g., rape), violate
confidentiality (e.g., child abuse), or too difficult to translate into a comparable wife
to girlfriend version. Table 4 gives a description of each of the 28 situations.
The thematic content represent issues involving jealousy and cheating
(situations #: 2,7,8,11,13,17,21,23,25,27), anger and tension (situations #: 4,9,
14,15,20,28), parenting/child rearing (situations #: 19,26), nagging (situations #: 1,
24), physical violence/intimidation (situations #: 6,12), alcohol (situations #: 10,16),
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
77
Table 3
Scores on Mean Composite Index and Overall Ranking of Problem Situations
Mean of
Situation Comnosite Index Overall Ranking
1 17.4 15
2 19.5 4
3 16.2 25
4 17.8 12
5 17.3 16
6 20.9 3
7 21.8 1
8 21.5 2
9 19.5 4
10 16.2 25
11 18.4 8
12 18.1 9
13 16.8 20
14 17.3 16
15 17.6 14
16 18.8 7
17 17.6 14
18 16.2 25
19 19.2 6
20 17.9 11
21 16.7 21
22 17.7 13
23 16.4 23
24 19.4 5
25 16.9 19
26 16.0 27
27 16.0 27
28 17.3 16
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
78
Table 4
__________________Summary abstract of 28 problem situations_________________________
1. Your wife likes to argue with you and to nag you about where you were, who you were with,
etc..
2. You confront your wife of cheating due to the lies you’ve caught her in.
3. You come home from work after getting into a fight with your brother. You do not want to
discuss it with your wife and she thinks you are upset with her.
4. You argue frequently and your wife thinks you just go off on things with her for no reason.
5. You disapprove of your wife’s friends and when you call home from work, she has friends
over.
6. Your separated and your wife has a restraining order out on you due to your history of
physical violence. She calls you at work.
7. You don’t like your wife going out with her friends, especially since you think someone may
come on to her and she may respond.
8. There has been a lot of tension with your wife over the years. You get in an argument and
she threatens to leave you.
9. Every time you speak with your parent they upset you and your wife feels you take it out on
her.
10. You’re at a party with your wife. She wants to leave earlier than you want to leave.
11. Your wife works a lot with people in her job. You visit her at work and she is talking to
another guy and you think something could be going on.
12. You come home from work angry and your wife locks herself in the room fearful you may
threaten or physically hurt her.
13. Your wife thinks your are jealous and do not trust her. She confronts you about spying on
her.
14. You’re in a bad mood after work and you think your wife has misplaced something of yours.
15. You and your wife are angry at each other and your wife wants to go out but you don’t want
her to leave.
16. You come home with a six pack after promising your wife you would quit drinking.
17. Trust has been an issue in your relationship. Your wife is at a party and you get a call but
the person hangs up.
18. You’re watching football with your friends at home and your wife is irritating you because
she persists at trying to get your attention.
19. Your kids don’t listen to you the first time you ask them to do something and now your son is
messing up the blinds.
20. Someone at a bar is persistently bothering you even after you’ve told the person to leave you
alone.
21. You’re suspicious that your wife is having an affair especially due to her past behavior with
men.
22. Your wife is not as interested in sex as she used to be and you talk to her about it
23. Your wife finds a piece of paper in your wallet with a woman’s phone number on it and
accuses you of cheating.
24. You had a problem at work and want to unwind, and your wife dislikes that you do not want
to talk about it or anything else.
25. Your wife is not coming home when expected and you confront her about it
26. You and your wife argue over how to discipline the children.
27. You’re concerned about your wife’s behavior and when you get home she is talking to other
men and doesn’t go in the house with you.
28. You and your wife get in a fight because she thinks you work too much.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
79
sex (situation # 22), quality time together (situation #18), issues relating to friends
(situation # 5), and communication (situation # 3). All situations involved the
partner except for one which involved somebody in a bar (situation #20). In
examining the reporting source for these 28 retained situations as collected in the
previous stage, clinicians identified 17 of these situations while victims generated 6,
and male batterers identified 5 of these situations.
Discussion
The results of this stage indicate that many of the situations initially gathered
were neither common nor difficult for the male batterer, and thus had to be
dropped as they were not representative of the male batterer’s social environment
or were easy to handle. This is to be expected based on this type of analysis because
it requires refinement and modification of the data. If the initial item pool is large
enough, then the model can survive attrition (Goldfried & D’Zurilla, 1969).
Through this refinement process, the number of situations began at 137 and
was reduced to 34 and then further reduced to 28 situations. The thematic content
of these situations (e.g., jealousy and cheating) supports those found in prior
research (e.g., Dutton & Browning, 1988). However, the Dutton and Browning
(1988) study did not empirically develop their situations as the current study
addressed.
Moreover, of these retained situations, only one refers to someone, other than
the partner. This provides further empirical support that male batterers
interpersonal difficulties tend to be more spouse-specific. Only one other study to
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
80
date has examined whether male batterers interpersonal difficulties are more global
or spouse-specific (Anglin & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997). It was found that
maritally violent men have more social skill deficits in relation to marital situations
but they are more socially incompetent than nonviolent men in general with respect
to marital and nonmarital situations.
In order to prepare for the RPT in the next stage, the situations were refined
and written into narrative descriptions with prompts to facilitate social interaction.
Stage II developed these situations further.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
CHAPTER 4
81
METHOD
Procedure
This stage enhanced the situations by providing a narrative description
which described the situation and gave some background information to provide a
context for the future respondent Each situation statement was relatively brief in
nature, requiring approximately 10 seconds to be read by the principal investigator
during the next stage. Each situation was followed by two prearranged prompts.
For each situation, two prompts were constructed with the purpose of promoting or
facilitating interpersonal interaction in the role play test (RPT). These prompts
were generally neutral and noninvasive in nature, were extremely brief, and were
specifically designed to be a comment rather than a question so that the subject was
not cued how to respond in the interaction. These prompts were to be delivered by
a research assistant, who served as a role play partner, in the next stage.
Eleven hours of training were provided to teach the research assistant how to
state the prompts in a neutral manner and with appropriate eye contact Training
included the principal investigator modeling how the prompt should be stated and
how long to wait in between responses. Approximately 7 seconds were allotted
between the first response to the next prompt or new situation being introduced.
Seven second pauses were found to be the best based upon pilot data.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
82
As training progressed, the principal investigator played the role of a
potential subject and monitored the prompts and responses of the research
assistant. A typical role play interaction between the principal investigator, the
research assistant, and the subject (i.e., played by principal investigator) is
presented below:
Principal Investigator: You have a wife. You get in a fight since she thinks you
work too much. You get upset and go outside. You
want to go for a drive in your car so you can cool off.
She follows you out to the car. She doesn’t let you get in
the car.
Subject:
Principal Investigator:
Research Assistant:
Pretend Subject:
Research Assistant:
Pretend Subject:
Principal Investigator:
(Acknowledges that he is ready to hear the situation
repeated.)
You have a wife. You get in a fight since she thinks you
work too much. You get upset and go outside. You
want to go for a drive in your car so you can cool off.
She follows you out to the car. She doesn’t let you get in
the car. (She says:)
All I want is to be with you and spend time with you.
Who the hell do you think you are? Don’t bother me.
Just leave me alone. Get the hell away from me. I can’t
stand the sight of you right now.
(Waits 7 seconds) Please don’t walk away from me.
(No response)
(Waits 7 seconds) You’re very concerned because of the
way your wife is dressing, her behavior with other men
in the neighborhood, and her weight gain. You come
home and she’s outside talking to a couple of the guys
who live across the street. She’s wearing a very short
sundress. When you get out of the car, you expect her
to follow you into the house. She doesn’t
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
83
In the final training stages, practice sessions of the RPT were held with
volunteers who gave feedback regarding the principal investigator and research
assistant’s performance and the content of the situations. Additionally, training
included how to deal with any potential problems that could arise in the actual
testing situation. Such situations might involve a subject not understanding his role,
a subject initiating a response after the 7 second pause by the research assistant, and
a subject getting upset with the testing procedure. These potential difficulties, in
addition to the RPT, were role-played at the final training session using one of the
supervising professors on this project who pretended to be a very difficult subject.
The problem situations were rewritten on cards for both wife and girlfriend
versions. The wife cards were then used to determine the order of the situations.
Similar themes were arranged in stacks (e.g., jealousy and cheating, sex, child
rearing). The wife cards were shuffled within each stack. Such stacks were
organized so that there would not be multiples card consecutively dealing with the
same theme unless no other choice (i.e., too many cards of 1 theme and few cards of
other themes) was possible. The principal investigator randomly selected cards
from each of the piles until all 28 cards were ordered. The parallel girlfriend cards
were ordered exactly as the wife’s cards. On the back of each card, the number was
written. All odd number subjects in the following stage would use this order. To
counterbalance for order effect, all even numbered subjects obtained the same
situations but in the reverse order. A sample of these situations followed by the two
prompts are presented below:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
84
I. Your wife likes to argue with you. One night you come home and she starts
nagging you about where you were, were you cheating on her, who were you
with, were you out drinking with your friends? She goes on and on with this.
(She says:)
Prompt 1: You take me for granted.
Prompt 2: You don’t appreciate me.
II. You’ve been with your wife for awhile. You drink a lot and you tend to fight
a lot when you drink. You accuse her of cheating on you because you hear
her getting phone calls. She’ll make plans to meet someone and then you’ll
find out it was not the person she said it was. You feel you’ve caught her in a
lot of lies as to where she has been and with whom she has been. One day
you confront her about your concerns that she may be cheating on you. (She
says to you:)
Prompt 1:1 can’t believe you’re accusing me o f cheating.
Prompt 2: You don’t know what you’re talking about.
III. You and your brother work together. One day your brother gets mad at you
and throws something at you. You get angry and tell him to stop but he
doesn’t You get in a fight. After work you go home. Your wife knows
something is wrong but you don’t want to tell her about it. Your wife gets
angry with you because you won’t tell her what’s wrong. She thinks that you
are upset with her and says:
Prompt I: You seem to be upset today.
Prompt 2 :1 wish you could talk with me about your problems.
IV. You’ve been with your wife for awhile. Your relationship was great in the
beginning but has gotten bad. You now argue frequently and these
arguments get very explosive. She thinks that sometimes you just go off on
things with her for no apparent reason. (She says to you:)
Prompt I: You blame me for everything.
Prompt 2: You seem to get mad for no reason at times.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
85
Discussion
The purpose of this stage was to develop the 28 situations into a narrative
description and to develop prompts to facilitate interaction. The product of this
stage was the RPT which was used in the next stage to obtain a sample of responses
from a group of men, including identified male batterers.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
86
CHAPTER 5
METHOD
Subjects
The goals of this stage were to: 1) retain only those situations which would
most likely provide potentially discriminating items, 2) clarify any ambiguities in the
identified situations, and 3) collect a sample of possible responses to each of the
situations from a heterogeneous group of men, including identified male batterers,
for evaluation in Stage IV (i.e., Response Evaluation). Toward this end, a total of 30
male subjects, approximately one-third of whom were identified male batterers
from domestic violence agencies in South Florida, and a total of nineteen men from
the university and community who were not solicited from domestic violence
programs, participated.
Identified male batterers were selected from domestic violence treatment
programs. In order to be eligible, subjects had to be: 1) English speaking, 2) over 18
years of age, and 3) currently in a relationship or recently ended a relationship
within the past 3 months.
Men in male batterer treatment programs are a heterogeneous group (e.g.,
marital status, ethnicity). Subject selection would have been too difficult if only
married men were eligible for the study or even men in current relationships since
many of these men have been separated for an extended period of time or divorced.
To facilitate recruitment, male batterers did not have to be married, but they did
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
87
have to meet the relationship criteria. Cahn (1996) indicates that different types of
family violence may be more interrelated than definitions imply. For example,
Cahn (1996) states that courtship violence is important because the origin of marital
violence in many cases may be traced to courtship patterns that are also abusive.
Due to the methodological constraints regarding the male batterer population, it
was believed that the above-mentioned criteria therefore were justified.
There were seven male batterer subjects recruited from domestic violence
programs who either did not show up for their scheduled appointments or who
could not be contacted. None of these men wanted to reschedule. Three male
batterers, who wanted to participate, did not meet the relationship eligibility
criteria. Therefore, there was a total of eleven male batterers who participated.
Those men who were not solicited from domestic violence treatment
programs consisted of a total of 19 men. These men were recruited in various ways:
1) 5.3% came from flyers distributed at a university in South Florida and the
community, 2) 36.8% were clinicians and mental health workers at a university in
South Florida, and 3) 57.9% were nonpatients referred by way of word of mouth.
In order to be eligible, subjects had to be: 1) English speaking, 2) over 18 years of
age, and 3) currently in a relationship or from a relationship that ended within the
past 3 months.
Demographic information is presented in Tables 5 for the entire sample.
Overall, subjects who participated were between 20-54 years old with a
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
88
Table 5
Demographic Breakdown of Stage III Sample
Percentages
Entire
Variable Sample
(n=30)
Ethnicity
White 76.7
Black 10
Hispanic 10
Asian/Pacific Island Native 3.3
Current Marital Status
Married 26.7
Separated 6.7
Divorced 10
Never Married 30
Living with Someone 16.7
Engaged 10
Conflict in Relationship 20
Referred to Treatment
for Conflict 16.7
Combined Yearly Income
$0-5K 6.7
$>5-10K 6.7
$>10-20K 10
$>20-35K 26.7
$>35-40K 6.7
$>40-50K 10
$>50K 30
Table 5 Continued
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
89
Percentages
Variable
Entire
Sample
(n=30)
Highest Completed Education
Partial High School 3.3
High School Graduate 26.7
Partial College 10
College Graduate 43.3
Graduate/Professional
Degree 16.7
Full-Time Occupation
Service Workers/
Manual Labor 6.7
Service Jobs 46.7
Management 20
Self-employed/
Business Owners 6.7
Students 16.7
Professionals 3.3
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
90
mean age of 32.13 (SD=8.11). Twenty seven men were in current relationships while
3 of the men had recently ended their relationship within the past 2 to 4 weeks. The
mean length of time in their current relationship was 46.87 months. Eight of the
men had also been separated or divorced from 10-168 months with a mean of 68.50
months (SD=61.84), and 62.5% of these men wanted the separation or divorce.
Forty percent of the men had between 1-4 children. The mean number of children
was 2.17. The mean combined yearly income was $49,915.52.
Procedure
Prior to the commencement of this stage, the procedures were piloted to
ensure that subjects could understand the task and what was required of them and
to get an estimate of how long it would take to complete. Once contacted by the
principal investigator and screened for eligibility, an appointment was made at
which time the subject was introduced to the principal investigator and research
assistant who were involved in these procedures. This sequence was followed
individually for each subject The principal investigator gave a standardized
introduction to the subject which is presented below:
“We’re attempting to understand men’s thoughts and feelings. The purpose
of the study is to find out how you react to some everyday situations that might
occur to you. The idea is for you to respond as if you were actually in that situation
at home, at work, at a restaurant, or wherever the situation might occur. I will
describe various situations that you might find yourself in with your wife, girlfriend,
or some other person in your life. When each situation is described to you, I want
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
9 1
you to really imagine that you are in that situation, and think of how you might feel
in the situation and what you might say if the situation were really happening to
you. When you have placed yourself in that situation, I want you to let me know
that you have done so (e.g., say you’re ready, raise your hand, however you choose).
I will then read the situation one more time. Then, to make these situations seem
more realistic, Reagan will play the part of the other person in the situation with
you. Reagan will say something to you and after she speaks, I want you to say what
you would normally say if she had said this to you in the situation that was
described. Now, I know that Reagan is not really your wife or girlfriend or whoever
is described in the situation. However, I would really like you to imagine yourself in
these situations as closely as possible and to imagine that Reagan really is that
person in these situations. Each of the situations that will be presented to you
represent instances which have actually occurred to a large number of men. There
is no right or wrong way of responding.
Some of the situations may be more difficult for you to respond in that they
might contain details which are not exactly relevant or appropriate to you. If this
happens, I would still like you to respond as if it were actually happening to you.
Do you have any questions so far?
The information that you provide will be combined with the information
from all the other participants in this project There are no right or wrong answers.
You may stop at any time or feel free not to answer any of the questions.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
92
It is important that you be aware that everything you tell us is confidential.
Your responses will be audiotaped and once typed out, your audiotape will be
erased. Your name will never appear anywhere on the tape. The information you
provide will only have code numbers on them and only the project experimenters
and directors will have access to your names. However, there are two exceptions to
this confidentiality rule. First, we are legally obligated to report if we receive
information from a participant that someone is in danger of seriously hurting
themselves or others in the future. Second, we are legally obligated to report any
physical injury to children or the elderly caused by other than accidental means.
We are also required to disclose information if required to do so by law. Do you
have any questions about this?
Generally, it is expected that it will take approximately 1 hour to complete
this task. As mentioned earlier, there are no right or wrong answers. Do you have
any questions so far about anything I have told you?”
At this point, informed consent was obtained. The principal investigator
