Women Who Perpetrate Relationship Violence: Moving Beyond Political Correctness

The stated goal of Women Who Perpetrate Relationship Violence was to take a frank look, unfettered by political correctness, at female perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV). The book is edited by academics in the field of social work who have vast experience in researching and providing clinical care to this population. Women who batter their partners have rarely been the subject of empirical research. Therefore, much less is known about their patterns of violence or their treatment than is known about male perpetrators. The editors explain that subsequent to mandatory arrest laws for IPV, women represented approximately one-fourth of court referrals to battering intervention programs. This book makes an important contribution to understanding this phenomenon.

The innovative text is composed of five concise chapters that were contemporaneously published in the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. One chapter is an overview of women who inflict IPV, and the remaining four round out the volume with original research. The chapters are authored by psychologists, criminologists, and social workers whose perspectives regarding IPV may offend some readers. The authors state that women who engage in violence in their intimate relationships are heterogeneous, ranging from those who are similar to classic male perpetrators to those who are self-protective.

The authors of the book's well-referenced first chapter review the literature about women as perpetrators of IPV, including the rarely explored matter of violence in lesbian relationships. Several studies are presented that support similar rates of female IPV in homosexual and heterosexual relationships. The authors assert that a man's reports of victimization in a heterosexual relationship would be likely to receive greater scrutiny than similar reports made by a woman. They also posit that men may not report victimization by women because of embarrassment. In addition, some male violence may occur in self-defense, in response to female aggression.

The book may be considered a call for expanded research in female IPV assessment and treatment. Researchers who study violent behavior by women should examine the motive, context, and severity of the behavior. IPV may evolve in several contexts, including a mutually reciprocal event in an argument, a predatory act, reaction borne of paranoia, or self-protection in the context of victimization. Bland and Orn, for example, surveyed Canadian women who had engaged in IPV.¹ The researchers found that 23 percent of their sample had hit or thrown things at their husbands and 73 percent had initiated violence. This study and related work support a recommendation for female IPV offenders to be assessed for Axis I and II mental disorders, personal victimization, communication skills, frustration tolerance, and violence risk factors.

Authors Carney and Buttell describe research that found that, in women who attended mandatory treatment for IPV, excessive dependence on one's partner was correlated with violence by the perpetrator. Also, batterer intervention programs that focused on social skills development and anger management skills did not reduce interpersonal dependence in female perpetrators of IPV; their dependency needs increased by the end of the program. Women who withdrew from the program were more dependent and aggressive than those who completed it. Therefore, attachment style and interpersonal dependency may be relevant targets in developing treatment programs.

The chapter by Simmons et al. contrasts personality profiles of women and men referred for IPV treatment. Although men more commonly have dependent personality traits, abusive women evidence histrionic, narcissistic, and compulsive traits. Women are also more likely than men to have personality disorders. These findings suggest that treatment programs for this group of offenders should involve regulation of emotions and improving coping skills.

Victoria Titterington and Laura Harper, the authors of the fourth chapter, describe disproportionate female representation in intimate partner homicide perpetration relative to other types of violent offenses by women. In Houston, Texas, for example, 40 percent of intimate partner homicides were perpetrated by women, most of whom used guns to complete the act. The authors report that when women are violent, their victims are commonly their loved ones, and access to guns can result in fatal outcomes.

In the final chapter, gender differences in IPV recidivism were examined in samples from Portland, Oregon, and Memphis, Tennessee. The authors concluded that the men studied were more likely to reoffend, and the women were more likely to be victims in the future. A small group of women were the primary aggressors in their intimate relationships. Another group was involved in violent intimate relationships that tended toward mutual aggression. The authors contend that arguments that these groups of women should be treated differently in sentencing and treatment programs from women acting in self-defense have merit. Also, development of effective interventions in the prevention of both reoffending and future victimization is paramount as a public health concern.

This provocative, insightful book, which illuminates current research in female IPV, is recommended to mental health clinicians, particularly those involved with planning programs for batterers and those interested in learning more about women as perpetrators and victims of IPV. Professionals who understand the motivation for IPV, its context, and women's risk factors, can guide policy and program development and implementation. This informative book also may help professionals who seek to provide unbiased evaluations and rehabilitation services for these women.

• American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law