To Örebro University

This article presents the first systematic review of family-only intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators (as originally proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart). The aims of the present review were to summarize and describe the prevalence of the family-only perpetrator subtype, as well as to investigate what characteristics were associated with perpetrators within this subtype. Electronic literature searches in several databases (e.g., PsychINFO, Web of Science, and PubMed) were carried out. Of the 3,434 studies identified, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria as well as the methodological quality criteria. Thematic analyses were conducted, where several themes and subthemes were identified. The proportion of family-only perpetrators, averaged across sample types, was 47.5%. Drawing on the thematic analyses of the reviewed studies, family-only perpetrators presented as a less violent subtype, displaying several pro-social personality traits, as well as a lower degree of psychopathology. The findings were inline with Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s predictions. The findings also demonstrated the utility of a 2-fold typology, consisting of a family-only and a generally violent (GV) subtype, as well as the need to reconsider the one-size-fits-all approach to IPV treatment. We also included a discussion of the terminology of the subtypes and propose an adoption of the terms “partner onlyviolent” and “generally violent” subtypes.

Subtyping male perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) based ontheir generality of violence could facilitate the difficult task of matchingperpetrator subtype with efficient risk management strategies. As such, theaim of the present study was to compare antisocial and family-only maleperpetrators of interpersonal violence in terms of (a) demographic andlegal characteristics, (b) risk factors for violence, and (c) assessed risk andthe importance of specific risk factors for violence. A quantitative designwas used in this retrospective register study on data obtained from theSwedish police. Risk assessments performed with the Swedish version ofthe Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER) andpolice registers were used. A sample of 657 male alleged IPV perpetratorswere classified as antisocial (n = 341) or family-only (n = 316) based on theirgenerality of violence. The results showed that the antisocial perpetratorswere significantly younger, as well as more psychologically abusive. Antisocialperpetrators also had significantly more present risk factors for IPV, and wereassessed with a significantly higher risk for acute and severe or deadly IPV, compared with the family-only perpetrators. The subtypes also evidencedunique risk factors with a significant impact on elevated risk for acute andsevere or deadly such violence. Key findings in the present study concernedthe subtypes evidencing unique risk factors increasing the risk for acute andsevere or deadly IPV. Major implications of this study include the findings ofsuch unique “red flag” risk factors for each subtype. To prevent future IPV,it is vital for the risk assessor to be aware of these red flags when makingdecisions about risk, as well as risk management strategies.

The aim of this study was to compare antisocial and family-only intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators in terms of IPV recidivism rates, type of recidivism crime, and time to recidivism. A total sample of 628 perpetrators was categorized as antisocial (n = 327) or family-only (n = 301) based on general criminality. Results demonstrated that antisocial perpetrators recidivated to a larger extent than family-only perpetrators (27.2% vs. 12.9%). Antisocial perpetrators were more prone to recidivate in both physical and nonphysical violence. Of the perpetrators who recidivated, the majority did so within the first year after their index crime. However, antisocial perpetrators recidivated more than family-only perpetrators after the first year. key findings consisted of the subtypes’ differing propensity to reoffend and their different critical time periods for recidivism. These findings suggest the need for different risk management strategies depending on perpetrator subtype to prevent future violence.

This study aimed to describe and compare arrested and non-arrested male intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators, in terms of individual characteristics and variables related to the IPV incident, in a sample of 628 perpetrators reported to the Swedish police. We also explored recidivism rates in relation to arrest within the total sample, as well as among subtypes of partner violent men (i.e. generally violent [GV] and partner only [PO] violent). The perpetrators in this longitudinal study were reported to the police for male-to-female perpetrated IPV and subjected to a structured violencerisk assessment between 2011 and 2014. The results showed that arrested perpetrators were more likely to be reported for severe forms of IPV, being assessed by the police post-arrest with a higher risk for recidivism, and being more likely to be prosecuted for the reported IPV incident. There was also a significant interaction effect between subtypes and arrest for IPV recidivism within 12 months post-arrest. Among those perpetrators who were arrested, GV perpetrators were more than four times as likely as PO violent perpetrators to recidivate in IPV. The results of this study high-light the importance of differentiating between subtypes when examining the impact of sanctions on IPV recidivism