read the informed consent (see Appendix A) form to subjects unless the subject
requested to read on his own. Then the principal investigator read the demographic
information form (see Appendix B) to all subjects unless the subject requested to
read on his own. Once completed, further instructions were given to each subject:
“Remember, I would like you to say what you would really say if you were
actually in the situation that will be described to you. I really want you to imagine
that Reagan is the person in the situation with you. Do you have any questions?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
93
We’ll start off with a practice situation so that you can see what the rest of the
procedure will be like.”
The RPT was then administered to the subject by the principal investigator
and the research assistant The research assistant acted as role-play partner for
each situation. She received 11 hours of training in these procedures as previously
described. The principal investigator served as narrator in the RPT. For six of the
subjects who were involved in another domestic violence treatment program,
assessments were conducted at that specific site. All other assessments were
conducted at a university in South Florida.
Chairs were arranged so that the research assistant and subject directly
faced each other at a distance of slightly over 3 feet to accommodate comfortably the
subject and role play partner. See Figure 1 for schematic of the room and position
of the players. The principal investigator read the situation once. The subjects was
instructed to visualize the situation. When that subject visualized that situation, he
cued the principal investigator that he was ready to hear the situation repeated.
This allowed the subject to place himself in the situations and be prepared for his
role in the RPT. The role-play partner provided predetermined prompts to
facilitate responses. All responses were audiotaped. Once completed, subjects were
debriefed to ensure that each subject experienced no anxiety or discomfort and to
see if subjects had any questions. No subject reported experiencing anxiety or
discomfort.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
94
Figure 1
Schematic of Role Play Room and Position of Players
A
B
D
C
A= Subject
B= Narrator
C= Role play partner
D= Table with audiorecorder on it
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
95
Results
The principal investigator transcribed the audiotaped responses verbatim.
The principal investigator deleted any duplicate responses (i.e., responses with the
exact same wording). As a result, each prompt for each situation had between 22-30
responses retained. These responses were then randomly ordered within each
prompt and problematic situation. The order of the problematic situations was
counterbalanced so that half the subjects in the next stage would start at the
beginning and the other half would start in the reverse order. The following
represents the responses to one of the 28 problematic situations and is the product of
this stage (please see the following pages for the complete example):
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Incompetent Slightly Neither Incompetent/
Incom petent Nor Competent
1 2 3
Slightly Competent
Competent
IXX. Y our kids don’t listen to you the first time you ask them to do something.
You don’t understand why they can’t listen. It upsets you when they don’t
listen to you. One day, your young son was trying to open the blinds. He
was making a mess of the blinds. Your wife came in and said something
which made you angry. You got more upset with your son. (Your wife
says:)
Prompt I: It's not the end o f the world that he messed up the blinds.
1) He just doesn't listen.
Why can't he listen to me? 2 )
3 )
4)
5)
6 )
7 )
Si
9)
10)
11)
I know but for crying out loud the kid doesn’t listen to one thing 1 say. I
mean..is it me? Is he doing it on purpose? Is this the curse of my parents?
I understand but for some reason they're just getting on my nerves today. I
think maybe I should just kind of back off and allow you to take over for a
little bit.
I paid good money for those blinds.
When he tears them all down, you can get a job and pay for them.
It’s just that I can’t understand. I try to explain it to him time and time
again. He doesn’t get it.
It’s not the blinds. It’s everybody around here doesn't listen. Everybody
wants to do what they want to do. Go ahead and do it. T hat doesn’t mean
th at everybody else is going to do what you want.
No it’s not.
Well, it cost me a lot of money ju st to get it.
No, but he’s too young. He needs to learn to leave things alone until he’s
capable of handling them.
12) I know that.
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
1 2 3 4
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Incompetent Slightly Neither Incompetent/ Slightly
Incompetent Nor Competent Competent
1 2 3 4
13) You know how much I’m going to pay to get those blinds fixed?
14) Weil, he's just annoying me.
15) I know I just seem to be getting frustrated with uh things that are going on
here.
16) T h at’s very true. It isn’t the end of the world, maybe I should show him
how to open blinds correctly.
17) No it's not the end of the world but I think we both spent quite a bit of
money on these blinds here and I guess he’s ju st not listening. Tell you what
if you want to take care of it then I'll just back up because I can tell he's
really frustrating me and perhaps we don't see eye to eye on the uh on the
seriousness of it so I’ll let you take care of this one.
18) I know that but he needs to learn to not destroy things.
19) Ch I know but it’s it’s every time he touches something here he breaks it.
20) I know but if he only listened to me..and tell me when he doesn't understand
w hat I’m saying, it would be a lot easier to do things.
21) Yeah but he needs to ju st learn how to do it by listening to w hat I tell him.
22) He doesn't listen when I tell him things, and then I get upset.
23) I'm ju st frustrated between you and him and nobody listens to me and
you’re going to ruin him.
24) I know it’s not the end of the world. It’s not about the blinds, it’s about him
listening to me and..respecting.
25) I know. He just never listens.
26) It’s not the point of him messing up the blinds, it’s the point of him listening
to me.
27) I keep telling him when you open the blinds you’ve got to it a certain way.
Competent :
12 3 4
12 3 4
12 3 4
12 3 4
12 3 4
12 3 4
12 3 4
12 3 4
12 3 4
12 3 4
12 3 4
12 3 4
12 3 4
12 3 4
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Incompetent Slightly Neither Incompetent/
Incom petent Nor Competent
I 2 3
Slightly Competent
Competent
4 5
Listen to you..listen to me when I say open the blinds the way I say open the
blinds. If you’re not going to do it my way you’re going to mess them up.
28) I know honey. It’s that I asked him not to touch it. I told him that I would
do it and he went ahead and did it himself.
29) I know. I need to control my anger.
30)
31)
C riteria used for Ratines:
I
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Incom petent Slightly Neither Incom petent/ Slightly
Incompetent Nor Com petent Competent
1 2 3 4
Prompt 2: You seem to be so hard on him all the time.
1) It’s not really him that I'm being hard on it’s ju s t, you said something that
upset me and I guess I take it out on him.
2) It’s not easy.
3) I’m being harder on him than I am on myself.
4) I’m not hard on him. I ju st told him..listen to me if I say do it the way I say
it then you do it the way I said.
5) Well, I don’t think that I am but...but that may be true I don’t know. I have
to think about that.
6) It's not that I'm hard on him. I want him to learn and be able to do things
for himself and when someone tells him to do som ething I w ant him to be
able to do it.
7) You gotta be hard on the kids a little bit if not they grow up to be meaner
than they normally are.
8) It’s ju st the way I am.
91 Well he’s old enough to listen. He has ears. He can hear what I’m saying
and he doesn't pay attention and it’s very frustrating.
10) It's not hard..uhm he’s not..I know he's not taking his medication like he
should.
11) I’m teaching the boy some discipline.
12) And you d o n't seem to discipline him at all.
13) Well I’m not hard on him, but I just feel that he should take care of his
things so I’ll let you give the motherly approach to him so I’ll let it go. I'll
let you handle this here.
14) I ju st feel frustrated sometimes.
Competent
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Incompetent Slightly Neither Incompetent/
Incom petent Nor Competent
1 2 3
15) Well I don’t m ean to be hard on him. It it seems that way.
be told more often.
16) It's called tough love. You be hard now and you’ll reap the rew ards later.
17) It may be but it’s a h ard life out there. He needs-.it would be good for him
to understand that sometimes at his age it needs to be repeated even though
he seems a little dense.
18) He needs to pay attention to what he’s doing.
19) He finds it h ard to understand simple things and doesn't do w hat I ask him.
20) No he just needs to start listening and doing what he’s told.
21) (Wife’s name), the kid does not listen to a word that I say. I mean tell me
something else th at I should do. Please teach me.
22) I don’t mean to be hard on him but he needs to know right from wrong.
23) Hmm-I get frustrated. I’m trying.
24) W elLmavbe I’m ju st quick-tem pered and irritated at times but I'd like to
change that m aybe I can speak to somebody and try to find a better way to
deal with this.
25) All I’m trying to do is teach him to listen to me. When I tell him to do
something or if I tell him not to do something then he should listen to me.
26) Life is hard. I'm not going to be around here tomorrow, w hat’s he going to
do?
27) I think you need to m onitor things a little more so I don’t have to be.
28) Well I’m having trouble understanding why he’s not behaving the way I’d
like him to uh maybe we can talk about that.
29) I w ant to make him a better child.
Slightly Competent
Competent
4 5
M aybe I need to
130
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Competent
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2
3
4
Incompetent Slightly Neither Incompetent/ Slightly
Incom petent Nor Competent Competent
1 2 3 4
30) No it’s for his own good. He needs to learn.
31)
32)
Criteria used for Ratings:
1
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
10 2
Discussion
The goal of this stage was to obtain a sample of responses to each of the 28
problematic situations presented to participants in a RPT form at These obtained
responses appeared to represent a range of responses. Duplicate items (i.e., exact
same wording) were deleted. However, items that appeared to have similar meaning
or content were retained so that the principal investigator’s own judgment process
would not bias or impact the objectivity in developing this instrument. In other
words, certain responses appeared similar but that imposed the principal
investigator’s judgment and interpretation of the responses. These responses were
transcribed verbatim in order for professionals working with a domestic violence
population to be able to evaluate the social competence of these responses in the
Response Evaluation stage (Stage IV).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
103
CHAPTER 6
METHOD
Subjects
The purpose of this stage was to determine the degree of competence of each
of the responses in terms of its likely effects or consequences. Nine subjects (i.e.,
raters), including graduate students at a university in South Florida who have
expertise working with male batterers in addition to professionals in the Held of
domestic violence from the community, who were not involved in previous aspects of
this study, participated. Eligibility criteria required subjects to be English speaking
and to have experience working with male batterers. Raters were recruited via
telephone contact.
With respect to subject recruitment, the directors of four community-based
domestic violence programs declined participation for themselves and their staff.
Out of nineteen individual professionals and graduate students, who specialize in
working with male batterers, eleven agreed to participate. Two withdrew due to
time constraints. Thus, there was a total of nine raters. Demographic data are
presented in Table 6.
The mean age of raters was 32.33 years (SD =7.70) with a range of 25 to 47
years of age. Of those working for pay, the mean combined yearly income was
$55,366.67 (SD=26,819.52). Of the seven subjects who were or had been in a
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 0 4
Table 6
Demographic Breakdown of Stage IV Sample
Percentages
Entire
Variable Sample
(n=9)
Ethnicity
White 77.8
Hispanic 22.2
Gender
Females 88.9
Males 11.1
Current Marital Status
Married 88.9
Separated 11.1
Living with Someone 22.2
Never Married 33.3
Combined Yearly Income
$0-5K 22.2
$>5-10K 11.1
$>10-20K 0
$>20-35K 22.2
$>35-40K 0
$>40-50K 11.1
$>50K 33.3
Full-Time Occupation
Professional 55.6
Student 33.3
Mother 11.1
Table 6 Continued
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
105
Percentages
Entire
Variable Sample
(n=9)
Professional Status
Licensed Professional 33.3
Graduate Student 33.3
Other (e.g., almost licensed) 33.3
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 0 6
relationship, the mean length of time in the relationship was 84 months (SD=82.92)
with a range of 7 to 240 months. Two subjects were not in a current relationship.
The mean length of time that these subjects have been in practice or seeing clients
has been 84 months (SD=84.64). Four of the subjects had professional licenses. Of
these subjects, they were in practice or had seen clients for a mean of 162 months
(SD=66.09) with a range of 96 to 240 months. More specifically, subjects have been
seeing male batterers for a mean of 51.33 months (SD=46.97) with a range of 12-120
months. Of the four subjects having children, they have between 1-2 children.
Procedures
Prior to the commencement of this stage, the procedures were piloted to
ensure that subjects could understand the task and what was required of them and
to get an estimate of how long it would take to complete. Individual appointments
were scheduled for all subjects. At the appointment, the experimenter introduced
herself and then a standardized verbal introduction was given, which is presented
below:
“We are attempting to understand men’s thoughts and feelings. A number
of problematic interpersonal (social) situations were obtained from a previous stage
of this project For each of these situations, a number of potential courses of action
have also been identified. Your role will be to evaluate the social competency of
these responses on a 5 point rating scale using your own subjective criteria of what
competent responding is. 1 would also like you to write out the specific criteria you
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 0 7
used to determine what is a competent to incompetent response. I will go into more
detail about these shortly.
The information that you provide will be combined with the information
from all the other participants in this project There are no right or wrong answers.
You may stop at any time or feel free not to answer any of the questions.
It is important that you be aware that everything you tell me is confidential.
The information you provide will only have code numbers on them and only I will
have access to your name. However, there are two exceptions to this confidentiality
rule. First, I am legally obligated to report if I receive information from a
participant that someone is in danger of seriously hurting himself or others in the
future. Second, I am legally obligated to report any physical injury to children or
the elderly caused by other than accidental means. I am also required to disclose
information if required to do so by law. Do you have any questions about this?
Generally, it is expected that it will take about 4-6 hours to complete this
task, and you may take it home or to work or wherever you so choose to do it at
your own leisure. As mentioned earlier, there are no right or wrong answers. Do
you have any questions so far about anything I have told you? Should you later
have any questions, please call me at the number listed on the consent form and the
instruction sheet I will give you to take home with you. Once completed, please call
me at that number so that I may pick up the materials.”
At this point, informed consent was obtained (see Appendix A). Then, a
demographic information form (see Appendix B) was completed by subjects.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
108
Following completion of the demographic information form, further verbal
instructions were given to subjects:
“Now I will give you more specific instructions. In terms of what I mean by
competent responding, this is how “competence” will be defined: The effectiveness
or adequacy with which an individual is capable of responding to the various
problematic situations which confront him. This would tend to increase or
maximize positive consequences and reduce or minimize negative consequences as
best as possible given the situation. I recognize that depending upon the personal
style of the individual, the most competent response for one person may not
necessarily be the most competent response for another. These individual
differences will be taken into account at a later phase of this study. Right now, I am
interested in your own personal opinion regarding the general competence of the
various responses presented. Do you have any questions?
I will give you a packet to take home with you (take packet out and show as
you give instructions). On top of each of the following pages, a problematic
situation is described. I have highlighted the situation in yellow. After the
description of the situation, there is a prompt line highlighted in pink followed by
responses to this prompt and situation. Then, there is another prompt again
highlighted in pink followed by responses to that prompt and situation. In other
words, following the situation and prompts there is a list of responses that are
alternative ways of handling this situation. I would first like you to read all of these
responses. Then, because it is likely that additional ways of acting in a given
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
109
situation (competent or incompetent) may occur to you, I have provided space
toward the bottom of each page for you to indicate these other potential responses.
Thus, after you have read through all the responses provided, I would like you to
write in any additional responses in handling the situation. Finally, I would like you
to go back and, from your own personal point of view, rate how competent you
think each of these responses are. The following 5-point rating scale is to be used in
judging how competent each response is to the particular situation:
Incompetent Slightly Neither Incompetent/ Slightly Competent
Competent Nor Competent Competent
1 2 3 4 5
Depending on the extent to which the problematic (interpersonal) situation is
resolved, with consequences that are more likely to be positive than negative, the
possible alternatives in any situation will vary as to effectiveness. An ‘incompetent
rating” (rating of “1") should be applied to the more inadequate responses to the
particular situation. An “extremely competent” rating (rating of “5”) refers to
those responses which, considering the constraints of the situation, represent the
best possible ways of responding. Thus, each situation should have responses
representing both extremes of competence. I have tried to provide responses which
represent the full range of possible responses in each situation. However, if you do
not judge any of the responses provided to be “competent” (rating of “5") or
“incompetent” (rating of “1"), I would hope that you would be able to add
responses which you feel would fall into these extreme categories.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
110
To indicate your estimate of the competence of each response, please circle
the appropriate number on the rating scale. When you have completed each of the
ratings for each problematic (interpersonal) situation, I want you to be as specific as
possible regarding what criteria you used to make your ratings, that is what made a
response extremely competent to incompetent, namely what makes a response a
rating of 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 , or 5.
To summarize, for each situation, you are to: 1) read the situation and all the
responses provided, 2) write in any additional alternative responses, 3) rate each
response as to its competence, and 4) write out your specific criteria used for a
rating of 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 , and 5. Do you have any questions?” Raters worked
independently at their own pace at home or at work. Participants were given
transcripts of the audiotaped responses (presented under Stage III). The responses
to each problematic situation were randomly arranged to control for order effects.
Additionally, order of item presentation was randomized across raters. When
completed, participants called the principal investigator to arrange for the materials
to be picked up.
Subjects rated each of the responses to each item on a five point competency
rating scale (l=incompetent; 5=competent). Raters were asked to write down the
criteria, as explicitly as possible, they used in evaluating the responses to each
problematic situation. This information was used to construct a rater's manual.
Items were retained if they met the criteria of 1) a 75% or higher interjudge
agreement in the competence classification of each response, 2) 10% or more of the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
I l l
responses to the item would be judged to be incompetent (rating of “1" or “2") by at
least 75% of the raters, and 3) 10% or more of the responses to the item would be
judged to be competent (rating of “4" or “5") by at least 75% of the raters
