Soc 144 Quiz 2

Legal and Law Enforcement Responses to IPV

Assault and battery of an intimate partner is a crime. But the law and its enforcement are relatively new Arrest Police in most jurisdictions are required (mandatory arrest) or encouraged (preferred arrest) to make an arrest when responding to a call if they have probable cause for IPV Arrest policies send message to perpetrators and general public that IPV is a crime and will be taken seriously by criminal justice system (but they also have some limitations - e.g., dual arrest) Prosecution Low rates of prosecution so... Victimless or evidence-based prosecution No-drop prosecution Protective orders

Consequences of IPV Victimization

In addition to risk of physical injuries and death at hands of an abusive partner, IPV has numerous direct and indirect consequences for victims. Outcomes are influenced by a number of factors, including the frequency, and severity.

Risk Factors for Perpetration: History of witnessing IPV

Intergenerational transmission theory: children learn by modeling or imitating those around them, especially parents. Power of the model influences degree to which children will imitate model's behavior.

Intimate Partner Violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) includes any threatened or completed acts of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse committed by a spouse, ex-spouse, or current or former boyfriend or girlfriend. Definitions of IPV are complicated by variations in domestic violence laws, which vary from state to state. Some states have no laws specifically prohibiting IPV, but instead subsume IPV under general assault, aggravated assault, and battery laws. In other states, individuals may be charged with misdemeanor or felony IPV, depending on the severity of the assault and the nature of the relationship between the individuals involved. In 1994, Congress passed federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), since been reauthorized three times, most recently in 2013 (Prohibits interstate IPV).

IPV Risk Factors: Military Status

Intimate partners of military member = greater risk

Dating Violence: Other Relationships

It is rare to perpetrate across all of one's romantic relationships There is fluidity in form (perpetrator only, victim only, both) and presence/absence of dating violence across time for individuals You may be a victim in one relationship and a perpetrator in another

IPV Risk Factors: Age

Younger = greater risk

As a group, batterers ___________. a. are diverse b. are homogenous c. fall into two distinct categories d. fall into three distinct categories

a. are diverse

Which age group is the most vulnerable to IPV? a. 12-18 b. 18-29 c. 30-39 d. 40-60

b. 18-29

At what level are laws about IPV established? a. local b. state c. federal d. international

b. state

Sam continuously calls his husband Jared a sissy, pussy, and fag, telling him that he is less of a man because of his effeminate nature. What is this an example of? a. sexism b. heterosexism c. internalized homophobia d. homophobia

c. internalized homophobia

Risk Factors for Perpetration: Sexist attitudes/beliefs (see table, next slide)

e.g., men are superior to women e.g., women are weak, incompetent, manipulative of men, untrustworthy, and stupid.

Primary factors affecting victims' decisions

1) the victim's understanding of the abuse and its severity; 2) the victim's relationship with her children and her concern for their well-being; 3) the victim's relationship with the abusive partner; and 4) the victim's financial and social resources.

Estimates of IPV Perpetration

8-12% of men and 12-25% of women are physically and/or sexually assaulted by an intimate partner each year.

IPV Risk Factors: Immigrant or Refugee Status

= greater risk Lack of English language skills, social isolation, economic dependence, and lack of familiarity with or mistrust of the police and the legal system = greater risk. In hetero couples, men often immigrate first and then their female partners follow, which means the women have lower immigration standing than their male partners.

Lack of consent indicated by...

Actual physical force Threat of physical force Threat to kidnap victim or third person Inability to give consent (e.g., when drugged) The YES movement

Sexual Assault: Policy and Prevention

Address institutions at risk for perpetration E.g., men in smaller colleges endorse more rape myths Address groups at risk for perpetration e.g., male athletes - Address their hypermasculinity and avoid special protection due to sports. Put men in caretaking roles to develop empathy Promote male role models and work through all-male groups to change attitudes conducive to sexual violence. Address groups at risk for victimization Clarify risk, encourage disclosure. Promote public awareness and safety/support Replace rape culture with healthy sex and healthy relationships cultures Target peer networks and community-level factors (e.g., Promote bullying and bystander prevention programs). College courses (yay, that's us!). Include law enforcement, courts, medical field.

