Abuser in Intimate Partner Violence

The 9th NSFPStockholm, 24-

26.8.2011

Hannu Säävälä et al

Oulu University Hospital, Department of

Psychiatry

Abuser in Intimate Partner Violence Hannu Säävälä1&2, MD, PhD, forensic

psychiatrist Riitta Hannus2, Social Worker Tuija Korhonen2, Psychologist Riitta Pohjoisvirta2, Social Worker Santtu Salonen2, Social Worker

=====

1Oulu University Hospital, Department of Psychiatry

2Oulu Mother and Child Home and Shelter

Abuser in Intimate Partner Violence

Oulu Mother and Child Home and Shelter

Outpatient and shelter

Services for the victim, the abuser and the children

Population base appr 200 000

Integrated framework

Theoretical socio-cultural: Gendered violence Psychiatric: Individual psychology Systemic: Family dynamics

Practical Individual work Family work Team work

Study data

All Client-cases during 2003-5, N=447

Shelter 62%, outpatient 38% Statistical analysis, 154 variables Abuser 97% male Victim’s violence in 22% of cases

Selection of Study Subjects

All client cases

N=447 victim identifN=431

perp identifN=425

16 cases omitted

6 cases omitted

victim partnerN=383

partner casesN=374

42 cases omitted

9 cases omitted

Aims of the study

Is it possible to differenciate between serious and less serious violence?

What are the differences in serious and less serious violence?

Violence: Problem of the abuser or Culturally determined?

Assessment of violence (Johnson 1995)

Intimate terrorism (IT)

Controlling Serious physical

attacks or traumatizing effect on the victim

Common coupleviolence

(CCV) Non-controlling Non-serious

physical attacks and non-traumatizing effect on the victim

In terror the size matters

Mental traumatization is central to seriousness of violence

Classification of cases(% of all, N=235)

Common couple violence (CCV) 75%

Intimate terrorism (IT) 25%

Intimate terrorism

Abuser’s violence more frequentlyIn previous relationship (N=79, p=0.032)

Lead to previous convictions (N=87, p<0.00)

From the start of the present relationship (N=157, p=0.008)

Towards children (N=146, p<0.00)

Also outside home (N=137, p<0.00)

Unilaterally (N=144, p<0.00)

Intimate terrorismAbuser’s mental problems: More often

Dominant traits (N=168, p<0.00)Labile affective traits (N=176 p<0.00)Paranoid traits (N=157, p<0.00)Dissociative symptoms (N=123, p=0.036)No depressive traits (N=131, p=0.004)Problems with intoxicants (N=178, p=0.001)Violent also when sober (N=124, p=0.027)

Intimate terrorism is a mental problem of the

abuserDutton 2007

Intimate terrorism

The Attitudes of the Abuser:More often patriarchal (N=152, p=0.002)

Did not take responsibility of his/her actions (N=150, p<0.00)

Was not motivated to strive for non-violence (N=163, p<0.00)

Intimate terrorism is a culturally determined phenomenon

Walker 1989, Archer 2006

Problems of the Study

Standardization Reliability of classifications Missing info of clients Generalizability of results

Conclusions of the study

IPV is not a uniform phenomenon We need integrated approaches to

tackle the problem of IPV It is possible to assess IPV

Helps to plan Safety measures Suitable working methods