(Goldfried & D’Zurilla, 1969; Freedman et al., 1978). An example of a problematic
situation, prompts, and responses was previously detailed in the previous chapter.
Results
The purpose of this stage was to determine the degree of competence of each
of the responses to each problematic situation in terms of its likely effects or
consequences. Although there were nine total raters, not all were able to complete
the ratings for the 28 problematic situations due to time constraints. Seven subjects
rated the first 13 problems while eight subjects rated problems 15-28. Problem 14
was rated by all nine participants. Six subjects wrote out the specific criteria they
used to rate the situations.
Problematic situations were retained if there was consensus regarding the
responses that were rated as more or less competent. If wide disagreement among
the raters occurred as to the degree of competence to any given situation, this
problematic situation was eliminated. The criteria for retention were: 1) a 75% or
higher interjudge agreement in the competence classification of each response to the
problematic situation, 2) 10% or more of the responses to the item were judged to be
incompetent (i.e., a rating of “1" or “2") by at least 75% of the raters, and 3) 10%
or more of the responses to the item were judged to be competent (i.e., a rating of
“4" or “5") by at least 75% of the raters (Goldfried & D’Zurilla, 1969; Freedman et
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 1 2
al., 1978). Each prompt for each problematic situation had to meet these criteria for
the problematic situation to be retained. The ratings of “1” and “2" (i.e., slightly
incompetent and incompetent ratings) were collapsed to form the incompetent range
while ratings of “4" and “5" (i.e., the slightly competent and competent ratings)
were collapsed to form the competent range (Goldfried & D’Zurilla, 1969). Table 7
summarizes the rate of responses meeting criteria for each problematic situation.
As seen in Table 7, nine situations were retained. Table 8 summarizes the retained
situations. These problematic situations reflect themes related to tension and anger
(situations #: 2 and 4), parenting/child rearing (situations #: 6 and 9), sex (situation
# 7), jealousy (situation # 8), communication (situation #1), quality time together
(situation # 5), and physical violence/intimidation (situation # 3). Every situation
involved a problem with the partner, that is, it was spouse-specific. Of these nine
situations, 6 were initially generated by clinicians, 2 were obtained from male
batterers, and 1 was given by a victim (i.e., from the first stage of this project).
Discussion
The purpose of this stage was to evaluate the competency of the responses
generated to the problematic situations during the RPT. Of the 28 situations
initially presented, nine were retained based on the retention criteria. There was
disagreement among the raters about which specific behaviors are competent for
this heterogeneous group. Additionally, raters may not have been in agreement
regarding a “4" being slightly competent versus a “5" being competent. There was
some variability regarding this degree of competence. Consequently, rating scales
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 1 3
Table 7
Rates of Responses Meeting Criteria for Each Problematic Situation
Situation
Number of
Situations with
75% Interjudge
Agreement to
Classification
Criteria
10% Incompetence
ResDonses?
10% Competence
Responses?
la 9 Yes (8) No (1)
lb* 15 Yes (11) Yes (4)
2a 13 Yes (11) No (2)
2b 12 Yes (12) No (0)
3a* 12 Yes (3) Yes (9)
3b* 10 Yes (4) Yes (4)
4a* 16 Yes (12) Yes (4)
4b* 18 Yes (13) Yes (5)
5a* 16 Yes (12) Yes (3)
5b 14 Yes (9) No (2)
6a* 8 Yes (4) Yes (4)
6b 9 Yes (9) No (0)
7a 8 Yes (7) No (0)
7b 12 Yes (11) No (1)
8a* 12 Yes (4) Yes (5)
8b 7 Yes (5) No (1)
9a 4 No (2) No (2)
9b* 12 Yes (6) Yes (5)
10a 17 Yes (16) No (1)
10b 8 No (1) Yes (6)
* denotes meeting criteria
Table 7 Continued
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 1 4
Situation
Number of
Situations with
75% Interjudge
Agreement to
Classification
Criteria
10% Incompetence
Resnonses?
10% Competence
Resnonses?
11a 12 Yes (9) No(l)
lib * 11 Yes (7) Yes (4)
12a* 20 Yes (15) Yes (5)
12b* 12 Yes (9) Yes (3)
13a 14 Yes (13) No(l)
13b 13 Yes (11) No (1)
14a* 15 Yes (11) Yes (4)
14b* 13 Yes (7) Yes (6)
15a* 16 Yes (8) Yes (8)
15b 16 Yes (13) No (2)
16a 22 Yes (22) No (0)
16b 19 Yes (18) No (1)
17a 10 Yes (8) No (1)
17b 15 Yes (8) No (2)
18a* 6 Yes (3) Yes (3)
18b* 13 Yes (6) Yes (6)
19a* 18 Yes (8) Yes (9)
19b* 18 Yes (12) Yes (5)
20a* 8 Yes (4) Yes (3)
20b 10 No (1) Yes (8)
21a 11 Yes (8) No (1)
21b 10 Yes (8) No (2)
* denotes meeting criteria
Table 7 Continued
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 1 5
Situation
Number of
Situations with
75% Interjudge
Agreement to
Classification
Criteria
10% Incompetence
Resnonses?
10% Competence
ResDonses?
22a* 6 Yes (3) Yes (3)
22b* 14 Yes (7) Yes (7)
23a 5 Yes (4) No (I)
23b* 12 Yes (7) Yes (5)
24a* 13 Yes (10) Yes (3)
24b 10 Yes (8) No (2)
25a* 19 Yes (16) Yes (3)
25b* 16 Yes (13) Yes (3)
26a* 13 Yes (6) Yes (7)
26b* 20 Yes (13) Yes (7)
27a 17 Yes (14) No (2)
27b 13 Yes (11) No (0)
28a* 9 Yes (5) Yes (4)
28b 6 Yes (5) No (1)
* denotes meeting criteria
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 1 6
Table 8
Summary Abstract of Nine Problem Situations
1. You come home from work after getting into a fight with your brother. You
do not want to discuss it with your wife and she thinks you are upset with
her.
2. You argue frequently and your wife thinks you just go off on things with her
for no reason.
3. You come home from work angry and your wife locks herself in the room
fearful you may threaten or physically hurt her.
4. You’re in a bad mood after work and you think your wife has misplaced
something of yours.
5. You’re watching football with your friends at home and your wife is
irritating you because she persists at trying to get your attention.
6. Your kids don’t listen to you the first time you ask them to do something and
now your son is messing up the blinds. Your wife thinks you’re hard on him.
7. Your wife is not interested in sex as she used to be and you talk to her about
it.
8. Your wife is not coming home when expected and you confront her about it.
9. You and your wife argue over how to discipline the children.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
117
were collapsed (i.e., competent and slightly competent were collapsed; incompetent
and slightly incompetent were combined) to achieve more consensus. In other
words, raters may identify an incompetent to competent response but vary in the
degree of how incompetent or how competent that response is. The important point,
however, is that among the raters, there is consensus that “4" and “5" represent
competent responses and “1" and “2" incompetent responses.
Additionally, a majority of the responses to these situations did not
demonstrate a consensus on the Neither Incompetent/Nor Competent (i.e., “3")
classification. This makes sense in that some of these situations are clearly black and
white issues with little room for an intermediate response. In other words, many of
these situations call for a judgment made regarding what is effective responding and
this implies an absolute, dichotomous response. Anglin and Holtzworth-Munroe
(1997) used a 4-point rating scale (competent, slightly competent, slightly
incompetent, incompetent) probably to account for the lack of responses rated as
Neither Incompetent/Nor Competent
Moreover, of the situations that were rated by seven judges, a 75%
agreement rate really meant that for those situations, 6/7 raters (i.e., actually 85%)
had to agree on a classification category since the agreement rate for 5/7 raters
represented only slightly over 71%. In other words, there was minimal room for
disagreement among the seven raters. This smaller sample size may have precluded
more situations from being included within the manual. However, those situations
which were retained are considered valid. These situations are not redundant with
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
11 8
respect to theme and reflect a wide variety of topics that are problematic. These
nine situations represent examples of the major themes obtained during the data
analysis of the Situational Analysis stage (Stage IB). These themes include issues
related to child rearing, anger and tension, physical violence/intimidation, sex,
quality time together, communication, and jealousy. Three themes from the
Situational Analysis stage (Stage IB) were eliminated in this stage. They include
nagging, alcohol, and issues relating to friends.
The themes reflected in the retained items (e.g., jealousy, anger and tension)
support previous findings in the literature of issues affecting male batterers (Dutton
& Browning, 1988; Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991; Anglin & Holtzworth-
Munroe, 1997; Bernard & Bernard, 1984; Maiuro et al., 1988). The physical
violence/intimidation theme appears specific to the identified male batterers.
Additionally, other themes such as communication, child rearing, quality time
together, and sexual problems are conflictual topics for couples in general, and are
not necessarily specific to male batterers. An important point for all of these
situations is that they are spouse-specific (i.e., involve marital/partner situations).
The present study’s results are contrary to those obtained from Anglin and
Holtzworth-Munroe (1997). They found that physically violent men had social skill
deficits in marital and nonmarital situations. However, these physically violent men
had particular difficulties with marital situations, which is not completely divergent
from the current study’s findings. For both the Holtzworth-Munroe and Anglin
(1991) and Anglin and Holtzworth-Munroe (1997) studies, situations were originally
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 1 9
developed in pilot work from the former study. The Anglin and Holtzworth-
Munroe (1997) results were based upon a modified version of the Goldfried and
D’Zurilla (1969) model, which may have allowed more situations to be retained with
various themes and situations. Their situations were not as stringently developed as
in the present study.
The final product in the present study included 9 situations. The next stage,
Construction of the Inventory and Rater’s Manual, abstracted the specific criteria
judges used for incompetent and competent responses and provided examples of
each to form the rater’s manual. This represents the last stage in the Goldfried and
D’Zurilla’s (1969) behavior-analytic model.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 2 0
CHAPTER 7
Construction of the Inventory and Rater's Manual (Stage V)
METHOD
Procedure
The final nine items which met the criteria in the Response Evaluation stage
(Stage IV) were further examined and edited or modified as needed to deter any
ambiguities and to ensure the ready comprehension of subjects. The rater's manual
(see Appendix C) details explicit criteria for rating subjects' overall competent
responses to each of the items based upon the judges' rating from the previous stage.
Sample responses which represent different levels of social competence are included
in the manual.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
12 1
CHAPTER 8
OVERALL DISCUSSION
The present study was designed to develop a social competence instrument
for male batterers. Several steps were used to identify problematic situations
relevant to male batterers. These steps were adapted from the behavioral*analytic
model of Goldfried & D’Zurilla (1969) which represents a rigorous, empirically
defined approach to evaluating competence.
Summary
In summary, 137 unique problematic situations were initially obtained from
male batterers, victims of domestic violence, and professionals working with a
domestic violence population. Another group of professionals evaluated these
problematic situations in terms of their frequency (i.e., how common) and difficulty.
These rankings were used to select a smaller item pool. These 28 items were then
administered to identified male batterers, and university and community men using
the RPT. Next, responses of these men were rated by another group of professionals
working with a domestic violence population. From their ratings, a final version of
nine situations was retained. Socially competent and incompetent responses to each
of these nine situations were enumerated in a manual. The manual also includes the
judges’ specific criteria used in making such ratings.
The final product was a nine item instrument reflecting a variety of themes
which were all specific to the partner (i.e., marital/partner situations). Our findings
are in contrast to the only study to date that has examined competency of responses
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
12 2
to problematic marital and nonmarital situations in comparing maritally violent
and nonviolent spouses. Anglin and Holtzworth-Munroe (1997) found that violent
spouses provided less competent responses than nonviolent control groups for both
marital and nonmarital situations, and that violent-distressed spouses had
particular difficulty with marital situations. The current study utilized more
stringent criteria of situation retention compared to the Anglin and Holtzworth-
Munroe (1997) study and may account for differences in the number and type of
situations retained.
Additionally, a number of themes were retained in the current study. Such
themes include jealousy, anger and tension, physical violence/intimidation, child
rearing, sexual issues, communication, and quality time together. The items
included in our instrument are thought to adequately reflect the social problems
encountered by male batterers as the methodology used ensured that these identified
problematic situations were socially valid. Some of these themes have been
extensively discussed in the literature as issues affecting male batterers (e.g.,
jealousy, anger and tension, physical violence/intimidation; Dutton & Browning,
Dutton & Strachan, 1987; Bernard & Bernard, 1984; Eckhardt et al., 1998).
Additionally, child rearing, sex, communication, and quality time together are
themes that are not necessarily specific to the male batterer. These are issues often
experienced by couples in general. Although not directly evaluated in the current
study, it may be that male batterers handle such conflictual situations differently
than their nonviolent counterparts since physically violent men use fewer
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
123
negotiating, reasoning, and problem solving approaches to conflict (Holtzworth-
Munroe, 1992; Jasinski & Williams, 1998).
Limitations
There are numerous strengths to this project with respect to methodological
criticisms of previous research as exemplified by its empirical nature using the
Goldfried and D’Zurilla (1969) behavior-analytic model, the improved methodology
to increase external validity in the development of the RPT, the minimization of
social desirability cues, and the potential use of observational data instead of self-
report to assess social competence. There are some limitations as well. First, the
sample sizes were small in each of the stages. Male batterers represent a highly
resistant population so to recruit volunteers was a challenging process.
Additionally, many professional agencies working with this population and a
number of individual therapists working with male batterers refused to participate
so the number of clinicians was small as well. Although many studies in this type of
research use small sample sizes, the small sample size (i.e., a range of 7-9 subjects) in
the Response Evaluation stage (Stage IV) may have prevented more situations from
being retained. However, due to subject participation constraints beyond the
control of the principal investigator, there were no other choices. Additionally,
having more subjects in the first stage (i.e., Situational Analysis) may have
generated a larger pool of problem situations which may have allowed more
situations in the later stages to be retained. Second, participants in the male
batterer group were mostly court-ordered. Therefore, the resulting manual may not
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 2 4
be applicable to male batterers in the community who are not court-ordered to a
treatment program. The literature indicates that there may be differences
regarding subgroups of male batterers (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997). Third, in-
home videotaping of partner interactions would have been a valuable component of
these procedures in the study; however, the cost and manpower required to
accomplish this task was beyond the scope of this project. The responses of men in
the RPT may not necessarily be reflective of their responses in their home
environment although that seems unlikely based upon the responses obtained. If the
men wanted to appear favorable to the researchers, many of their responses would
have been tailored more positively. The current approach may complement the use
of such in-home observational data by providing convergent validity in actual
clinical use.
Clinical Implications and Conclusions
The nine problematic situations, which already have been identified to have a
high degree of frequency and difficulty for the male batterer, provide a framework
for designing interventions to teach the skills required to competently interact in
these situations. Applying skills training procedures with this population requires
that a specific set of skills be identified and then taught to these men, using
situations that are personally relevant to them (Edleson, 1984).
The basis of this process of using personally relevant situations is to identify
problematic situations for the male batterer which help to identify the specific
deficits at which point we can intervene. At the very least, this instrument can easily
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 2 5
provide topics for discussion or role play during treatm ent Male batterers can
discuss alternative courses of action in responding to each of these situations, and
discuss the positive and negative consequences of these responses. Then, these
situations can be role played as in typical social skills training programs where the
appropriate behavior is modeled and where the client rehearses and practices the
new behavior and is given corrective feedback by the group and group facilitators in
addition to reinforcement for such behavior. Alternatively, subjects may respond
prior to treatment to all items in the manual, and then again following treatment to
see if there is any change along the competence continuum for improved social
performance.
Although a new assessment instrument was developed, future research will
need to validate i t Future researchers need to compare matched groups of male
batterers and nonbatterers to see if this social competence instrument differentiates
these groups. Such a finding would be expected since the literature reflects male
batterer’s manifesting few constructive communication, social, negotiation, problem
solving, and argumentation skills (Holtzworth-Munroe, 1992; Holtzworth-Munroe
& Anglin, 1991; Jasinski & Williams, 1998; Margolin et al., 1989) in addition to
their misinterpretation of their partner’s behaviors (Goldstein & Rosenbaum, 1985;
Holtzworth-Munroe & Smutzler, 1996). Additionally, control groups need to
include a satisfactorilly married nonviolent group and a discordant nonviolent
group as research indicates that maritally violent men have higher levels of marital
distress than nonviolent husbands (Rosenbaum & O’Leary, 1981).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 2 6
Future research needs to match male batterers and nonbatterers to examine
behaviors associated with verbal and nonverbal components of social skill (e.g.,
content, hostile tone, request for new behavior, praise, physical gestures, smiles,
direction of gaze) during videotaped RPT performance in addition to the responses
generated in the RPT. Differences among groups will provide discriminant validity
of this new instrument
However, the first step to do this work or to evaluate treatment outcome is to
identify the interpersonal situations with which male batterers have difficulty. This
was the goal in the present study.
As in most of the literature, social skills are not always carefully defined.
Social skill deficit is a complex process, involving difficulties with specific abilities
enabling a person to perform competently at particular social tasks (McFall, 1982).
It involves the way in which we communicate socially. It includes many components
such as expressive elements like speech content, paralinguistic elements (e.g., voice
volume, pitch, tone), nonverbal behaviors (e.g., facial expression, gaze); receptive
elements (i.e., social perception) like attention and decoding; and interactive balance
like response timing and turn taking (Morrison, 1990). Yet, it also includes affect,
cognitions (e.g., perception, attributions, decision-making), motivation, and motoric
responses. All these processes interact with each other and are integrated into the
person’s overall behavior. We then judge this behavior as competent or n o t A
deficit can occur anywhere in the process.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 2 7
The potential long term utility of this instrument is to evaluate treatment
outcome and to monitor treatment progress of male batterers who have social skill
deficits. We hope to accomplish this using McFall’s (1982) social information
processing model, for it may help identify where the specific deficits occur in male
batterer’s social functioning, which can then be targeted in intervention programs.
For example, when we encounter a social situation, the first step is that we
receive, perceive, and interpret the social stimuli. Is it that male batterers have