Criminal justice system responses

Advocates' concerns about system responses constituting a second rape bc unsupportive, too questioning of the victim's claims Law enforcement-sex crimes units often now handle these cases, have special training to reduce secondary victimization Prosecutorial discretion problematic in sex crimes cases (Extra-legal information influences case handling) Judges' biases - e.g., Judge Perksy in Brock Turner case Mishandling of DNA evidence (Data collected but not analyzed - huge backlogs)

IPV: Risk factors for victimization

Age Gender Race and ethnicity Socioeconomic status Immigrant or refugee status Military status Mental health Sexual orientation Gender expression

Prevention Approaches

Broader prevention programs target the general population: Media campaigns to raise awareness of IPV and the harm that it causes. Pledge campaigns which enlist men as allies in preventing IPV by asking them to publicly denounce violence against women and children, promote a more respectful culture, and share these messages with co-workers and others by distributing brochures and other resources in their workplaces, clubs, and other venues.

Prevention of IPV According to Allison

Bystander Intervention Transforming Ideologies Societal Accountability Listen to Women and Believe Women!

What is the difference between sex and sexual assault?

CONSENT

IPV Risk Factors: Gender

Counting acts of IPV, women's reports of perpetration against male partners are as high as men's reports of perpetration against their female partners. (Hetero only data). However, women's victimization is more severe than men's victimization: 1 in 4 women, compared with 1 in 7 men, are victims of severe physical IPV. Women are significantly more likely to be sexually assaulted by intimate partner.

Sexual Assault: Same Sex or Trans

Data rarely separate out this population. Relative to lesbian or bi women, hetero women: more likely to experience completed rapes Relative to hetero or bi women, lesbians more likely to be sexually assaulted by family. Bi women more likely to report to formal sources. Bisexuals also tend to receive more negative reactions to their disclosures of sexual assault. 1 in 2 transgender people sexually abused or assaulted in their lifetime.

What is dating violence?

Definition: physical, emotional, or threat of abuse by a member of an unmarried dating couple Operational definition: frequency and severity Legal definition: same laws as those that apply to any unpartnered person

Social Construction of Femininity

Dominant Femininity: Delicate Fragile Demure European Beauty Standards Black women viewed as the antithesis of white women: Deviant womanhood (unworthy of care, concern, and protection). The Strong Black Woman (Managerial vs. Sassy) One is seen as less worthy of care than the other.

Economic Consequences of IPV Victimization

Employment: IPV victims are sometimes forced to quit their jobs or they are fired because the IPV (or their abusive partner) interferes with their ability to fulfill their work responsibilities. Housing: More than 1/3 of victims, the vast majority of whom are women with children, become homeless when they leave an abusive partner (few affordable or subsidized housing options are available). Health care: Health care costs for women who have experienced IPV remain high even after the abuse has stopped. (Victims average more annual health care visits, more hospital and emergency room visits, and more mental health and substance use treatment services than women who have never experienced abuse). Poverty: Reduced income is a consequence Economic consequences not only for individual victims, but also for society: The cost of intimate partner violence against women in the United States is over $8.3 billion.

Sexual Assault: Characteristics of Perpetrators

Endorse rape myths, believe in adversarial sex, and lack empathy Have history of childhood abuse Have psychopathy Are hostile towards women (even when they rape men) Are sexually promiscuous Have history of delinquency May offend repeatedly

Intervention: Courts

FORMAL: Until 1980s, most prosecutors automatically dropped charges against offenders at the victim's request without investigating whether victim was being coerced into request by offender or offender's family. After the adoption of mandatory or preferred arrest policies, many jurisdictions adopted victimless or no-drop prosecution policies. Research examining impact of formal case processing and disposition on recidivism rates has produced inconsistent results, with some studies showing no appreciable effect of prosecution on lowering recidivism. INFORMAL: Restorative justice = informal conflict mediation. programs and practices that deemphasize punishment in favor of making amends to victims and reintegrating offenders into their communities. These goals are pursued through meetings or "conferences" that typically include the victim, the offender, support people (often family members), community members, and a facilitator.

