Exploring the Effect of Arrest Across a Domestic Batterer Typology

While arrest is a common intervention utilized in intimate partner violence, it is not known if this strategy affects all types of offenders equally. The present study used data from three of the Spousal Assault Replication Program (SARP) studies to examine the deterrent effect of arrest on four different batterer subtypes (those identified by Holtzworth‐Munroe and Stuart, 1994) among a sample of 2,412 heterosexual male batterers. The results indicated that arrest increased the recidivism of IPV for two of the batterer subtypes (generally violent/antisocial and low‐level antisocial subtypes), suggesting the need for pre‐trial protection of victims.     

Taking Action to Stop Violence: A Study on Readiness to Change Among Male Batterers

The Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM) predicts that matching interventions with a person’s readiness to change should improve treatment outcomes. This cross-sectional correlational study examined characteristics that affected self-reported readiness to change abusive behavior among a sample of 109 men in a 52-week batterer treatment program. Participants completed measures of anger/hostility, readiness to change, manipulative parenting, and self-esteem. Results indicated that contemplation of the impact of abuse has the highest unique relationship with self-reported taking action to stop violence. Moreover, physical aggression and manipulative parenting account for significant variance in the scores associated with self-reported taking action to stop violence as well. These findings suggest that interventions aimed at moving clients into contemplation, and reducing physical aggression and manipulative parenting styles, may increase the likelihood that batterers will take action to stop violence.     

Models Among the Political Theorists

Political theorists rely on models in ways that typically are neglected. They do so for largely the same reasons other political scientists do. Those reasons have little to do with the standard rationale political scientists advance, namely, that they use models to deduce predictions that, treated as hypotheses, can be tested against the “real world.” Starting from Thomas Schelling's view of models, I show how John Rawls and Michel Foucault each rely on a model in ways that conform to his characterization. I then draw a comparison between Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Arrow to illuminate the value of formalization. I conclude by sketching a view of models not as devices for making predictions but as tools for conceptual exploration. On that basis, I argue that the standard rationale turns out to be deeply problematic.