decoding difficulties? Do they interpret these interpersonal situations differently
than other men? Are their interpretations of their partner’s behavior different than
nonbatterers interpretations? Thus, a perceptual attributional bias may be
evidenced at this stage in that the reception, interpretation, and intent of behavior
are registered from the incoming social stimuli, and male batterers may judge their
partner’s behavior as being negative and hostile with respect to intention and
attribution (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe & Hutchinson, 1993; Eckhardt et al., 1998).
The work of Holtzworth-Munroe and her colleagues have provided some evidence
to suggest that male batterers do interpret their partner’s intentions as more
negative for both aggressive and neutral situations (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe &
Hutchinson, 1993). Additionally, the ATSS work of Eckhardt, Barbour, and
Davison (1998) also found evidence that maritally violent men have more cognitive
distortions and deficits, and articulated more hostile attributional biases than the
nonviolent control groups. The therapeutic implication for this stage would be to
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 2 8
help the client to consider all alternative interpretations before he jumps to the
wrong conclusion.
After decoding social stimuli, we make decisions as to how to respond to
social situations (McFall, 1982). We search for possible responses based upon the
demands of the situation. Are male batterers capable of generating alternative
responses? Are they aware of the best response in a situation even if they do not
choose that response themselves? Do male batterers generate less competent
responses that nonbatterers? Some evidence suggests that maritally violent men
generate less competent responses than nonviolent men (Holtzworth-Munroe &
Anglin, 1991; Eckhardt et al., 1998). However, these studies did not design their
situations to involve an actual husband-wife interaction or role play of such an
interaction as the current study does. The therapeutic implication would be to teach
male batterers to generate alternative solutions and to examine the positive and
negative consequences to each of the selected behaviors.
Finally, after deciding how to respond to social stimuli, we execute the
selected response into action and monitor its impact (McFall, 1982). A performance
deficit may be evidenced in the encoding stage in that it is here that the selected
behavior is put into action and if the male batterer cannot execute the desired
behavior, it may result in a performance deficit in his inability to carry out the
desired behavior. Do male batterers respond and act in socially incompetent ways
compared to nonviolent groups? Are they aware of the impact of their behavior on
others? Data suggest that in a role play situation, physically violent men displayed
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 2 9
significantly more speech disturbances (e.g., pauses, stutters) than control groups
(Morrison et al., 1987). The situations in that study were not specifically developed
for the male batterer nor were they specifically relationship problems. It might be
expected that relationship problems would yield more significant results. The
problems retained in the current study are all relationship issues. The therapeutic
implication would be to have male batterers and nonbatterer control groups engage
in some specified competent behavior (e.g., share feelings of vulnerability) and
examine how they enact such a task. Additionally, to examine the self-monitoring
component, the male batterer could be asked to interpret the impact of his behavior
on his partner, and this interpretation could be compared to the actual impact as
reported by his partner. The RPT of social competence along with the rater’s
manual developed in our study has the potential application to examine this step in
McFall’s (1982) model along with the other steps of McFall’s model to address
specific deficits. We can examine each step in this model by holding the other stages
constant to identify where deficits occur.
Holtzworth-Munroe and her colleagues (e.g., Anglin & Holtzworth-Munroe,
1997), and Eckhardt and Barbour and their colleagues (e.g., Eckhardt et al., 1998)
have begun using McFall’s (1982) model to attempt to identify where specific
deficits occur for the male batterer. Using different methodologies, whether
naturalistic observation, self-report data, ATSS, or RPT, and obtaining similar
results would provide convergent validity with respect to identifying social skill
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
13 0
deficits in the male batterer population and help provide a forum on which to
develop or improve existing social skills training programs.
If we want to intervene effectively with male batterers, the first step is to
identify the problematic situations for male batterers, following which we must
identify the specific deficits for male batterers. Identifying these deficits allow skills
training programs to target the specific behavior needing modification for that
particular client, and helps in treatment planning for the client. A profile of skill
deficits could be obtained by measuring proficiencies at each step in McFall’s (1982)
model. Skill deficits could then be identified and targeted for treatment that is
tailored to the specific deficits (McDonei, 1995). With this more systematic and
detailed analysis of the underlying skill deficits, treatment programs could be
designed to be more focused and efficiently applied (McDonei, 1995).
Our newly developed instrument has the potential to examine points where
deficits may occur. Through the use of this RPT in social skills training, it is hoped
that if deficits do occur, that these programs may help to individualize treatment
planning for the male batterer and to help teach alternative behaviors to increase
competent responding to resolve conflictual situations.
However, an important point that needs to be considered in future research
is that male batterers are a heterogeneous group. As a consequence, many
researchers are starting to examine typologies among male batterers because of this
heterogeneity (e.g., Gondolf, 1988; Hamberger & Hastings, 1986). It may be that
not all male batterers suffer from the same degree of social skill deficits.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 3 1
Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) suggest that based upon previous studies in
the literature, there are three types of male batterers: family only,
dysphoric/borderline, and generally violent These researchers expect that the
social skill deficits of the family only male batterer group are primarily restricted to
marital situations; the skill deficits of the dysphoric/borderline would be most
evident in marital situations; and the skill deficits of the generally violent group
would be in both marital and nonmarital situations. This is a new area with few
studies that have investigated these issues; however, skill deficits may not be the
same across subgroups of male batterers.
Additionally, when examining social skill deficits, the role of motivation may
play a role. Perhaps extraneous factors may play a part in impacting motivation
and thus improving social competence, at least temporarily, since the consequences
are significant as with fighting over custody of children, reward of money, or social
prestige. In this study, there were no extrinsic factors which effected participant's
motivation. However, other studies which manipulate motivational factors may find
that male batterers may be able to reach a criterion of social competence if the
reward is intrinsically and extrinsically valuable (e.g., being awarded custody of
children). Some who work with male batterers have noted that they may appear
socially competent with the proper inducements or motivation and that under less
optimal conditions for motivation, male batterers may appear less competent
Moreover, social skills do not exist in a vacuum. They may interact with
other vulnerability factors or mechanisms such as stress, substance/alcohol abuse,
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
132
and/or personality disorders. For example, when a person is under a lot of stress
and has limited resources, he may not be as capable at dealing with or handling
other problems arising. Frustration and anger may arise and result in inadequate
means to resolve interpersonal problems. As a result, the person may be labeled as
socially incompetent Similarly for comorbid diagnoses, when a person is under the
influence of alcohol or substances, he has less judgment and inhibitions so that there
may be more impulsive behavior and use of less constructive problem solving means
which may result in the use of violence to solve interpersonal problems. Again, he
may be labeled as socially unskilled. In other words, such factors may inhibit the
rational cognitive processing, resulting in skills deficits (Holtworth-Munroe, 1991).
Such men should be helped in therapy to control the conditions which interfere with
cognitive processing (e.g., substance abuse programs).
Male batterer group treatment programs are among the most widely used
forum for treatment modality. A treatment package is given to all the men
irrespective of whether or not they have deficits in any particular area.
Additionally, there may be subgroups of male batterers who may benefit from
different treatment programs. We may need better matching of treatment
components and the individuals to whom they are prescribed.
The field of Aptitude Treatment Interaction (ATI) attempts to assess the
degree to which alternative treatments have different effects as a function of person
characteristics and thus determine whether particular treatments can be chosen or
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
133
adapted to fit particular persons optimally (Snow, 1991). It is designed to take
individual differences into account systematically in treatment evaluation (Snow,
1991). Basically, it is directed toward identifying client variables that predict
differential treatment responsiveness (Dance & Neufeld, 1988). Patient, therapy,
and therapist variables are examined to see the interaction effects among these
variables to determine what therapy might be best for whom. This is a very difficult
and complex undertaking endeavor with a lot of methodological problems (Dance &
Neufeld, 1988; Beutler, 1991), but if researchers were to evaluate this issue, it might
better help us better treat male batterers or subgroups of male batterers as the
effectiveness of intervention programs may be different for such subgroup
typologies. If we want to maximize our treatment effectiveness, ATI may help
provide a better match of male batterer subgroups and treatment, and may allow us
to better evaluate treatment programs and to whom they are best suited.
The final long term goal of intensive social skill deficit investigations in the
male batterer literature would be to develop a taxonomy of social skills that
incorporates the different components of social skill (e.g., cognitions, regulation of
emotions/affect, expressive elements) and lists a variety of possible characteristics of
these (e.g., nonblaming attributions, empathy, nonhostile tone) so that we have a
more comprehensive model of social skills. Yet, at this point, we are only beginning
to touch the surface of social skill deficits in male batterers.
This project reflects a critical empirical examination of a widely held theory
in the male batterer literature, that is the assumption of social skill deficits. If
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
134
supported in future studies, a valuable treatment approach for male batterers,
namely social skills training, will have gained empirical support and will provide an
impetus for future assessment and treatm ent It will provide a foundation on which
to build future skills-oriented treatment programs. If unsupported, alternative
hypothesis must be considered for treatment protocol.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 3 5
References
Anglin, K. & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1997). Comparing the responses of maritally
violent and nonviolent spouses to problematic marital and nonmarital situations:
Are the skill deficits of physically aggressive husbands and wives global? Journal
of Family Psvcholoev. 11(3). 301-313.
Bandura, A. (1979). The social learning perspective: Mechanisms of aggression. In
H. Hoch, (Ed.), Psychology of crime and criminal justice. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.
Barbour, K. A., Eckhardt, C. I., Davison, G. C., & Kassinove, H. (1998). The
experience and expression of anger in maritally violent and maritally discordant-
nonviolent men. Behavior Therapy. 29.173-191.
Barnett, O. W., Miller-Perrin, C. L., & Perrin, R. D. (1997). History and definitions
of family violence. In O. W. Barnett, C. L. Miller-Perrin, & R. D. Perrin (Eds.),
Family violence across the lifespan: An introduction (pp. 1-18). CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Becker, R. E. & Heimberg, R. G. (1988). Assessment of social skills. In Bellack, A.
S. & Hersen, M. (Eds.) Behavioral Assessment: A Practical Handbood (3rd Ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon (pp. 365-395).
Bellack, A. S. (1983). Recurrent problems in the behavioral assessment of social
skill. Behavior Research and Therapy. 21.29-41.
Bellack, A. S. (1979). A critical appraisal of strategies for assessing social skill.
Behavioral Assessment. 1,157-176.
Bellack, A. S., Hersen, M., & Turner, S. M. (1978). Role play tests for assessing
social skills: Are they valid? Behavior Therapy. 9,448-461.
Bellack, A. S., Morrison, R. L., Mueser, K. T., Wade, J. H., & Sayers, S. L. (1990).
Role play for assessing the social competence of psychiatric patients.
Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2(3).
248-255.
Bernard, J. L., & Bernard, M. L. (1984). The abusive male seeking treatment:
Jekyll and Hyde. Family Relations: Journal of Applied Family and Child Studies.
33(4), 543-547.
Beutler, L. E. (1991). Have all won and must all have prizes? Revisiting Luborsky
et al.’s verdict Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 59.226-232.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
13 6
Blumer, C., & McNamara, R. (1982). The adequacy of a role play of a previous
event as affected by high and low social anxiety and rehearsal. Journal of
Behavioral Assessment 4,27-37.
Bornstein, M., Bellack, A. S., & Hersen, M. (1977). Social skills training, for
unassertive children: A multiple-baseline analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis. 10.183-195.
Burman, B., John, R. S., & Margolin, G. (1992). Observed patterns of conflict in
violent, nonviolent, and nondistressed couples. Behavioral Assessment 14,15-37.
Burman, B., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1993). America’s angriest home videos:
Behavioral contingencies observed in home reenactments of marital conflict.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 61.28-39.
Cahn, D. D. (1996). Family violence from a communication perspective. In Cahn, D.
D. & Lloyd, S. A. (Eds), Family violence from a communication perspective.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (pp. 1-19).
Carey, C. M. & Mongeau, P. A. (1996). Communication and violence in courtship
relationships. In Cahn, D. D. & Lloyd, S. A. (Eds), Family violence from
a communication perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (pp. 127-
150).
Cordova, J. V., Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M. Rushe, R., & Cox, G. (1993).
Negative reciprocity and communication in couples with a violent husband.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 102(4). 559-564.
Dance, K. A. & Neufeld, R. W. J. (1988). Aptitude-treatment interaction research
in the clinical setting: A review of attempts to dispel the “patient uniformity”
Myth. Psychological Bulletin. 104.192-213.
Dutton, D. G. (1988). The domestic assault of women. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dutton, D. G., & Browning, J. J. (1988). Concern for power, fear of intimacy, and
aversive stimuli for wife assault In G. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick,
& M. A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in
research (pp. 163-175).
Dutton, D. G., & Strachan, C. E. (1987). Motivational needs for power and
spouse-specific assertiveness in assaultive and nonassaultive men. Violence and
Victims. 2,145-156.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 3 7
Eckhardt, C. I., Barbour, K. A., & Davison, G. C. (1998). Articulated thoughts of
maritally violent and nonviolent men during anger arousal. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 66.259-269.
Eisikovits, Z. C., & Edleson, J. L. (1989). Intervening with men who batter: A
clinical review of the literature. Social Service Review. 63.384-414.
Faulk, M. (1974). Men who assault their wives. Medicine. Science and the Law. 14.
180-183.
Faulkner, K., Stoltenberg, C. D., Cogen, R., Nolder, M., Shooter, E. (1992).
Cognitive-behavioral group treatment for male spouse abusers. Journal of Family
Violence. 7,37-55.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (1982). Uniform crime reports. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice.
Follingstad, D. R., & Breiter, H. (1994). Battering men. In M. Hersen & R. T.
Ammerman (Eds.), Handbook of prescriptive treatments for adults. New York:
Plenum Press (pp. 487-505).
Frederiksen, L. W., Jenkins, J. O., Foy, D. W., & Eisler, R. M. (1976). Social skills
training to modify abusive verbal outbursts in adults. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis. 9,117-125.
Freedman, B. J., Rosenthal, L., Donahoe, C. P., Schlundt, D. G., & McFall, R. M.
(1978). A social-behavioral analysis of skill deficits in delinquent and
nondelinquent adolescent boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.__
46,1448-1462.
Gaffney, L. R., & McFall, R. M. (1981). A comparison of social skills in delinquent
and nondelinquent adolescent girls using a behavioral role-playing inventory.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 49.959-967.
Ganley, A. L. (1989). Integrating feminist and social learning analyses of aggression:
Creating multiple models for intervention with men who batter. In Caesar, P. L.,
Hamberger, K. L. et al. (Eds.), Treating men who batter: Theory, practice, and
Programs. New York: Springer Publishing Co., Inc. (pp. 196-235).
Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1979). Determinants of violence in the family: Toward
a theoretical integration. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.),
Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 549-581). New York:
Academic Press.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
13 8
Giles-Sims, J. (1998). The aftermath of partner violence. In J. L. Jasinski & L. M.
Williams (Eds.), Partner violence; A comprehensive review of 20 years of research
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. (pp. 44-72).
Goldfried, M. R., & D'Zurilla, T. J. (1969). A behavioral-analytic model for
assessing competence. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Current tonics in clinical and
community psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 151-194). New York: Academic Press.
Goldstein, D., & Rosenbaum, A. (1985). An evaluation of the self-esteem of
maritally violent men. Family Relations. 34.425-428.
Gondolf, E. W. (1988). Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral typology of
batterers. Violence and Victims. 3,187-203.
Gondolf, E. W. (1987). Changing men who batter: A developmental model for
integrated interventions. Journal of Family Violence. 2(4). 335-349.
Gondolf, E. W. (1985). Fighting for control: A clinical assessment of men who
batter. Social Casework: the Journal of Contemporary Social Work. 66.48-54.
Gondolf, E. W., & Russell, D. (1986). The case against anger control treatment
programs for batterers. Response to the Victimization of Women and
Children. 9(3), 2-5.
Hamberger, L. K. (1997). Marital violence: Batterers. In O. W. Barnett, C. L.
Miller-Perrin, & R. D. Perrin (Eds.), Family violence across the lifespan: An
introduction (pp. 233-250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.
Hamberger, L. K., & Hastings, J. E. (1988). Skills training for treatment of
spouse abusers: An outcome study. Journal of Family Violence. 3(2). 121-130.
Hamberger, L. K., & Hastings, J. E. (1988). Characteristics of male spouse
abusers consistent with personality disorders. Hospital and Community
Psychiatry. 39(7), 763-770.
Hamberger, L. K., & Hastings, J. E. (1986). Personality correlates of men who
abuse their partners: A cross-validation study. Journal of Family Violence. 1,
323-341.
Hastings, J. E., & Hamberger, L. K. (1988). Personality characteristics of
spouse abusers: A controlled comparison. Violence and Victims, 3,31-48.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 3 9
Hawkins, R. P. (1986). Selection of target behaviors. In Nelson, R. O. & Hayes, S.
C. (Eds.), Conceptual foundations of behavioral assessment New York: Guilford
Press (pp. 331-385).
Hayes, S. C. & Nelson, R. O. (1986). Assessing the effects of therapeutic
interventions. In Nelson, R. O. & Hayes, S. C. (Eds.), Conceptual foundations of
behavioral assessment New York: Guilford Press (pp. 430-460).
Helzel, M. F., & Rice, M. E. (1985). On the validity of social skills assessments: An
Analysis of role-play and ward staff ratings of social behavior in a maximum
security setting. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science. 17,400-411.
Hersen, M., & Bellack, A. S. (1977). Assessment of social Skills. In A. R.
Ciminero, K. S. Calhoun, and H. E. Adams (Eds.), Handbook for behavioral
assessment New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hersen, M., & Bellack, A. S. (1976). Social skills training for chronic
psychiatric patients: Rationale, research findings, and future directions.