Obstacles to leaving abusive partner

Fear that abuser's threats to kill her and the children will be realized. (This fear is not unfounded; lethal risk increases when the victim leaves or tries to leave). Fear of losing custody of children (Abusive partners often threaten victims with custody litigation; these are not idle threats. In cases involving IPV, the majority of fathers who request some form of custody are granted it by the courts). Inability to provide for her children without the abuser's income. (In Texas 85% of victims who called crisis hotlines or went to emergency rooms or shelters left abusive partners multiple times but gave financial despair as primary reason for returning). Feeling guilty and responsible for the abuse, often because the abuser has convinced victim that it is her/his fault. Belief that if only she would do something—or not do something—partner would not become so angry. (Victim may also believe it is his/her responsibility to maintain family harmony, keep family intact). Being socially isolated (Restricting the victim's interactions with family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers is a common tactic of coercive control used by abusive partners. Victim may feel like he/she has no one to whom he/she can turn for help, and such feelings may be exacerbated if family members pressure to stay with the abuser because they believe divorce is wrong or a "sin" or that it will harm the children). Feeling embarrassed and ashamed. Coming from a cultural background that values "family privacy" and discourages family members from "airing their dirty laundry." Fear of stigma (Revealing the problem may reinforce negative stereotypes of the group; A middle class or affluent victim may believe that IPV only occurs in working class or poor families) Concern about consequences for partner (tarnished reputation, social, economic, or legal effects) Concerns about social group-- specifically for LGBTQ and Black communities

Treatment for Sexual Assault

Focus on: Victims Perpetrators

What to do about dating violence: Bystander Level

Frame the behaviors as signs of relationship weakness, not strength State the facts: Violence is illegal Violence is not necessary; there are alternatives Highlight the possibilities for change Refer to resources Offer emotional support Ask how you can help

Research by Peggy Giordano et al.

From age 13-22 Communication awkwardness declines but less so for boys Dating confidence increases but less so for boys Partner attempts to control or change you increase but more so for boys Changing self to accommodate partner increases but more so for boys Girls tend to think they have more power in the relationship Thus, contrary to traditional thinking Boys are more engaged but less confident (not less interested in relationships than girls) Girls are more experienced with intimacy and communication and are likely to engage in influence attempts with partners (not necessarily passive or always the victims)

IPV: Scope of the Problem

Given how difficult it is to define and measure violence and maltreatment in intimate relationships, determining the rate of IPV victimization is not straightforward An estimated 8-12% of men and 12-25% of women are physically and/or sexually assaulted by an intimate partner each year. Studies that restrict the definition of IPV to physical or sexual acts, however, overlook important types of intimate partner violence such as: Economic abuse Psychological abuse Coercive control

Risk Factors for Perpetration: Age

Given that young women are at greatest risk for IPV victimization, young men, 18-29 years old, are at high risk for IPV perpetration, particularly physical violence.

IPV: Victim-Centered Approach

Help providers should take a victim-centered approach, in which they consult with victims, asking how they can help victims, RATHER than telling victims what they should do. A number of victim-centered, community-based programs have been established that involve collaborations across service organizations and agencies, such as victim advocacy service providers and the police, or victim advocacy service providers and health care providers. People who experience IPV should be treated as EXPERTS on their own situation.

Defining IPV Perpetration

IPV perpetrator (aka batterer)= a person who exercises a pattern of coercive control in an intimate partner relationship, punctuated by one or more acts of intimidating physical violence, sexual assault, or credible threat of physical violence. A perpetrator's pattern of control and intimidation may be predominantly psychological, economic, or sexual in nature or may rely primarily on the use of physical violence. This definition recognizes that IPV perpetration is not homogeneous; that is, batterers do not all behave in exactly the same ways or use the same abusive tactics.

