Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Prevention of Intimate Partner Violence

The Prevention of Intimate Partner Violence Prev Sci (2012) 13:395–397 DOI 10.1007/s11121-012-0306-1 Don G. Dutton Published online: 8 July 2012 Society for Prevention Research 2012 Interventions into intimate partner violence (IPV) that occur 2007), with bidirectional violence accounting for about 40– “after the fact” are notoriously unsuccessful (Dutton 2006). 60 % of all reported IPV. IPV against a nonviolent partner is Arrest has a variable impact on recidivist assault (Sherman et relatively rare (Bartholomew and Cobb 2011;Stets and al. (1992)) and has its best results on perpetrators who least Straus 1989). A pattern of dyadic negative reciprocity is need state intervention by virtue of having a “stake in con- both more likely and more dangerous (Whitaker et al. formity” (Garner and Maxwell 2000). “ No drop prosecution” 2007), an important fact that has often been ignored by generates an unwillingness of victims to reutilize the system treatment providers of perpetrators. The gender paradigm (Hotaling and Buzawa 2003), generating an increase in is routinely taught to criminal justice officials and presents a spousal homicides in “no drop” states compared to other states stereotype of IPV—the “wife battering” stereotype as the (Iyengar 2007). “Duluth” style psychoeducational interven- modal pattern. This stereotypic pattern (repetitive, severe, tions have a http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Prevention Science Springer Journals

The Prevention of Intimate Partner Violence

Dutton, Don
Prevention Science , Volume 13 (4) – Jul 8, 2012
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
1
 
/lp/springer_journal/the-prevention-of-intimate-partner-violence-Yi3hfvlADr

References (31)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by Society for Prevention Research
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Public Health; Health Psychology; Child and School Psychology
ISSN
1389-4986
eISSN
1573-6695
DOI
10.1007/s11121-012-0306-1
pmid
22772972
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Prev Sci (2012) 13:395–397 DOI 10.1007/s11121-012-0306-1 Don G. Dutton Published online: 8 July 2012 Society for Prevention Research 2012 Interventions into intimate partner violence (IPV) that occur 2007), with bidirectional violence accounting for about 40– “after the fact” are notoriously unsuccessful (Dutton 2006). 60 % of all reported IPV. IPV against a nonviolent partner is Arrest has a variable impact on recidivist assault (Sherman et relatively rare (Bartholomew and Cobb 2011;Stets and al. (1992)) and has its best results on perpetrators who least Straus 1989). A pattern of dyadic negative reciprocity is need state intervention by virtue of having a “stake in con- both more likely and more dangerous (Whitaker et al. formity” (Garner and Maxwell 2000). “ No drop prosecution” 2007), an important fact that has often been ignored by generates an unwillingness of victims to reutilize the system treatment providers of perpetrators. The gender paradigm (Hotaling and Buzawa 2003), generating an increase in is routinely taught to criminal justice officials and presents a spousal homicides in “no drop” states compared to other states stereotype of IPV—the “wife battering” stereotype as the (Iyengar 2007). “Duluth” style psychoeducational interven- modal pattern. This stereotypic pattern (repetitive, severe, tions have a

Journal

Prevention Science – Springer Journals

Published: Jul 8, 2012

There are no references for this article.