Comprehensive Psychiatry. 17.559-580.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1991). Applying the social information processing model
to maritally violent men. The Behavior Therapist 14.129-132.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1992). Social skill deficits in maritally violent men:
Interpreting the data using a social information processing model. Clinical
Psychology Review. 12.605-617.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Anglin, K. (1991). The competency of responses given by
maritally violent versus nonviolent men to problematic marital situations.
Violence and Victims. 6(4). 257-269.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Smutzler, N., Bates, L., Sandin, E. (1997). A brief review
of the research on husband violence: Part 1: Maritally violent versus nonviolent
men. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2.65-99.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., Monaco, V., Fehrenbach, P.
A., & Gottman, J. M. (1992). Recruiting nonviolent men as control subjects for
research on marital violence: How easily can it be done? Violence and Victims.
7(1). 79-88.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Hutchinson, G. (1993). Attributing negative intent to
wife behavior: Attributions offered by maritally violent versus nonviolent men.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 102(2). 206-211.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 4 0
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Beatty, & Anglin (1995). The assessment and treatment of
marital violence: An introduction for the marital therapist. In N.S. Jacobson and
A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy. New York: Guilford
Press.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A & Smutzler, N. (1996). Comparing the emotional reactions
and behavioral intentions of violent and nonviolent husbands to aggressive,
distressed, and other wife behaviors. Violence and Victims. 11(4). 319-339.
Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three
subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin. 116(3). 476-
497.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Smutzler, N., & Bates, L. (1997). A brief review of the
research on husband violence, Part ni: Sociodemographic factors, relationship
factors, and differing consequences of husband and wife violence. Aggression and
Violent Behavior. 2(3). 285-307.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Stuart, G. L., & Hutchinson, G. (1997). Violent versus
nonviolent husbands: Differences in attachment patterns, dependency, and
jealousy. Journal of Family Psychology. 11(3). 314-331.
Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in
husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims.
1,101-124.
Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Waltz, J., Rushe, R., Babcock, J., & Holtzworth-
Munroe, A. (1994). Affect, verbal content, and psychophysiology in the arguments
of couples with a violent husband. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
5,982-988.
Jasinski, J. L. & Williams, L. M. (1998). Dynamics and risk factors in partner
violence, In J. L. Jasinski & L. M. Williams (Eds), Partner violence: A
comprehensive review of 20 years of research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage
Publications (pp. 1-43).
Liberman, R. P. (1982). Assessment of social skills. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 8,62-83.
Lloyd, S. A. (1996). Physical abuse, distress, and everyday marital interaction. In
Cahn, D. D. & Lloyd, S. A. (Eds), Family violence from a communication
perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (pp. 177-198).
Lloyd, S. A. (1990). Conflict types and strategies in violent marriages. Journal of
Family Violence. 5(4), 269-284.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 41
MacNeil, G. & LeCroy, C. W. (1997). Promoting social competence among severely
Emotionally disturbed youth: Development of a social competence inventory.
Residential Treatment for Children and Youth. 15(1). 63-78.
Maiuro, R. D., Cahn, T. S., Vitaliano, P. P., Wagner, B. C., & Zegree, J. B.
(1988). Anger, hostility, and depression in domestically violent versus generally
assaultive men and nonviolent control subjects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. 56.17-23.
Margolin, G., Burman, B., & John, R. S. (1989). Sequential affective patterns as a
function of marital conflict style. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 8,45-
61.
Margolin, G., John, R. S., & Gleberman, L. (1988). Affective responses to
conflictual discussions in violent and nonviolent couples. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology. 56,24-33.
McDonel, E. C. (1995). An information-processing theory of the measurement of
social competence. In O’Donahue, W. & Krasner, L. (Eds.), Theories of behavior
therapy. Washington, D.C.: APA (pp. 415-443).
McFall, R. M. (1982). A review and reformulation of the concept of social
skills. Behavioral Assessment 4,1-33.
McNamara, J. R. & Blumer, C. A. (1982). Role playing to assess social competence:
ecological validity considerations. Behavior Modification. 6(4). 519-549.
Meier, V. J. & Hope, D. A. (1998). Assessment of social skills. In A. S. Bellack and
Hersen, M. (Eds.), Behavioral assessment: A practical handbook (4th ed.). New
York: Allyn & Bacon (pp.365-395).
Merluzzi, T. V. & Biever, J. (1987). Role-playing procedures for the behavioral
assessment of social skill: A validity study. Behavioral Assessment. 9,361-377.
Morrison, R. L. (1990). Interpersonal dysfunction. In A. S. Bellack, M. Hersen, and
A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), International handbook of behavior modification and
therapy. New York: Plenum Press.
Morrison, R. L., Van Hasselt, V. B., & Bellack, A. S. (1987). Assessment of
assertion and problem-solving skills in wife abusers and their spouses. Journal of
Family Violence. 2,227-238.
Murphy, C. M., Meyer, S-L, & O’Leary, K. D. (1994). Dependency characteristics
of partner assaultive men. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 103(4). 729-735.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 4 2
National Research Council (1998). Violence in families: Assessing prevention and
treatment programs. National Academy Press.
Nelson, R. O. & Hayes, S. C. (1986). The nature of behavioral assessment. In
Nelson, R. O. & Hayes, S. C. (Eds.), Conceptual foundations of behavioral
assessment New York: Guilford Press (pp. 1-41).
O’Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J, & Tyree, A. (1989).
prevalence and stability of physicla aggression between spouses: A longitudinal
analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 57.263-268.
Rosenbaum, A., & Maiuro (1990). Perpetrators of spouse abuse. In R. T.
Ammerman & M. Hersen (Eds.), Treatment of family violence (pp. 280-309).
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rosenbaum, A., & O'Leary, K. D. (1981). Marital violence: Characteristics of
abusive couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 49.63-71.
Saunders, D. G. (1992). A typology of men who batter: Three types derived from
cluster analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 62(2), 276-283.
Saunders, D. G., & Hanusa, D. (1986). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of men
who batter: The short-term effects of group therapy. Journal of Family
Violence. 1(4), 357-372.
Snow, R. E. (1991). Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on
Individual differences in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. 59.205-216.
Sonkin, D. J. (1988). The male batterer: Clinical and research issues. Violence and
Victims. 3,65-79.
Sonkin, D. J., Martin, D., & Walker, L. E. A. (1985). The male batterer: A
treatment approach. New York: Springer.
Steinfeld, G. J. (1986). Spouse abuse: Clinical implications of research on the
control of aggression. Journal of Family Violence. 1,197-208.
Straus, M. A. (1977). A sociological perspective on the prevention and treatment of
wife battering. In M. Roy (Ed.), Battered women: A psvchosociological study of
domestic violence. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold (pp. 194-238).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
14 3
Straus, M. S. & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in American families; Risk
factors and adaptations to violence in 8.14S families. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family
violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 48.465-479.
Telch, C. F., & Lindquist, C. U. (1984). Violent versus nonviolent couples: A
comparison of patterns. Psychotherapy. 21.242-248.
Tolman, R. M., & Bennett, L. W. (1990). A review of quantitative research on men
who batter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 5.87-118.
Torgrud, L. J. & Holborn, S. W. (1992). Developing externally valid role-play for
Assessment of social skills: A behavior analytic perspective. Behavioral
Assessment. 14.245-277.
Trower, P., Bryant, B., & Argyle, M. (1978). Social Skills and Mental Health.
University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh: PA.
Turner, S. M., Hersen, M., & Bellack, A. S. (1978). Social skills training to teach
prosocial behaviors in an organically impaired and retarded patient Journal of
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 9 .253-258.
Twentyman, C. T., & McFall, R. M. (1975). Behavioral training of social skills in
shy males. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 43.384-395.
Van Hasselt, V. B., Kazdin, A. E., Hersen, M., Simon, J., & Mastantuono, A. K.
(1985). A behavioral-analytic model for assessing social skills in blind
adolescents. Behavior Research and Therapy. 23.395-405.
Wamken, W. J., & Rosenbaum, A. (1994). Family violence-adult In M. Hersen,
R. T. Ammerman, & L. A. Sisson (Eds.), Handbook of aggressive and
destructive behavior in psychiatric patients (pp. 471-489). New York: Plenum
Press.
Yllo, K. (1997). Theories and methodology: investigating the problem of family
violence. In O. W. Barnett, C. L. Miller-Perrin, & R. D. Perrin (Eds.), Family
violence across the lifespan: An introduction (pp. 19-38). CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
144
Appendix A
S te p IA: Situational Analysis Protocol #CPS10019701 (2/26/98)
SUBJECT CONSENT FORM
T i t l e : UNDERSTANDING MEN'S INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
I n v e s t i g a t o r s:
Norine Smiley, M.A., Graduate Student, Center for Psychological Studies,
Nova Southeastern University, (954) 262-5730
Vincent B. Van Hasselt, Ph.D., Professor, Center for Psychological
Studies, Nova Southeastern University, (954) 262-5752
Gayla Margolin, Ph.D., Professor, Psychology Department, University of
Southern California, (213) 740-2203
Institutional Review Board, Office of Grants and Contracts, Nova
Southeastern University, (954) 262-5369
D e s c r i p t i o n : This study is part of a larger study examining men's
interpersonal relationships, particularly men in relationships
characterized by conflict and discord. This research is being performed
by Norine Smiley and colleagues of Nova Southeastern University and the
University of Southern California. The purpose of this study will be to
identify situations that men in relationships characterized by
marital/relationship discord find problematic. This study seeks to
discover the specific factors that influence men's interpersonal
relationships with other adults. As a participant, you were selected
because you are in a conflictual relationship or you have observed such
a conflictual relationship. You will be asked to identify situations
that you think are problematic for you or men you have observed who are
in relationships characterized by conflict and discord to handle. You
will be asked to identify the specific problematic situation, background
information leading to the situation, your response to the situation,
and the outcome. We encourage you to identify as many problematic
situations as you can as there is no maximum limit; however, we request
that you provide at least 4-5 of these situations. It is expected that
it will take approximately one hour to complete. If you have any
questions about the procedures, you may ask them at any time. Should
you later have questions, please call Norine Smiley at the number listed
above.
R i s k s a n d B e n e f i t s : By participating in this research, you will share
information which will be used to construct a research tool which may
help researchers to understand issues effecting men in conflictual
relationships. It will also add to our understanding of interpersonal
relationships of adults in general. Such information is critical in
designing programs to help adults in their interpersonal relationships.
There is no physical risk associated with this research project.
However, some people may get anxious when describing personal issues or
problems. Safeguards to protect against this risk have been provided in
having you share this information in a confidential, nonjudgmental
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
145
environment. If you have any concerns about the risks or benefits of
participating in this study, you can contact Norine Smiley, Dr. Van
Hasselt, Dr. Margolin, or the IRB office at the numbers indicated above.
C o s t s and P a y m e n ts: No payment will be made for participation.
C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y : Strict confidentiality will be maintained at all times
throughout the course of the research project. A random code number,
rather than your name, will be used to identify information you give to
us. Only members of the immediate project staff will have direct access
to this information. All information will be kept in a locked file
cabinet to which only the experimenters and Project Director will have
access. Reports at scientific meetings or in scientific journals will
not include any information which identifies you as a participant in
this study. However, there are two exceptions to this confidentiality
rule: 1) if you report to any member of the research team that you are
in imminent danger of hurting yourself or others, or 2) if there is
suspicion of child or elderly abuse, the investigators will have to
notify the appropriate sources.
R i g h t to W ith d ra w : You may choose to not participate or to stop
participation in the research program at any time without adverse
affects or loss of benefits or services at Nova Southeastern
University's Community Mental Health Center. If you choose not to
participate, the information collected about you will be destroyed.
V o l u n t a r y C o n s e n t: Participation in this research project is totally
voluntary, and your consent is required before you can participate in
the research program.
I have read the preceding consent form, or it has been read to me, and I
understand its contents. All of my questions concerning the research
have been answered. If I have any questions in the future about this
study they will be answered by the investigators listed above or their
staff. A copy of this form has been given to me.
P a r t i c i p a n t ’s S i g n a t u r e :_____________________________ Date:___________
W i t n e s s ' s S i g n a t u r e :_________________________________Date:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
146
S te p lb: Situational Analysis Protocol #CPS10019701 (2/26/98)
SUBJECT CONSENT FORM
T i t l e : UNDERSTANDING MEN'S INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
I n v e s t i g a t o r s :
Norine Smiley, M.A., Graduate Student, Center for Psychological Studies,
Nova Southeastern University, (954) 262-5730
Vincent B. Van Hasselt, Ph.D., Professor, Center for Psychological
Studies, Nova Southeastern University, (954) 262-5752
Gayla Margolin, Ph.D., Professor, Psychology Department, University of
Southern California, (213) 740-2203
Institutional Review Board, Office of Grants and Contracts, Nova
Southeastern University, (954) 262-5369
D e s c r i p t i o n : This study is part of a larger study examining men's
interpersonal relationships, particularly men in relationships
characterized by conflict and discord. This research is being performed
by Norine Smiley and colleagues of Nova Southeastern University and the
University of Southern California. The purpose of this study will be to
identify situations that men in relationships characterized by
marital/relationship discord find problematic, particularly male
batterers. This study seeks to discover the specific factors that
influence men's interpersonal relationships with other adults. As a
participant, you were selected due to your expertise in the area of
domestic violence. You will be asked to rate how common or applicable
you think each problematic situation is for the male batterer, and how
difficult you think each problematic situation is for the male batterer
to handle. Once completed, you will return these ratings in the return
envelope provided to you. You will have the opportunity to work at your
own pace; however, it is expected that it will take approximately 1-2
hours to complete. If you have any questions about the procedures, you
may call Norine Smiley at the number listed above.
R i s k s and B e n e f i t s : By participating in this research, you will share
information which will be used to construct a research tool which may
help researchers to understand issues effecting men in conflictual
relationships. It will also add to our understanding of interpersonal
relationships of adults in general. Such information is critical in
designing programs to help adults in their interpersonal relationships.
There is no risk associated with this research project. If you have any
concerns about the risks or benefits of participating in this study, you
cam contact Norine Smiley, Dr. Van Hasselt, Dr. Margolin, or the IRB
office at the numbers indicated above.
C o s t s a n d P a y m e n ts : No payment will be made for participation.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
147
C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y : Strict confidentiality will be maintained at all times
throughout the course of the research project. A random code number,
rather than your name, will be used to identify information you give to
us. Only members of the immediate project staff will have direct access
to this information. All information will be kept in a locked file
cabinet to which only the experimenters and Project Director will have
access. Reports at scientific meetings or in scientific journals will
not include any information which identifies you as a participant in
this study. However, there are two exceptions to this confidentiality
rule: 1) if you report to any member of the research team that you are
in imminent danger of hurting yourself or others, or 2) if there is
suspicion of child or elderly abuse, the investigators will have to
notify the appropriate sources.
R i g h t to W ith d ra w : You may choose to not participate or to stop
participation in the research program at any time without adverse
affects or loss of benefits. If you choose not to participate, the
information collected about you will be destroyed.
V o l u n t a r y C o n s e n t: Participation in this research project is totally
voluntary, and your consent is required before you can participate in
the research program.
I have read the preceding consent form, or it has been read to me, and I
understand its contents. All of my questions concerning the research
have been answered. If I have any questions in the future about this
study they will be answered by the investigators listed above or their
staff. A copy of this form has been given to me.
P a r t i c i p a n t ' s S i g n a t u r e :_____________________________Date:___________
Witness's S i g n a t u r e :_________________________________ Date:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
148
S te p I I I : Response Enumeration Protocol #CPS10019701 (2/11/99)
SUBJECT CONSENT FORM
T i t l e : UNDERSTANDING MEN'S INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
I n v e s t i g a t o r s :
Norine Smiley, M.A., Graduate Student, Center for Psychological Studies,
Nova Southeastern University, (954) 262-5730
Vincent B. Van Hasselt, Ph.D., Professor, Center for Psychological
Studies, Nova Southeastern University, (954) 262-5752
Gayla Margolin, Ph.D., Professor, Psychology Department, University of
Southern California, (213) 740-2203
Institutional Review Board, Office of Grants and Contracts, Nova
Southeastern University, (954) 262-5369
D e s c r i p t i o n : This study is part of a larger study examining men's
interpersonal relationships. This research is being performed by Norine
Smiley and colleagues of Nova Southeastern University and the University
of Southern California. The purpose of this study will be to identify
problematic situations that men may have in interpersonal relationships
and how men respond to these situations. This study seeks to discover
the specific factors that influence men's interpersonal relationships
with other adults. As a participant, you were selected because you are
an adult male. You will be asked to respond to a series of
interpersonal situations which will be presented to you by a member of
the research team. Following the description of the situation, a member
of the research team will help you respond to the situation by making a
statement to you. You will respond to this statement as if this
situation were actually happening to you in the real world outside of
this room. For this part of the procedure, you will be audiotaped. It
will take approximately 1 hour to complete these procedures. If you
have any questions about the procedures, you may ask a member of the
research team for clarifications.
R i s k s a n d B e n e f i t s : By participating in this research, you will share
information which will be used to construct a research tool which may
help researchers and clinicians to understand issues effecting men in
interpersonal relationships better. It will also add to our