What to do about dating violence: Relationship Level

Identify specific contested domains and reveal partner's attempts to influence there Educate re: unhealthy control tactics: Call them what they are: relationship vulnerabilities, not signs of love Frame them as negative, not positive. "Power" sounds good! Acknowledge multiple scenarios for violence: Unwarranted concerns vs. warranted concerns (e.g., actual infidelity) Attend to emotions: Anger is not the opposite of reason; it is tied to concrete concerns and it is malleable But anger management is not enough, especially if you have a legitimate reason to be angry

IPV Risk Factors: Sexual Orientation

Large, nationally representative samples of gay and lesbian couples are not currently available. Some researchers argue IPV occurs at same, or even higher, rate as hetero IPV. Unique types of abuse: e.g., homophobic control (behaviors such as threatening to "out" a lesbian or gay man to family, friends, employers, co-workers or others whom the individual does not want to know about her or his sexuality. Same-sex IPV occurs in the context not only of sexism, but also heterosexism and homophobia, which, as we will see shortly, has serious consequences for victims of same-sex IPV. Recent study using data from CT: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual couples most closely resemble couples with male-to-female violence - that is, IPV with a male perpetrator and female victim. Contrary to the societal stereotype that all IPV is a "fight between equals," this research demonstrates that at least some of GLB IPV can be considered serious and unidirectional, a finding that remains regardless of dual versus single arrest status. (Bell Gerstenberger, 2017).

Risk Factors for Perpetration: Gender

Men commit more violent crime than women do. i.e., there is asymmetry across genders Yet, for about 40 years, IPV researchers have argued about whether women are as violent as men. This is the gender symmetry (or gender parity) debate Claims of gender symmetry or parity in IPV perpetration are not supported by the majority of empirical studies. Men's and women's IPV perpetration varies not only quantitatively, but qualitatively as well. e.g., THREATS. Women threaten to (or actually do) harm themselves (e.g., commit suicide) or destroy their partner's valued property (e.g., scratching or crashing the partner's car), whereas men threaten to (or actually do) kill not only their partner, but also the partner's children, the partner's relatives (e.g., partner's parents), or other people close to the partner (e.g., friends and co-workers).

Risk Factors for Perpetration: Substance Use

Men who are heavy or problem drinkers, especially men who binge drink, are at greater risk of perpetration than men who are light or moderate drinkers or who abstain from alcohol. IPV perpetrated by men who abuse alcohol tends to be more frequent and more severe than IPV perpetrated by men who are not problem drinkers. Nevertheless, a correlation between substance use and IPV perpetration does not mean that substance use, such as heavy drinking, causes IPV. Proximal effects model posits that high substance use directly facilitates perpetration because of its psychopharmacological effects on cognitive functioning, or through users' expectations of the disinhibiting effects of alcohol/drugs. Multiple threshold model posits that substance use may contribute to perpetration more for some people than for others, depending on its interaction with other risk factors.

Batterer Intervention Programs (BIP)

Most individuals arrested for IPV are not sentenced to jail or prison, but rather are mandated to attend a batterer intervention program. All states have these programs, but they vary. Most of the work in BIPs is done in groups, although group sessions may be supplemented in some programs with individual counseling and therapy. Batterers often do not recognize their own behavior as abusive and typically underestimate the severity of their abusive behavior and its negative impact on those they victimize (BIPs address these issues). *Coordination of BIPs with criminal justice responses improves effectiveness* Evaluations of BIPs in terms of their effectiveness in reducing recidivism have shown short-term success, but the extent to which they produce genuine, long-term behavioral change is less clear. Limitation: they are purely reactive.

High-Risk Communities

Most research has focused on identifying individual characteristics, rather than on social, community, or structural factors. Exception: research on attitudes and beliefs in that it focuses attitudes and beliefs grounded in patriarchal gender norms, which reflect gender inequalities embedded in social institutions. Recent studies include community or structural risk markers for perpetration, due to importance of examining how community characteristics and organization may reinforce and perpetuate gender inequality, including gendered violence and aggression.

