Investigating Sub-groups of Harassers: The Roles of Attachment,Dependency, Jealousy and Aggression

The study aimed to classify non-harassers, minor, and severe harassers based on responses to measures of jealousy, dependency, attachment, perpetration, and victimization of relationship aggression, and harassment victimization, in a convenience sample of undergraduate students. Respondents (n = 177) replied on the following scales: Unwanted Pursuit Behaviors Inventory (UPBI: Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., Violence and Victims 15:73–89, 2000), Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS: Straus, Journal of Marriage and the Family 41:75–88, 1979, measuring physical and verbal aggression for respondents and their partners), Sexual Jealousy Scale (SJS: Nannini and Meyers, The Journal of Sex Research 37:117–122, 2000), Interpersonal Dependency Inventory (IDI: Hirschfeld et al., Journal of Personality Assessment 41:610–618, 1997), and the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ: Bartholomew and Horowitz, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61:226–244, 1991, measuring adult attachment). Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA), with responses to these measures entered as predictors, produced significant differences between the groups in the univariate results on measures of: preoccupied attachment, jealousy, emotional reliance, verbal aggression and harassment victimization, and physical aggression perpetration. The functions identified by the DFA correctly classified 61% of cases, and identified the important roles of jealousy, dependency, attachment, and relationship aggression in harassment. Differing responses to the measurement of these can theoretically distinguish between non-, minor, and severe harassers.     

Does Controlling Behavior Predict Physical Aggression and Violence to Partners?

Using data obtained from women’s shelter residents, male and female students, and male prisoners, this study investigated the association between non-violent controlling behaviors, physical aggression, and violence towards a spouse (N = 264). It was predicted that only men and women involved in intimate terrorism (Johnson, Violence Against Women, 11(12):1003–1018, 2006) would use controlling aggression, and that physical aggression used by those involved in situational couple violence would be unrelated to controlling behavior. Contrary to predictions derived from Johnson’s theory, regression analysis showed that control accounted significant proportions of the variance in the use of physical aggression for all three relationship categories. Some support was provided, however, as it was found that the pattern of both interrelationships of the five types of controlling behaviors, and control and physical aggression, supported Johnson’s distinction.     

Deaths While under Probation Supervision: What Role for Human Rights Legislation?

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that ‘everyone has the right to life’. This right is contained in all human rights treaties that developed from the UDHR, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Yet, as we argue, the UK government is failing to protect this right when it comes to certain groups of people under probation supervision. To date, human rights legislation has failed adequately to protect these vulnerable individuals and to hold the state to account. This article explores the greater potential for using human rights legislation to ensure better accountability in this area.     

Violence during Pregnancy: Investigating Infanticidal Motives

This study aimed to investigate whether potentially infanticidal violence by men toward their pregnant partners’ is motivated by jealousy, and hence paternity uncertainty. It was predicted that men who used potentially infanticidal violence (directing their physical aggression towards their pregnant partners’ abdominal region) would have younger partners as this is associated with greater reproductive value; would be in relationships of shorter duration as this may indicate less stable relationships; and would be more jealous and restrictive of their partner’s movements and friendships than violent men who directed their aggression to other regions of their pregnant partners’ body. Relationship behaviors were provided from 43 women in domestic violence shelters (n?=?43), using measures of the following: (1) partner physical aggression (2) victim fear and injury, (3) areas of bodily assault (when pregnant and when not pregnant), (4) controlling behaviors, and (5) topics of disagreement. Violence directed towards the fetus was associated with shorter relationships where both partners were younger. In such relationships, there was more physical aggression from the male partner, he used more controlling behaviors to isolate his partner, and the partners had more disagreements arising from his jealousy, compared with when physical aggression was not directed towards the fetus. These findings are consistent with an infanticidal motive for men’s aggression directed towards their pregnant partners. If paternity uncertainty is a primary cause of this dangerous form of domestic violence, it should form an important element in any screening instrument.     

The age of risk: risk perception and determination following the Mental Health Act 2007

Reforms to the mental health law framework for England and Wales, which were introduced by the Mental Health Act 2007, are now having a practical effect on day-to-day mental health decision-making. The 2007 Act amends the Mental Health Act 1983, which governs the compulsory hospitalisation and treatment of people with mental disorder; and represents the culmination of a protracted and controversial reform process which has spanned much of the last 15 years. One of the key foci in the 2007 Act is the question of the risk posed by the patient, primarily to others; a result of both the social and political impetus behind the reform process and mounting public anxiety at the management of the mentally disordered. The new Act seeks, as with past legislation, to find the elusive balance between protecting and facilitating the individual's autonomy while also providing an effective framework for the wider public right to protection. The 2007 Act solidifies the dominance of risk by providing a legitimating framework in which risk can be assessed, monitored, and managed. This attitudinal change is demonstrated by the gradual and almost insidious adoption of risk terminology within the practical decision-making setting and the increasing use of risk assessment and management tools. This article is informed by an empirical study which examined individual professional and institutional responses to the mental health legislation in relation to risk. It examines whether the amended legislative framework amplifies risk as an increasingly dominant concern within decision-making. The paper then goes on to consider how decision-makers use risk to assist with their daily roles. Extrapolated from data obtained through the study, several models of risk determination are then discussed. Finally, some thought is given to whether the extension of the risk concept has the potential to become more fundamental within the organisation and legitimisation of mental health care.