understanding of interpersonal relationships of adults in general. Such
information is critical in designing programs to help adults in their
interpersonal relationships.
There is no significant physical or psychological risk associated with
this research project. However, some people may get anxious when role-
playing situations in front of other people or may feel uncomfortable
about some of the situations presented. To help reduce any anxiety, you
will have a practice situation to help get you familiar with what we are
asking you to do. If you have any concerns about the risks or benefits
of participating in this study, you can contact Norine Smiley, Dr. Van
Hasselt, Dr. Margolin, or the IRB office at the numbers indicated above.
C o s ts a n d P a y m e n ts : No payment will be made for participation.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
149
C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y : Strict confidentiality will be maintained at all times
throughout the course of the research project. A random code number,
rather than your name, will be used to identify information you give to
us. Only members of the immediate project staff will have direct access
to this information. All information will be kept in a locked file
cabinet to which only the experimenters and Project Director will have
access. Your audiotapes will be erased once they have been transcribed.
Reports at scientific meetings or in scientific journals will not
include any information which identifies you as a participant in this
study. However, there are two exceptions to this confidentiality rule:
1) if you report to any member of the research team that you are in
imminent danger of hurting yourself or others, or 2) if there is
suspicion of child or elderly abuse, the investigators will have to
notify the appropriate sources. We are also required to disclose
information if required to do so by law.
R i g h t to W ith d ra w : You may choose to not participate or to stop
participation in the research program at any time without adverse
affects or loss of benefits or services at Nova Southeastern
University's Community Mental Health Center. If you choose not to
participate, the information collected about you will be destroyed.
V o l u n t a r y C o n s e n t: Participation in this research project is totally
voluntary, and your consent is required before you can participate in
the research program.
I have read the preceding consent form, or it has been read to me, and I
understand its contents. All of my questions concerning the research
have been answered. If I have any questions in the future about this
study they will be answered by the investigators listed above or their
staff. A copy of this form has been given to me.
P a r t i c i p a n t ' s S i g n a t u r e :_____________________________ Date:___________
Witness's S i g n a t u r e :_________________________________Date:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
150
S te p IV: Response Evaluation Protocol #CPS10019701 (2/11/99)
SUBJECT CONSENT FORM
T i t l e : UNDERSTANDING MEN'S INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
I n v e s t i g a t o r s :
Norine Smiley, M.A., Graduate Student, Center for Psychological Studies,
Nova Southeastern University, (954) 262-5730
Vincent B. Van Hasselt, Ph.D., Professor, Center for Psychological
Studies, Nova Southeastern University, (954) 262-5752
Gayla Margolin, Ph.D., Professor, Psychology Department, University of
Southern California, (213) 740-2203
Institutional Review Board, Office of Grants and Contracts, Nova
Southeastern University, (954) 262-5369
D e s c r i p t i o n : This study is part of a larger study examining men's
interpersonal relationships, particularly men in relationships
characterized by conflict and discord. This research is being performed
by Norine Smiley and colleagues of Nova Southeastern University and the
University of Southern California. The purpose of this study will be to
identify situations that men in relationships characterized by
marital/relationship discord find problematic and to evaluate men's
responses to such problematic situations. This study seeks to discover
the specific factors that influence men's interpersonal relationships
with other adults. As a participant, you were selected due to your
expertise working with couples and families. You will be asked to
evaluate the responses expressed by men when exposed to problematic
situations. You will use your own judgment as to what you think is
skillful responding. You will read all of the alternatives provided in
each problem situation. Then, you will write in any additional
alternative responses you see are lacking, and rate each alternative
response as to its effectiveness on the rating scale provided to you.
You will also write out the specific criteria you used in your ratings
of 1-5. When you have completed this task, please call Norine Smiley so
that the materials may be picked up. The anticipated time to complete
this task will vary among individuals; however, it is expected to take
approximately 4-6 hours at your own leisure and in the privacy of your
home or work environment. If you have any questions about the
procedures, you may call Norine Smiley at the number listed above.
R i s k s and B e n e f i t s : By participating in this research, you will share
information which will be used to construct a research and clinical
instrument which may help researchers and clinicians to understand the
competency of responses of men, some of whom are in conflictual
relationships. It will also add to our understanding of interpersonal
relationships of adults in general. Such information is critical in
designing programs to help adults in their interpersonal relationships.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
151
There is no risk associated with this research project. If you have any
concerns about the risks or benefits of participating in this study, you
can contact Norine Smiley, Dr. Van Hasselt, Dr. Margolin, or the IRB
office at the numbers indicated above.
C o s ts a n d P a y m e n ts : No payment will be made for participation.
C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y : Strict confidentiality will be maintained at all times
throughout the course of the research project. A random code number,
rather than your name, will be used to identify information you give to
us. Only members of the immediate project staff will have direct access
to this information. All information will be kept in a locked file
cabinet to which only the experimenters and Project Director will have
access. Reports at scientific meetings or in scientific journals will
not include any information which identifies you as a participant in
this study. However, there are two exceptions to this confidentiality
rule: 1) if you report to any member of the research team that you are
in imminent danger of hurting yourself or others, or 2) if there is
suspicion of child or elderly abuse, the investigators will have to
notify the appropriate sources. We are also required to disclose
information if required to do so by law.
R i g h t t o W ith d r a w : You may choose to not participate or to stop
participation in the research program at any time without adverse
affects or loss of benefits. If you choose not to participate, the
information collected about you will be destroyed.
V o l u n t a r y C o n s e n t : Participation in this research project is totally
voluntary, and your consent is required before you can participate in
the research program.
I have read the preceding consent form, or it has been read to me, and I
understand its contents. All of my questions concerning the research
have been answered. If I have any questions in the future about this
study they will be answered by the investigators listed above or their
staff. A copy of this form has been given to me.
P a r t i c i p a n t ' s S i g n a t u r e :_____________________________Date:___________
Witness's S i g n a t u r e :_________________________________Date:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
152
APPENDIX B
Demographic Form
Situational Analysis (Stage IA)
1. Gender: _MaIe _Female
2. Date of B irth:____________
Month Day Year
3. Age: ______
4. Ethnicity: White
Black
Hispanic (Circle: Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, Other )
Specify
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Island Native
Alaskan Native
Other (specify:_______ )
5. Current marital status:____ __ Married
Separated
Divorced
Never married
Widowed
Living with Someone
Engaged
If separated or divorced, how many months apart? (5a)___
If separated or divorced, did you want the separation? (5b)___
6. Are you currently employed full-time for pay? _yes _no
What occupation?____________
7. If no, part-time? yes _no
What occupation?_____________
8. Is your partner employed full-time for pay? _yes _no _not applicable
What occupation?_____________
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
153
9. If no, part-time? _yes _no
What occupation?_____________
10. What is the highest Oast) grade you completed or degree received?___
11. What is the highest Oast) grade your partner completed or degree received?
12. Partner’s Ethnicity:
White
Black
Hispanic (Circle: Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, Other )
Specify
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Island Native
Alaskan Native
Other (specify:________)
Not applicable
13. What is your yearly income? 0-5000
”>5-10000
_ > 10-20000
_>20-35000
">35-40000
“>40-50000
_>50000
14. What is your partner's yearly income? _0-5000
">5-10000
_> 10-20000
_>20-35000
_>35-40000
_>40-50000
_>50000
_Not applicable
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
154
15. What is your combined yearly income?
16. Do you have children? _Yes _No
17. If yes, how many children?____
18. Optional: Home phone #: ______
0-5000
>5-10000
> 10-20000
>20-35000
>35-40000
.>40-50000
>50000
.Not applicable
Work #:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
155
Demographic Form
Situational Analysis (Stage IB)
1. Gender: _M ale _Female
2. Date of B irth:__________________
Month Day Year
3. Age: ______
4. Ethnicity:_White
Black
Hispanic (Circle: Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, Other )
Specify
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Island Native
Alaskan Native
Other (specify:_______ )
5. Current marital status: __ Married
Separated
Divorced
Never married
Widowed
Living with Someone
Engaged
If separated or divorced, how many months apart? (5a)___
If separated or divorced, did you want the separation? (5b)___
6. Are you currently employed full-time for pay? _yes _no
What occupation?____________
7. If no, part-time? _yes _no
What occupation?____________
8. Is your partner employed full-time for pay? _yes _no _not applicable
What occupation?____________
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
156
9. If no, part-time? _yes _no
What occupation?_____________
10. What is the highest (last) grade you completed or degree received?___
11. Are you a: Licensed professional (specify degree_____ )
Graduate student (specify degree program )
Volunteer
Other (specify______)
12. How long have you been practicing/seeing clients? _____________
13. How long have you worked with male batterers? _____________
14. What is the highest (last) grade your partner completed or degree received?
15. Partner’s Ethnicity:
White
Black
Hispanic (Circle: Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, Other )
Specify
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Island Native
Alaskan Native
Other (specify:________)
Not applicable
16. What is your yearly income? _0-5000
">5-10000
“>10-20000
_>20-35000
_>35-40000
j>40-50000
“>50000
_Not applicable
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
157
17. What is your partner's yearly income? _0-5000
">5-10000
_> 10-20000
_>20-35000
_>35-40000
_>40-50000
_>50000
_Not applicable
18. What is your combined yearly income? _0-5000
">5-10000
" > 10-20000
_>20-35000
_>35-40000
>40-50000
">50000
_Not applicable
19. Do you have children? _Yes __N o
20. If yes, how many children? (Ages: ______ )
21. Optional: Home phone #: ___________ Work #:_ _ _
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
158
Demographic Form
Response Enumeration stage (Stage III)
1. Gender: _M ale _Female
2. Date of B irth:____________
Month Day Year
3. Age: ______
4. Ethnicity: __White
Black
Hispanic (Circle: Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, Other )
Specify
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Island Native
Alaskan Native
Other (specify:________)
5. Current marital status:____ __ Married
Separated
Divorced
Never married
Widowed
Living with Someone
Engaged
If separated or divorced, how many months apart? (5a)___
If separated or divorced, did you want the separation? (5b)___
6. Are you currently employed full-time for pay? _yes _no
What occupation?____________
7. If no, part-time? _yes _no
What occupation?_____________
8. Is your partner employed full-time for pay? _yes _no _not applicable
What occupation?_____________
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
159
9. If no, part-time? _yes _no
What occupation?_____________
10. What is the highest (last) grade you completed or degree received?___
11. What is the highest (last) grade your partner completed or degree received?.
12. Partner’s Ethnicity:
White
Black
Hispanic (Circle: Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, Other )
Specify
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Island Native
Alaskan Native
Other (specify:________)
Not applicable
13. What is your yearly income? 0-5000
">5-10000
" > 10-20000
j>20-35000 __________
>35-40000 Amount
">40-50000
”>50000
16. What is your partner's yearly income? _0-5000
">5-10000
" > 10-20000
_>20-35000 _________
_>35-40000 Amount
">40-50000
">50000
_Not applicable
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
160
17. What is your combined yearly income? 0>5000
”>5-10000
_ > 10-20000
_>20-35000
_>35-40000
”>40-50000
”>50000
18. Do you have children? _Yes _No
19. If yes, how many children? (Ages:______ )
20. Optional: Home phone #: _______ Work #: __
Amount
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
161
Demographic Form
Response Evaluation stage (Stage IV)
1. Gender: _M ale __FemaIe
2. Date of B irth:___________________
Month Day Year
3. Age: ______
4. Ethnicity:__White
Black
Hispanic (Circle: Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, Other )
Specify
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Island Native
Alaskan Native
Other (specify:________)
5. Current marital status: __ Married
Separated
Divorced
Never married
Widowed
Living with Someone
Engaged
If separated or divorced, how many months apart? (5a)___
If separated or divorced, did you want the separation? (5b)___
6. Are you currently employed full-time for pay? _yes _no
What occupation?____________
7. If no, part-time? yes _no
What occupation?_____________
8. Is your partner employed full-time for pay? _yes _no _n o t applicable
What occupation?_____________
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
162
9. If no, part-time? _yes _no
What occupation?_____________
10. What is the highest (last) grade you completed or degree received?___
11. Are you a: Licensed professional (specify degree______ )
Graduate student (specify degree program _____ )
Volunteer
Other (specify )
12. How long have you been practicing/seeing clients? _____________
*13. (How long have you worked with male batterers? ____________ )
14. What is the highest (last) grade your partner completed or degree received?.
15. Partner’s Ethnicity:
White
Black
Hispanic (Circle: Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, Other )
Specify
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Island Native
Alaskan Native
Other (specify:________)
Not applicable
16. What is your yearly income? 0-5000
">5-10000
>10-20000
_>20-35000 __________
>35-40000 Amount
">40-50000
>50000
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
163
17. What is your partner's yearly income? _0-5000
“>5-10000
“ > 10-20000
“>20-35000 ________
_>35-40000 Amount
”>40-50000
_>50000
_Not applicable
18. What is your combined yearly income? _0-5000
“>5-10000
_> 10-20000
_>20-35000 ________
>35-40000 Amount
“>40-50000
_>50000
19. Do you have children? _Yes _No
20. If yes, how many children?____________
Ages
21. Optional: Home phone #: ___________ Work #:______
*13 obtained after the materials were returned.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
164
Appendix C
Rater’s Manual
I. Narration:
You and your brother work together. One day your brother gets mad at you
and throws something at you. You get angry and tell him to stop but he
doesn’t You get in a fight After work you go home. Your wife knows
something is wrong but you don’t want to tell her about i t Your wife gets
angry with you because you won’t tell her what’s wrong. She thinks that you
are upset with her and says:
Prompt 1: You seem to be upset today.
Ratings:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors that place the other person on the defensive and that
disregard, dismiss, or minimize the partner’s concern.
Examples:
a) You wouldn’t believe it if I told you.
b) Oh, it’s none of your business.
c) I’m not upset.
Competent (4-5): Behaviors that acknowledge their (i.e., referent) feelings and
needs, and being able to express their feelings. Responses that acknowledge the
situation, who has upset him, and request time.
Examples:
a) I am upset Me and my brother had a fight
b) Yeah, I just got into a pretty big mess with my brother and I’m kind of
stressed out right now. I’d appreciate it if I could be by myself for a little b it
c) Uhm yeah I’ve had a lot on my mind. I’ve had to uh..I’ve had a bad day. I
just uh need some time to unwind.
Prompt 2 : 1 wish you could talk with me about your problems.
Rating:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors that deny problems and/or subject's own
responsibility, that attack the partner, and that make the partner’s concern seem
insignificant or minimizes the problem. These behaviors shut down communication
and offer no support to the partner.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
165
Examples:
a) I never discuss this with you. It’s it’s too hostile.
b) I would. I’ve got enough problems, you don’t need to be sharing all my
headaches too.
c) Well a lot of the things I have are not problems and not everything..I feel
comfortable sharing with you because a lot of your input wouldn’t be totally
relevant.concerning certain situations.
d) Don’t got problems.
Competent (4-5): Behaviors which express feelings and statement of needs.
Responses which explain the situation and request time; they also promise further
discussion and communication of the issues at a later time.
Examples:
a) Let’s sit down. Let’s talk.
b) I’d rather not talk about it right now.
c) I’m too angry to discuss anything right now.
II. Narration:
You’ve been with your wife for awhile. Your relationship was great in the
beginning but has gotten bad. You now argue frequently and these
arguments get very explosive. She thinks that sometimes you just go off on
things with her for no apparent reason. (She says to you:)
Prompt 1: You blame me for everything.
Ratine:
Incompetent (1-2): Behavior that are blaming, emotionally abusive, argumentative,
denying partner’s feelings, shutting off any communication, and/or unsupportive.
Examples:
a) That’s not true. I don’t blame you for everything.
b) No I don’t. You just think I do, but I don’t.
c) I blame you for everything. I think you’re paranoid.
d) Well if you quit wearing my mother’s dress maybe I’ll stop i t
e) It’s probably your fault
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
166
Competent (4*5): Behaviors where person validates partner and is able to express
his needs and feelings without putting his partner on the defensive.
Acknowledgment that there is a problem and attempting to understand the
partner’s feelings. There is some recognition and openness and accepting of own
responsibility. There is an attempt for potential problem solving and resolution.
Examples:
a) I don’t blame you for everything. It’s just that we haven’t been
communicating very well. You know it hasn’t gotten any better. Uh I think
we really need to sit down and talk things through uh I just 11 can’t continue
to argue with you.
b) I’m sorry if you feel that way ...but I don’t think that I blame you for
everything.
c) I’m sorry you feel that way maybe it’s my actions. Maybe I should look at
the situation more closely and quit trying to blame you for them.
Prompt 2: You seem to get mad for no reason at times.
Ratine:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors that are emotionally abusive, blaming, argumentative,
denying problem, and/or making excuses for behavior. There is a denial of the
partner’s feelings and a shutting off of communication.
Examples:
a) Yeah I get mad when you bitch at me. If you didn’t bitch then I wouldn’t
have to get mad.
b) It’s just part of my job, I guess.
c) Being around you at times, it’s that way. It’s that way.
d) Oh, stop annoying me and I won’t
e) You do such stupid things it drives me crazy.
f) It’s not for no reason. You piss me off.
Competent (4-5): Behaviors reflecting feelings and acknowledgment of partner’s
feelings, and may include statements of responsibility. The person may apologize
and attempt to offer a resolution.
Examples:
a) I apologize. I try not to. Sometimes I get frustrated with other things and I
may take it out on you and I apologize for th a t
b) I don’t think it’s only me. I think it’s both of us. I think we both have you
know been sort of at our wits end with the relationship so I think that we
really need to sit down and talk about i t
c) Most of the time I do get mad for no reason at times.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
167
d) True maybe I have an anger problem.
III. Narration:
You’ve been married many years. You come home from work angry about
some problem at work. Your wife thinks you get off on bothering her. She