IPV Risk Factors: Race and Ethnicity

Most studies do not include multiple racial/ethnic groups, but instead compare 1 or 2 racial/ethnic minority groups with whites. Several studies show higher rates of IPV victimization for African Americans compared to whites. Because African Americans are disproportionately represented among low-income and poor people, race may be a less important risk than social class.

Risk Factors for Perpetration

No single factor produces perpetration. Perpetration is the result of the interaction of multiple factors, individual and structural. A reason to identify risk factors is to prevent the violence from occurring in the first place. Researchers have developed dangerousness assessment instruments: Some instruments are administered to victims to assist with their safety planning Others are administered to perpetrators (or potential perpetrators) by clinicians in treatment settings or even by police responding to calls for help to identify risk of re-offending. Among most widely used is Danger Assessment Scale (DAS). (The DAS is designed to be administered by a victim service provider, who asks the victim 20 questions about the perpetrator and asks victim to complete a calendar that charts the frequency and severity of abuse over past year). Researchers and clinicians urge extreme caution in using dangerousness assessment instruments to predict who will perpetrate IPV, especially serious or lethal IPV (The first error, in which a relatively non-dangerous offender is labeled dangerous (non-recidivists identified as high risk), is a false positive; The second error, in which a relatively dangerous offender is labeled non-dangerous (recidivists identified as moderate or low risk), is a false negative).

IPV Risk Factors: Gender Expression

Not yet known

Risk Factors for Perpetration: Strong sense of entitlement

Perpetrators are selfish and self-centered.

Attitudes about sex and sexual violence

Perpetrators tend to: Have adversarial sexual beliefs (e.g., sex is exploitive and manipulative) Lack empathy Believe that rape is a myth and is acceptable Even many non-perpetrators endorse rape myths (men tend to endorse them more than women) People commonly uninformed about sexual assault US characterized by a rape culture (Attitudes and beliefs in the population that support the perpetration of rape and sexual assault) These attitudes lead to denial of sexual assault and victim doubting, blaming, and shaming.

What to do about dating violence: System Level

Promote criminal justice responses Foster societal intolerance of dating violence Address gender attitudes (women also perpetrate; men are also victimized) Relationship-centered interventions: Teach how to have a healthy relationship, not just, "don't do violence" Move beyond mere lists of controlling behaviors to avoid; include discussion of what the controlling behavior is getting at (e.g., infidelity concerns)

Risk Factors for Perpetration: Race/ethnicity

Racial and ethnic minorities have higher rates of perpetration than whites. However, studies typically collapse multiple and highly diverse racial/ethnic subgroups into a small number of broad categories. They often fail to take socioeconomic status into account. Racial/ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented among the poor and near-poor Poverty, low income, low occupational status, and low educational attainment = greater risk.

Explaining Sexual Assault

Rape culture Isms, homophobia, and misogyny Alcohol and other drug use undermine perpetrator's and victim's capacity to function well Structural organizational factors (e.g., college organization) Social organizational cultures (e.g., fraternities) can be conducive to sexual violence Misperceptions about what constitutes consent Gender socialization (e.g., women are not supposed to want sex; e.g., men are supposed to want sex)

Risk Factors for Perpetration: Immigration

Recent immigrant = greater risk due to immigration-related stressors, such as the inability to find work or to attain financial stability. There is a great deal of diversity across immigrant groups; most studies of immigrants use samples that are too small to allow for analyses of specific subgroups.

Health Care Responses to IPV

Recognizing IPV as a widespread and serious public health problem is important. Many providers now regularly screen for IPV.

IPV Risk Factors: Socioeconomic Status

Research on socioeconomic status and IPV victimization has focused on financial strain and the effects of living in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. There is a strong relationship between economic distress and IPV. However, the relationship between economic hardship and IPV may be reciprocal. While economic stress may increase the risk of IPV, the experience of IPV may lead victims into and entrap them in poverty as well as the abusive intimate relationship. When IPV is common among one's friends and relatives, it becomes incorporated into one's "cognitive landscape" and becomes viewed as a "normal" part of intimate relationships, or even, as Marcus tried to tell Shelby, an expression of love or caring.