feels that you threaten her a lot and fear you may physically hurt her. She
locks herself in the room to get away from you since she knows you’re upset
about something. (She says:)
Prompt 1: You’re scaring me.
Ratings:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors denying or disregarding partner’s feelings and
diminishing them; demanding she do something; not supporting her need to do
what she feels she needs to; and not respecting partner’s need to feel safe. There is
hostility, intimidation/threat, abusiveness, noncommunicativeness, unwillingness to
problem solve, and/or lack of responsibility for his feelings or behaviors.
Examples:
a) Well don’t piss me off.
b) You have no reason to be scared.
c) Are you kidding me? You’re locking yourself in the room to get away from
me. What do you think I’m going to do to you? Listen, I’m a little upset,
alright, I apologize if I scared you. Can you please come out here. It’s
absolutely ridiculous.
d) I couldn’t possibly be scaring you. I don’t see how that’s possible.
Competent (4-5): Behaviors which acknowledge partner’s feelings and offer of an
apology. There is a genuine, honest, respect for other; responsible expression of all
feeling and needs; openness to communication and problem solving; a desire to hear
and listen to the partner’s need; and an acknowledgment of her fear and his own
responsibility.
Examples:
a) Sorry. Want to talk about it? I promise I won’t hurt you.
b) I don’t mean to scare you I’m just really pissed off about what happened at
work today.
c) You're right, I should leave.
d) Yeah I just you know maybe I just need to cool off a little b it I’m going to
go..I’m going to go take a drive. I’ll be back in a little bit I just need to cool
off. Sorry. You know I’m sorry but I’m dealing with it. I just need to cool
down a little b it
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
168
Prompt 2: I’m going to call the police.
Ratings:
Incompetent (1*2): These behaviors negate or deny the partner’s concerns or
feelings; threaten or ridicule the partner; and are hostile, intimidating, abusive, and
noncommunicative.
Examples:
a) What for? What’s your problem?
b) Call them. That’s fine. Call them.
c) You’re going to call the what? Are you kidding me? Are you on drugs?
Competent (4-5): Behaviors that acknowledges his responsibility while respecting
his partner’s needs and wishes. There is an acknowledgment of his actions while
encouraging his partner to do what she feels she needs to do, and there is an
openness to communication and problem solving.
Examples:
a) Well if you’re really that scared I’ll go..I’U leave for awhile until I calm
down.
b) You don’t have to do that I’ll just..let me..I’U leave. I’ll leave. Let me cool
down and I’ll give you a call or come back when I’m less angry.
c) Well if you feel you need to call the police then uhm then you have to do what
you have to do but I mean I’m sure we can talk our way through it.
IV. Narration:
One day you come home from work in a bad mood. Your wife knows when
things are rough at work for you. She has dinner ready for you and tries to
stay out of your way. You can’t And something you’re looking for and you
think your wife has misplaced it. You ask her about it. (She says:)
Prompt 1:1 didn’t see it.
Ratings:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors which are blaming the partner and making outright
accusations of her.
Examples:
a) Well then..it was always in this drawer. It’s not here. You must know where
it is.
b) Are you sure you didn’t misplace it?
c) Well I don’t know where it’s at and I think you’re the last one that that that
had it.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
169
d) What do you mean you didn’t see it? You just had it the other day how
could you not have seen it?
Competent (4-5): Behaviors which state what one believes without blaming another
person; ask for assistance and not demand help to And the item. Responses that ask
the person to help them remember where object may have gone and request the
partners help in Finding it.
Examples:
a) Yeah, well you didn’t see it but uhm. I’m really looking for this particular
item. If you could help me, I’d really appreciate i t This thing really means a
lot to me and I kind of need to And i t It’s very important so it make me get
antsy until I And it.
b) Well can you help me look for it?
c) Do you remember where I put it last?
Prompt 2: I ’ll help you look for it.
Ratines:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors which blame and accuse the partner, and dismiss the
issue.
Examples:
a) Tell you what. I’m going to sit down and eat dinner and you go look for it
yourself.
b) Oh I will. I mean the whole point here is that like how many times do I tell
you if I put something here in a place that I know where it is, why should you
move it and if you do move it why can’t you ever remember where you put
it?
c) I’m not looking for nothing. I’m going to sit down on the couch and watch
tv.
Competent (4-5): Behaviors that accept requests and direct the partner, and show
appreciation for the help.
Examples:
a) Thank you. I appreciate it.
b) Okay fine. Let’s look for it together then.
c) Oh thank you. I really appreciate that uhm perhaps it won’t take me..take
us as long to And it together. Thanks.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
170
V. Narration:
You’re watching football at your house with some friends. Your wife keeps
coming in to get your attention. You’re getting irritated and don’t say
anything because your friends are there. After they leave your wife gets
upset (and she says:)
Prompt 1: You never spend any time with me.
Ratines:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors denying partner’s feelings or attacking her, or some
acknowledgment but minimizing the impact on his partner.
Examples:
a) That’s not true.
b) I’m spending time with you now.
c) House rules. Football is on, don’t bother with me. I’ve got six days a week to
do whatever you want to do. When I’m watching football, don’t bother with
me.
d) It was one afternoon and I was trying to watch a football game.
e) We live together.
Competent (4-5): Behaviors which acknowledge feelings of partner and state his
concerns and an effort towards compromising. Statements that recognize person’s
feelings and attempt to make other person feel valued. There is self-expression
without invalidating the partner.
Examples:
a) I’m sure we can work out another time when we can do something together
but this is a time was going to be for me and my friends.
b) Well this was a sporting event that I have a tendency to get together with my
friends and..and have a good time. Maybe I could set away some time and
we can do something together.
c) Well honey I do spend time with you. I guess it’s just that when the guys
were over I was really uh into this game here uh perhaps I should have
stopped what I was doing to listen to you because you are uh you do mean a
lot more to me than the guys. When they leave we’re still here and they’re
here for only a couple of hours. So in the future what I’ll try to do is if uh if
you have something that we need to talk about or have you and one of the
games is going on I’U try to be more aware of that and I’ll stop whatever I’m
doing and I’ll come and see what you want at that time.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
171
Prompt 2 :1 wish we could do more things together.
Ratings:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors which dismiss partner’s requests and needs and
minimize her feelings. Statements that refuse to work on the issue or make other
person feel they have not been heard and that invalidate person’s feeling.
Examples:
a) You know we can. We’ll hang out. As soon as the football games over we’ll
get naked.
b) Why, we don’t do enough?
c) We can, not while football is on tv, not while my friends are here, not while
we’re barbecuing and eating. You don’t stand in front of the tv. You don’t
ask to see me. You don’t ask...go in the other room. Go play. Go to the mall.
I’ll give you some money. Just go do your thing.
Neither Incompetent/Nor Competent (3): Behaviors which ask follow-up questions
to ask for more information or which make a comment on other person’s response
that are neutral in nature.
Example:
Okay.
Competent (4-5): Behaviors where there is some effort to validate partner. There
is respect for the partner and responsible expression of feeling and needs.
Examples:
a) We can. We can spend quality time. Tell me when and what you would like
to do.
b) Let’s talk about it. Let’s see what we can do together. Maybe we’ll plan
something special..not on a football day.
c) Let me know what ideas you have and maybe we can figure something out.
VI. Narration:
Your kids don’t listen to you the first time you ask them to do something.
You don’t understand why they can’t listen. It upsets you when they don’t
listen to you. One day, your young son was trying to open the blinds. He was
making a mess of the blinds. Your wife came in and said something which
made you angry. You got more upset with your son. (Your wife says:)
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
172
Prompt I: IPs not the end of the world that he messed up the blinds.
Ratings:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors which focus on issues that are not as pertinent and
minimize impact of own actions, and make blaming statements toward partner.
Examples:
a) When he tears them all down, you can get a job and pay for them.
b) I’m just frustrated between you and him and nobody listens to me and
you’re going to ruin him.
c) I paid good money for those blinds.
d) It’s not the blinds. It’s everybody around here doesn’t listen. Everybody
wants to do what they want to do. Go ahead and do it That doesn’t mean
that everybody else is going to do what you w ant
Neither Incompetent/Nor Competent (3): Behaviors which are neutral and do not
lead to positive or negative interactions.
Example:
I know that.
Competent (4-5): Behaviors which acknowledge the issue and feelings, and which
may take responsibility for one’s actions. Statements that express his feelings and
behaviors that cause him to feel that way and which may attempt a solution.
Examples:
a) It’s just that I can’t understand. I try to explain it to him time and time
again. He doesn’t get it
b) That’s very true. It isn’t the end of the world, maybe I should show him how
to open blinds correctly.
c) I know honey. It’s that I asked him not to touch it. I told him that I would
do it and he went ahead and did it himself.
Prompt 2: You seem to be so hard on him all the time.
Ratings:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors which focus on issues that are not as pertinent and
minimize impact of own actions, and include statements that deny what the other
person has said and blame the partner.
Examples:
a) I’m not hard on him. I just told him..listen to me if I say do it the way I say it
then you do it the way I said.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
173
b) You gotta be hard on the kids a little bit if not they grow up to be meaner
than they normally are.
c) And you don’t seem to discipline him at all.
Neither Incompetent/Nor Competent (3): Behaviors which are neutral and that do
not give much information, but state the goal or a feeling.
Example:
It’s not easy.
Competent (4-5): Behaviors where there is acknowledgment of the issue and
acknowledgment of feeling and taking responsibility for one’s actions. Statements
that acknowledge the other person’s feelings and make an attempt to take action on
what the other person perceives.
Examples:
a) It’s not really him that I’m being hard on it’s just.you said something that
upset me and I guess I take it out on him.
b) I just feel frustrated sometimes.
c) Well..maybe I’m just quick-tempered and irritated at times but I’d like to
change that maybe I can speak to somebody and try to find a better way to
deal with this.
d) Well I’m having trouble understanding why he’s not behaving the way I’d
like him to uh maybe we can talk about that.
VII. Narration:
When you and your wife got together, you were pleased with your sex life. In
recent months, your wife doesn’t seem to be as interested as she used to. One
night, you finally decide to talk to her about it. You want her to talk to you
about the problem. (She says:)
Prompt 1 :1 didn’t realize that you’re concerned about it..
Ratings:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors which reflect blame, rejection, sarcasm, lack of
support, and negativity. Statements are critical and make the problem one-sided by
putting the problem on the partner.
Examples:
a) If I wasn’t concerned about it it wouldn’t have been bothering me for the
past couple of months. I wouldn’t have said anything about it. You know it
was bothering me.
b) Isn’t it obvious? Things haven’t been the way they were when we first got
together.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
174
c) How did you not realize that I was concerned? We haven’t had sex in three
months.
d) Yeah I'm concerned about it. I mean sheez you know I’m a man. I like to
have sex just like every other man. You know what’s your problem? You
don’t find me attractive no more or something?
Competent (4-5): Behaviors where there is expression of feelings regarding the
issue and a stated desire to talk about the issue and address it. There is an attempt
to be understanding and sensitive to the partner and wanting to help the situation.
Examples:
a) Honey you know we’ve had talks about this before and..you know I try to be
as open as possible as I can and I would like you to be also.
b) Well in the past couple of months I’ve noticed that there’s been a change in
our sex life and I’m just wondering if there’s something that’s bothering you
or something that we could work out
c) I’m very concerned about it cuz I love you very much and that’s an
important part of our relationship and it just doesn’t seem to be right.
Prompt 2 :1 don’ t see that there’s a problem.
Ratings:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors which are unsupportive, selfish, accusing, negative,
sarcastic, and may put partner on the defensive.
Examples:
a) Oh no, there’s a problem. There’s definitely a problem and like I had to go
take cold showers you know or like once in awhile I’m sitting there twiddling
my thumbs while you’re snoring. There’s definitely a problem.
b) If there’s a problem with sex then I think we gotta to have more of it, then
there won’t be a problem hopefully.
c) It sort of is a problem. You know how much I need i t
Competent (4-5): Behaviors where there is expression of feelings and a request that
the issue be discussed. There are attempts to understand the partner and to
understand the partner’s perspective, but requests that his own needs be addressed.
There is some support and constructive problem solving.
Examples:
a) I can understand that point but I feel that there is and I think we should
discuss this.
b) Maybe we need to get help.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
175
c) Well I think that over time ther’s been a decrease in our spontaneity and our
excitement and I think that there’s maybe something wrong maybe we
should talk about it to see if we could come up with some answers cuz I’m
concerned. I don’t know what’s going on.
VIII. Narration:
In the past, you’ve been dumped in 3 serious relationships. You’re married
now. Your wife is not coming home when she says she will so you believe
she’s having an affair and that she doesn’t love you. You’ve confronted her
with this and she says that she is out with her friends but you don’t buy it.
(She says:)
Prompt I: I haven’t done anything wrong.
Ratings:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors reflecting blame, accusations, and labeling. The
person is distrustful yet not acknowledging his fears. These responses cause the
person they are directed toward to become defensive. They lead to the partner
feeling attacked. The statements are also defensive.
Examples:
a) Well you should spend more time with me instead of being out with your
friends.
b) I don’t believe you.
c) That’s what they all say. I’m sick and tired of getting dumped and then
going out with a girl and then the girl just wants to cheat on me I mean.. I
don’t know what happened with these girls down the line. Back where I’m
from, this just doesn’t happen.
d) What have you been doing?
Competent (4-5): Behaviors of expression of feelings and honest self-expression
concerning his difficulty with trust and an attempt to talk about the issue further.
Examples:
a) I know but when you’re not home and I don’t know where you are I get
worried.
b) Maybe you haven’t but it’s my insecurities from my past relationships.
Maybe it’s something I have to work through.
c) I now b u t.I get very concerned. I just don’L.my mind runs wild and I
just..It’s tough for me to tell myself it’s okay and that nothing is going on
but it's..those thoughts keep creeping in.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
176
Prompt 2 :1 wish you could trust me.
Ratings:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors trying to manipulate partner to stay home, and
blaming partner. Statements which shut down further discussion.
Examples:
a) I don’t.
b) Be at home.
c) Well it’s kind of hard when you don’t come home when you say you do.
d) The thing is it’s hard to trust somebody after you’ve already been screwed
around by a couple of other ones. You don’t take no chances. You gotta be
cool so you’re better off just hanging out together instead of dealing with all
the problems that were simple things like th at
Competent (4-5): Behaviors of expression of feelings and an acknowledgment of
distrust and an attempt to see if his partner is willing to talk to him about his
concerns. Statements that express the person’s feelings, the desire to trust, and
request for help and time.
Examples:
a) I would really like to and maybe we can talk about it cuz it’s eating me up
alive..I can’t uh I can’t deal with it
b) I need some time to gain the tru st As I said it could be me, not necessarily
you. Give me time to work through that
c) Something that’s hard to do right now. Uhm. Just work with me and give
me some time.
IX. Narration:
You and your wife argue over how to discipline the kids. You don’t agree
with each other and it causes you a lot of conflict. Basically, she ignores the
kids’ behavior until it gets to the point where she has to discipline the kids.
You, on the other hand, never allow it to get that far; you stop it before it
gets to that point. (She says:)
I don’t want to be mean to our children.
Ratings:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors where he is controlling by telling his partner what
she needs or has to do. The responses are demands to discipline the children or
statements blaming the partner for the children’s behavior. The responses may
address the partner’s concern about being mean but still blame or dictate to the
partner.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
177
Examples:
a) You need to stop the situation before it gets out of control.
b) Well they need to be tightened up now and then. This is ridiculous. They’re
running around like a bunch of wild men.
c) Then discipline them.
d) It’s a difference of being mean and letting kids run over you. I don’t
understand why you don’t give people limits. All little boys need limits if not
when they’re grown up, they can do whatever.
Competent (4-5): Behaviors which state an opinion or belief about child rearing
and attempt to compromise and address the child rearing in a way that both
partners are comfortable with. The responses address the partner’s concerns and
give some reasons for discipline and invite a discussion of how to discipline together
as a unit
Examples:
a) Discipline is not necessarily being mean.
b) You’re not being mean...but we have to come to an agreement on how we’re
going to handle the discipline of the children...so I think we need to discuss
this further on how we’re going to handle this.
c) But we have to set boundaries or lese they’re just going to run wild. I think
that you know the two of us have different ideologies and we need to come
together so we can decide on one specific way to raise these children.
Prompt 2: You handle the kids differently than I do.
Ratings:
Incompetent (1-2): Behaviors that are controlling by telling his partner what she
needs or has to do. These responses can be categorized as accusing, blaming or
ultimatum statements. These response seem to address the partner’s statement but
still have a blaming tone. They condemn the partner for her discipline practices.
Examples:
a) Well your way doesn’t seem to be working.
b) Yes I do. I handle them properly where if you discipline them right away-
don’t let them do what they want then they take advantage. When you try to
correct it, it's too late.
c) Right. You should learn to handle it better.
d) I handle the kids right and you see how it is when I handle them there's not
that problem and you just let it go to become a problem. Why don’t you
take..you see what happens with them. Why don’t you try my approach? It
works.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
178
Competent (4-5): Behaviors which express his opinions or beliefs about child
rearing and an attempt to compromise and address the child rearing in a way that
both partners are comfortable with. These responses request a discussion and
address the partner’s statement.
Examples:
a) Obviously so I think we need to talk about it because they’re getting mixed
messages and I think that you know if we’re going to raise them well we need
to decide on what’s the best for both of us and for them most importantly.
b) Yes, I have a different outlook and so do you and this is where we have to
come to an agreement on how we’re going to discipline the children.
c) I know that but we need to...kind of meet a little somewhere in the middle.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Cognitive predictors of intention -behavior consistency in safer sex practices