Risk Factors for Dating Violence

Self worth is contingent on the romantic relationship=greater risk. Longer relationship=greater risk. More commitment to relationship=greater risk. Insecure attachment=> controlling=> violence. Partner preferences (Abusive partners tend to prefer partners with high attachment anxiety). Childhood experience of or witnessing violence. Traits: Angry, hypermasculine, controlling=greater risk. Jealousy=greater risk. Gender role attitudes.

IPV Risk Factors: Mental Health

Serious mental illness=greater risk

What to do about dating violence

System level Relationship level Bystander level

Cycle of Violence

Tension building Acute Expulsion Honeymoon Each have specific characteristics for batterers and victims.

Hetero vs. same-sex risk factors

The focus here on male batterers in heterosexual relationships is not intended to overlook or minimize IPV in same-sex relationships. Perpetrators in same-sex relationships have not been studied as extensively; we have far less data on perpetration risk factors in same-sex relationships. Despite similarities between heterosexual and same-sex IPV perpetration, one significant difference: Internalized homophobia is a risk factor for perpetration in same-sex relationships. It is the acceptance of and internalization to one's identity negative (homophobic) societal attitudes and beliefs about lesbians and gay men.

Intervention: Police

The importance of holding perpetrators accountable has been a prominent theme in the antiviolence against women movement since the 1970s. Arresting perpetrators is more effective at reducing recidivism than simply separating the partners. To reduce the risk of an IPV victim being arrested along with a perpetrator, however, many jurisdictions have enacted primary aggressor laws. Responding officers distinguish the party who initiated the aggression from the party who likely acted as a defensive response to that aggression, and distinguish offensive injuries from defensive injuries.

Risk Factors for Perpetration: Psychopathology

The public falsely assumes batterers are mentally ill. Except for a very small group of extremely physically violent individuals, batterers do *not* have significantly higher rates of psychopathology.

Shelters and Other Victim Services

There are 2,000+ domestic violence shelters in US (Most are for women only). Most provide empowerment counseling, which is designed to help victims gain or restore their sense of personal power and control, which are severely diminished by IPV. Shelters offer a variety of programs and services, including 24-hour hotlines, counseling, support groups, transitional housing programs, financial education, employment training and assistance, legal advocacy, and programs specially designed for children. Shelter locations are often hidden. Why?

Dating violence desistence

There are more options than with other individual behaviors: Change self Change partner Change the relationship (from within) End the relationship Hooks for change (factors that make desistance more likely): Arrest/jail, even the threat of it works Transition to parenthood Movement on the relationship learning curve (most common). People are generally motivated to change

Who engages in dating violence?

Unmarried couples Males perpetrate more than females, but mutual/reciprocal dating violence is fairly common Adolescents and young adults Dating violence declines with age People are learning how to have a romantic relationship Early peer worlds are incomplete guides to action

Protective Orders

Victims may file for a protection order (also known as a restraining order or a domestic violence order). Such orders are obtained in the civil courts, rather than the criminal courts. They allow judges to impose specific restrictions on the abusive partner, depending on the concerns of the victim and the circumstances of the case.

Interventions and Prevention of IPV

Victims may turn to: Informal help providers (most common): family or friends Formal help providers: Domestic violence shelters Victim advocacy services (i.e., non-residential services, such as assistance with filing a protection order) Health care professionals Police Legal system

What do partners fight about?

Violence is caused by: Attempts to control partner Anger (angry self, anger at partner's actions) What are they trying to control? What are they angry about? Content: Most common contested domains Finances (including "the future") Time spent with peers Infidelity/infidelity concerns Form: Verbal amplifiers: negative forms of communication used during discussions of disagreements (e.g., name calling, ridicule) When content and form are both present, violence risk is very high, net of other risk factors