PDF

Childhood videotaped neuromotor and social precursors of schizophrenia: A prospective investigation

PDF

Biosocial antecedents of schizophrenia-spectrum personality disorders: A longitudinal study

PDF

A longitudinal cross-ethnic study of sociocentricity in schizophrenia

PDF

Emotion regulation as a mediator between family-of-origin aggression and marital aggression

PDF

Acoustic predictors of Type A behavior.

PDF

Childhood precursors of adult reality distortion: A prospective study.

PDF

Client characteristics, service characteristics, and psychosocial outcomes in the community treatment of schizophrenia

PDF

Atypicality: Benefit and bane. Provocation, trigger, typicality, and the expression of aggression and generalization

PDF

Attachment as a predictor of self -monitoring and sexual behavior

PDF

A typology of maritally violent men and correlates of violence

PDF

Concordant and discordant drug use in intimate relationships: A longitudinal study

PDF

A Behavioral Assessment Of The Reinforcement Contingencies Associated With The Occurrence Of Suicidal Behaviors

PDF

An integrative analysis of racism and quality of life: A comparison of multidimensional moderators in an ethnically diverse sample

PDF

Affection and conflict in family relationships

PDF

A Monte Carlo Evaluation Of A Computer-Interactive Extended Transitivity Dominance Scaling Model

PDF

A correlational study of feminist/womanist identity development and depression in women

PDF

Hostile family environments and children's perceptions of social support

PDF

Impact of language and culture on a neuropsychological screening battery for Hispanics

PDF

A behavioral comparison of the nonverbal and verbal communication of distressed and nondistressed marital couples

Asset Metadata

Creator Smiley, Norine (author)

Core Title A behavioral -analytic model for assessing social competence in male batterers

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Clinical Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, behavioral,psychology, clinical,psychology, social

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Margolin, Gayla (committee chair), Brekke, John (committee member), Davison, Gerald (committee member), Jellison, Jerald (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-600728

Unique identifier UC11354910

Identifier 9955014.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-600728 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9955014.pdf

Dmrecord 600728

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Smiley, Norine

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA