EN ES
Vol. 30. Num. 3. 2014. Pages 95-96
 

El Colegio Doctoral Tordesillas en Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones

Tordesillas Doctoral College in Work and Organizational Psychology

Munduate, Lourdes Gamero, Nuria Medina, Francisco J.

Root element:article *** INFO---COMIENZA TRATAMIENTO: article * Hijos:7 * Atrib:7 *** ATR Name:article-type - Value: research-article - Type: 2 *** ATR Name:dtd-version - Value: 1.0 - Type: 2 *** ATR Name:specific-use - Value: sps-1.6 - Type: 2 *** ATR Name:xml:lang - Value: en - Type: 2 *** ATR Name:xmlns:mml - Value: http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML - Type: 2 *** ATR Name:xmlns:xlink - Value: http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink - Type: 2 *** ATR Name:xmlns:xsi - Value: http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance - Type: 2 *** INFO NodeName: #text - Type: 3 - Value: *** INFO NodeName: front - Type: 1 - Value: null # NODO journal-meta[1]ejpalcThe European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal ContextThe European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context1889-18611989-4007Sociedad Espa?ola de Psicolog?a Jur?dica y Forense; Colegio Oficial de Psic?logos de Madrid # NODO article-meta[1]doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2018v10n1a1Research articleAre Generalist Batterers Different from Generally Extra-Family Violent Men? A Study Among Imprisoned Male Violent Offenders?Son los maltratadores generalistas distintos de los hombres extrafamiliarmente violentos en general? Un estudio con hombres violentos en prisi?nJuarros-BasterretxeaJoelaHerreroJuanaFern?ndez-Su?rezAsunci?naP?rezBeatrizbRodr?guez-D?azFrancisco Javiera a University of Oviedo, Spain Universidad de Oviedo University of Oviedo Spain b University of La Frontera, Chile Universidad de La Frontera University of La Frontera Chile Correspondence:juarrosjoel@uniovi.es(J. Juarros Basterretxea).Conflict of interestConflict of Interest: The authors of this article declare no conflict of interest.Jan-Jun2018101171001201702102017This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution LicenseAbstract:Research on male batterers has found that in some cases of severe intimate partner violence (IPV) against women, male aggressors were also generally violent beyond the family realm. These findings have been used by researchers to illustrate the common etiology of both general and IPV. Using data from imprisoned male violent offenders, we analyzed the individual, family, and community characteristics of two groups of violent offenders: generalist batterers (GB) and generally extra-family violent men (GEVM). GB offenders had a judicial sentence on IPV-related offenses (gender violence according to the Spanish legislation), while GEVM offenders did not have any IPV-related judicial sentence. The sample includes 153 imprisoned male violent offenders of the Penitentiary Center of Villabona (Asturias, Spain). Sociodemographic measures, and criminal and justice official records of participants are available. Two groups of participants (GB and GEVM) distinction was done based on official records. Multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) was carried out to study differences between each group of participants in self-reported measures of personal, family, and community context variables. MANCOVA showed no statistical differences among the individual, family, and community characteristics of these two groups, giving empirical support to the theoretical view that general violence and IPV might share a common etiology. These results are discussed in light of the debate about the potentially common etiology of these two types of violence.Resumen:En varias de las investigaciones sobre hombres maltratadores se ha demostrado que ?stos no s?lo son violentos contra la pareja, sino tambi?n en el ?mbito extrafamiliar, lo cual ha sido utilizado por los investigadores para ilustrar la etiolog?a com?n de la violencia general y la violencia en la pareja ?ntima (VPI). Utilizando datos de hombres violentos en prisi?n se han analizado las caracter?sticas individuales, familiares y comunitarias de dos grupos de agresores violentos: maltrata-dores generalistas (GB) y hombres violentos en general fuera de la familia (GEVM). Los GB fueron condenados por delitos de violencia de g?nero (de acuerdo con la legislaci?n espa?ola), mientras que los GEVM no han sido condenados nunca por tales delitos. La muestra est? compuesta por 153 hombres internos en el Centro Penitenciario de Villabona (Asturias, Espa?a). Se ha dispuesto de variables sociodemogr?ficas as? como de registros judiciales. La distinci?n entre los grupos se ha establecido en base a los registros oficiales. Se han llevado a cabo an?lisis multivariados de covarianza (MANCOVA) para estudiar las diferencias entre los grupos de estudio en las variables individuales, familiares y comunitarias. Los resultados de los MANCOVA indican que no existen diferencias estad?sticamente significativas en los ?mbitos individual, familiar y comunitario entre los grupos, apoyando la perspectiva te?rica que defiende que la violencia general y la VPI comparten una etiolog?a com?n. Estos resultados han sido discutidos teniendo en cuenta el debate sobre la potencial etiolog?a com?n de estos dos tipos de violencia.Keywords:Intimate partnerviolenceMale batterersGeneral violenceGeneralist batterersPalabras clave:Violencia de parejaMaltratadores varonesViolencia generalMaltratadores en generalFEDER MINECO-17-PSI2016-77484-Pthe Severo Ochoa scholarship BP13134 and BP14153the assistance for pre-doctoral contracts for Teacher Training University FPU 13/04310FEDER funds from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO-17-PSI2016-77484-P), the Severo Ochoa scholarship (BP13134 and BP14153) from the Foundation for the Promotion of Applied Scientific Research and Technology in Asturias (FICYT, Asturias, Spain), and the assistance for pre-doctoral contracts for Teacher Training University (FPU 13/04310) from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (Spain). # NODO article-id[1]doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2018v10n1a1 # NODO article-categories[1]Research article # NODO subj-group[1]Research article # NODO subject[1]Research article # NODO title-group[1]Are Generalist Batterers Different from Generally Extra-Family Violent Men? A Study Among Imprisoned Male Violent Offenders?Son los maltratadores generalistas distintos de los hombres extrafamiliarmente violentos en general? Un estudio con hombres violentos en prisi?n # NODO article-title[1]Are Generalist Batterers Different from Generally Extra-Family Violent Men? A Study Among Imprisoned Male Violent Offenders # NODO trans-title-group[1]?Son los maltratadores generalistas distintos de los hombres extrafamiliarmente violentos en general? Un estudio con hombres violentos en prisi?n # NODO trans-title[1]?Son los maltratadores generalistas distintos de los hombres extrafamiliarmente violentos en general? Un estudio con hombres violentos en prisi?n # NODO contrib-group[1]Juarros-BasterretxeaJoelaHerreroJuanaFern?ndez-Su?rezAsunci?naP?rezBeatrizbRodr?guez-D?azFrancisco Javiera # NODO contrib[1]Juarros-BasterretxeaJoela # NODO name[1]Juarros-BasterretxeaJoel # NODO xref[1]a # NODO sup[1]a # NODO contrib[1]HerreroJuana # NODO name[1]HerreroJuan # NODO xref[1]a # NODO sup[1]a # NODO contrib[1]Fern?ndez-Su?rezAsunci?na # NODO name[1]Fern?ndez-Su?rezAsunci?n # NODO xref[1]a # NODO sup[1]a # NODO contrib[1]P?rezBeatrizb # NODO name[1]P?rezBeatriz # NODO xref[1]b # NODO sup[1]b # NODO contrib[1]Rodr?guez-D?azFrancisco Javiera # NODO name[1]Rodr?guez-D?azFrancisco Javier # NODO xref[1]a # NODO sup[1]a # NODO aff[1] a University of Oviedo, Spain Universidad de Oviedo University of Oviedo Spain # NODO aff[1] b University of La Frontera, Chile Universidad de La Frontera University of La Frontera Chile # NODO author-notes[1]Correspondence:juarrosjoel@uniovi.es(J. Juarros Basterretxea).Conflict of interestConflict of Interest: The authors of this article declare no conflict of interest. # NODO pub-date[1]Jan-Jun2018 # NODO volume[1]10 # NODO issue[1]1 # NODO fpage[1]1 # NODO lpage[1]7 # NODO history[1]1001201702102017 # NODO permissions[1]This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License # NODO abstract[1]Abstract:Research on male batterers has found that in some cases of severe intimate partner violence (IPV) against women, male aggressors were also generally violent beyond the family realm. These findings have been used by researchers to illustrate the common etiology of both general and IPV. Using data from imprisoned male violent offenders, we analyzed the individual, family, and community characteristics of two groups of violent offenders: generalist batterers (GB) and generally extra-family violent men (GEVM). GB offenders had a judicial sentence on IPV-related offenses (gender violence according to the Spanish legislation), while GEVM offenders did not have any IPV-related judicial sentence. The sample includes 153 imprisoned male violent offenders of the Penitentiary Center of Villabona (Asturias, Spain). Sociodemographic measures, and criminal and justice official records of participants are available. Two groups of participants (GB and GEVM) distinction was done based on official records. Multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) was carried out to study differences between each group of participants in self-reported measures of personal, family, and community context variables. MANCOVA showed no statistical differences among the individual, family, and community characteristics of these two groups, giving empirical support to the theoretical view that general violence and IPV might share a common etiology. These results are discussed in light of the debate about the potentially common etiology of these two types of violence. # NODO trans-abstract[1]Resumen:En varias de las investigaciones sobre hombres maltratadores se ha demostrado que ?stos no s?lo son violentos contra la pareja, sino tambi?n en el ?mbito extrafamiliar, lo cual ha sido utilizado por los investigadores para ilustrar la etiolog?a com?n de la violencia general y la violencia en la pareja ?ntima (VPI). Utilizando datos de hombres violentos en prisi?n se han analizado las caracter?sticas individuales, familiares y comunitarias de dos grupos de agresores violentos: maltrata-dores generalistas (GB) y hombres violentos en general fuera de la familia (GEVM). Los GB fueron condenados por delitos de violencia de g?nero (de acuerdo con la legislaci?n espa?ola), mientras que los GEVM no han sido condenados nunca por tales delitos. La muestra est? compuesta por 153 hombres internos en el Centro Penitenciario de Villabona (Asturias, Espa?a). Se ha dispuesto de variables sociodemogr?ficas as? como de registros judiciales. La distinci?n entre los grupos se ha establecido en base a los registros oficiales. Se han llevado a cabo an?lisis multivariados de covarianza (MANCOVA) para estudiar las diferencias entre los grupos de estudio en las variables individuales, familiares y comunitarias. Los resultados de los MANCOVA indican que no existen diferencias estad?sticamente significativas en los ?mbitos individual, familiar y comunitario entre los grupos, apoyando la perspectiva te?rica que defiende que la violencia general y la VPI comparten una etiolog?a com?n. Estos resultados han sido discutidos teniendo en cuenta el debate sobre la potencial etiolog?a com?n de estos dos tipos de violencia. # NODO kwd-group[1]Keywords:Intimate partnerviolenceMale batterersGeneral violenceGeneralist batterers # NODO title[1]Keywords: # NODO kwd[1]Intimate partner # NODO kwd[1]violence # NODO kwd[1]Male batterers # NODO kwd[1]General violence # NODO kwd[1]Generalist batterers # NODO kwd-group[1]Palabras clave:Violencia de parejaMaltratadores varonesViolencia generalMaltratadores en general # NODO title[1]Palabras clave: # NODO kwd[1]Violencia de pareja # NODO kwd[1]Maltratadores varones # NODO kwd[1]Violencia general # NODO kwd[1]Maltratadores en general # NODO funding-group[1]FEDER MINECO-17-PSI2016-77484-Pthe Severo Ochoa scholarship BP13134 and BP14153the assistance for pre-doctoral contracts for Teacher Training University FPU 13/04310FEDER funds from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO-17-PSI2016-77484-P), the Severo Ochoa scholarship (BP13134 and BP14153) from the Foundation for the Promotion of Applied Scientific Research and Technology in Asturias (FICYT, Asturias, Spain), and the assistance for pre-doctoral contracts for Teacher Training University (FPU 13/04310) from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (Spain). # NODO award-group[1]FEDER MINECO-17-PSI2016-77484-P # NODO funding-source[1]FEDER # NODO award-id[1]MINECO-17-PSI2016-77484-P # NODO award-group[1]the Severo Ochoa scholarship BP13134 and BP14153 # NODO funding-source[1]the Severo Ochoa scholarship # NODO award-id[1]BP13134 and BP14153 # NODO award-group[1]the assistance for pre-doctoral contracts for Teacher Training University FPU 13/04310 # NODO funding-source[1]the assistance for pre-doctoral contracts for Teacher Training University # NODO award-id[1]FPU 13/04310 # NODO funding-statement[1]FEDER funds from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO-17-PSI2016-77484-P), the Severo Ochoa scholarship (BP13134 and BP14153) from the Foundation for the Promotion of Applied Scientific Research and Technology in Asturias (FICYT, Asturias, Spain), and the assistance for pre-doctoral contracts for Teacher Training University (FPU 13/04310) from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (Spain). # NODO counts[1] *** INFO NodeName: #text - Type: 3 - Value: *** INFO NodeName: body - Type: 1 - Value: null # NODO sec[1]IntroductionIntimate Partner Violence (IPV) against women is a widespread problem that affects all societies and cultures. In Europe, estimates are that 22% of women have suffered physical and/or sexual partner violence since the age of 15 (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - FRA, 2014) and most of these IPV cases occurred while being in an intimate relationship. More recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) (2016)has indicated that 30% of women worldwide have suffered physical and/or sexual IPV. As for psychological IPV, more than 30% of women have experienced this form of violence by her current or a previous partner and 43% of women suffered psychological behaviors like controlling, economic violence and blackmail (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - FRA, 2014).While IPV against women is a rather complex topic of study that needs probably to be addressed from multiple views, the last decades have witnessed an increasing interest in the study of the characteristics of aggressors. The study of typologies of IPV against women is a good example of this approach (Capaldi & Kim 2007;Logan, Walker, & Leukefeld 2001). Thus, many studies have examined different types of male perpetrators of intimate partner violence against women (Cavanaugh & Gelles 2005;Fowler & Westen 2011;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Ross & Babcock, 2009;Walsh et al. 2010) being the typology of male batterers established byHoltzworth -Munroe and Stuart (1994; see also Holtzworth-Munroe & Meehan, 2004;Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart 2003) one of the most influential. These authors studied male batterers on three dimensions (severity of marital violence, generality of the violence, and psychopathology or personality disorder) and the typology that they proposed comprised three types of batterers: (a) family only batterer, (b) dysphoric or borderline batterer, and (c) generally violent or antisocial batterer (see alsoDutton, 1988;Saunders, 1992). More recently,Cavanough and Gelles (2005) andFowler and Westen (2011)proposed two typologies with similar characteristics to that ofHoltzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994 ).Cavanough and Gelles (2005) used three dimensions - (a) severity and frequency of the violence,(b) criminal history, and (c) psychopathology level - to identify three types of male batterers: (a) low risk offenders, (b) medium risk offenders, and (c) high risk offenders. In the same vein,Fowler and Westen (2011) differentiated three subtypes of batterers: (a) subtype 1 or psychopathic, (b) subtype 2 or hostile/controlling, and (c) subtype 3 or borderline/dependent. ### SEC: [sec: null] - Introduction - intro # NODO p[1]Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) against women is a widespread problem that affects all societies and cultures. In Europe, estimates are that 22% of women have suffered physical and/or sexual partner violence since the age of 15 (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - FRA, 2014) and most of these IPV cases occurred while being in an intimate relationship. More recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) (2016)has indicated that 30% of women worldwide have suffered physical and/or sexual IPV. As for psychological IPV, more than 30% of women have experienced this form of violence by her current or a previous partner and 43% of women suffered psychological behaviors like controlling, economic violence and blackmail (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - FRA, 2014). # NODO xref[1]European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - FRA, 2014 # NODO xref[1]the World Health Organization (WHO) (2016) # NODO xref[1]European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - FRA, 2014 # NODO p[1]While IPV against women is a rather complex topic of study that needs probably to be addressed from multiple views, the last decades have witnessed an increasing interest in the study of the characteristics of aggressors. The study of typologies of IPV against women is a good example of this approach (Capaldi & Kim 2007;Logan, Walker, & Leukefeld 2001). Thus, many studies have examined different types of male perpetrators of intimate partner violence against women (Cavanaugh & Gelles 2005;Fowler & Westen 2011;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Ross & Babcock, 2009;Walsh et al. 2010) being the typology of male batterers established byHoltzworth -Munroe and Stuart (1994; see also Holtzworth-Munroe & Meehan, 2004;Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart 2003) one of the most influential. These authors studied male batterers on three dimensions (severity of marital violence, generality of the violence, and psychopathology or personality disorder) and the typology that they proposed comprised three types of batterers: (a) family only batterer, (b) dysphoric or borderline batterer, and (c) generally violent or antisocial batterer (see alsoDutton, 1988;Saunders, 1992). More recently,Cavanough and Gelles (2005) andFowler and Westen (2011)proposed two typologies with similar characteristics to that ofHoltzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994 ).Cavanough and Gelles (2005) used three dimensions - (a) severity and frequency of the violence, # NODO xref[1]Capaldi & Kim 2007 # NODO xref[1]Logan, Walker, & Leukefeld 2001 # NODO xref[1]Cavanaugh & Gelles 2005 # NODO xref[1]Fowler & Westen 2011 # NODO xref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994 # NODO xref[1]Ross & Babcock, 2009 # NODO xref[1]Walsh et al. 2010 # NODO xref[1]Holtzworth -Munroe and Stuart (1994 # NODO xref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe & Meehan, 2004 # NODO xref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart 2003 # NODO xref[1]Dutton, 1988 # NODO xref[1]Saunders, 1992 # NODO xref[1]Cavanough and Gelles (2005 # NODO xref[1]Fowler and Westen (2011) # NODO xref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994 ) # NODO xref[1]Cavanough and Gelles (2005) # NODO p[1](b) criminal history, and (c) psychopathology level - to identify three types of male batterers: (a) low risk offenders, (b) medium risk offenders, and (c) high risk offenders. In the same vein,Fowler and Westen (2011) differentiated three subtypes of batterers: (a) subtype 1 or psychopathic, (b) subtype 2 or hostile/controlling, and (c) subtype 3 or borderline/dependent. # NODO xref[1]Fowler and Westen (2011 ### SEC [RETURN]: Introduction

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) against women is a widespread problem that affects all societies and cultures. In Europe, estimates are that 22% of women have suffered physical and/or sexual partner violence since the age of 15 (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - FRA, 2014) and most of these IPV cases occurred while being in an intimate relationship. More recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) (2016)has indicated that 30% of women worldwide have suffered physical and/or sexual IPV. As for psychological IPV, more than 30% of women have experienced this form of violence by her current or a previous partner and 43% of women suffered psychological behaviors like controlling, economic violence and blackmail (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - FRA, 2014).

While IPV against women is a rather complex topic of study that needs probably to be addressed from multiple views, the last decades have witnessed an increasing interest in the study of the characteristics of aggressors. The study of typologies of IPV against women is a good example of this approach (Capaldi & Kim 2007;Logan, Walker, & Leukefeld 2001). Thus, many studies have examined different types of male perpetrators of intimate partner violence against women (Cavanaugh & Gelles 2005;Fowler & Westen 2011;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Ross & Babcock, 2009;Walsh et al. 2010) being the typology of male batterers established byHoltzworth -Munroe and Stuart (1994; see also Holtzworth-Munroe & Meehan, 2004;Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart 2003) one of the most influential. These authors studied male batterers on three dimensions (severity of marital violence, generality of the violence, and psychopathology or personality disorder) and the typology that they proposed comprised three types of batterers: (a) family only batterer, (b) dysphoric or borderline batterer, and (c) generally violent or antisocial batterer (see alsoDutton, 1988;Saunders, 1992). More recently,Cavanough and Gelles (2005) andFowler and Westen (2011)proposed two typologies with similar characteristics to that ofHoltzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994 ).Cavanough and Gelles (2005) used three dimensions - (a) severity and frequency of the violence,

(b) criminal history, and (c) psychopathology level - to identify three types of male batterers: (a) low risk offenders, (b) medium risk offenders, and (c) high risk offenders. In the same vein,Fowler and Westen (2011) differentiated three subtypes of batterers: (a) subtype 1 or psychopathic, (b) subtype 2 or hostile/controlling, and (c) subtype 3 or borderline/dependent.

# NODO sec[1]Batterers in PrisonOverall, research on male batterers have suggested that in most cases of severe IPV against women male aggressors were also generally violent beyond the family realm (Cavanough & Gelles, 2005;Fowler & Westen, 2011;Gondolf, 1988;Hamberger, Lohn, Bonge, & Tonlin, 1996;Harris, Hilton, & Rice, 2011;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). AsHerrero, Torres, Fern?ndez-Su?rez, & Rodr?guez-D?az (2016) have recently suggested, however, the fact that severe IPV against women is overrepresented in penitentiary-based samples of male batterers might lead to a lack of representativeness of the less violent batterer. To overcome this limitation, they proposed a typology that incorporates male batterers? criminal history and identified two types of convicted male batterers: generalist and specialist batterers. Generalist batterers had a long and varied criminal history that also included IPV against women among other offenses, while specialist batterers had exclusively offenses related with IPV against women. In their study,Herrero, Torres et al. (2016)linked their typology to the debate about the etiology of IPV and general violence.On the one hand, several researchers (Dutton, 1988;Felson, 2006;Felson & Lane, 2010;Moffit, Krueger, Caspi, & Fagan, 2000) have suggested that IPV might be explained by general theories of violence and aggression. For instance, IPV perpetrators and other offenders with criminal behavior non-related to IPV seem to be similar (Felson & Lane, 2010;Herrero, Torres, Rodr?guez, & Juarros- Basterretxea, 2017;Kiss, Schraider, Hossain, Watts, & Zimmerman, 2015). In fact, heterogeneous and long criminal history has been found in IPV batterers (Cavanough & Gelles, 2005;Fowler & Westen, 2011;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Piquero, Theobald, & Farrington, 2014) and both types of offense seem to be related to early antisocial behavior (seeHilton, Harris, & Rice, 2001). Typologies typically label this intimate partner batterer who commit other illegal acts as generally violent or antisocial batterer (Logan et al., 2001; see alsoHoltzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Shield, McCall, & Hanneke, 1988). These generally violent batterers or generalist batterers represent a sizable group of the total of imprisoned batterers (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), in accordance with theHoltzworth-Munroe and Stuart?s (1994)suggestion that generally violent or antisocial batterers will be mainly present in prison.On the other hand, there is also research empirically supporting the gender perspective on IPV against women.Thomas, Dichter, and Matejkowski (2011) observed differences between intimate partner murder offenders and non-intimate partner murder offenders. Specifically, intimate partner murder offenders were more socially integrated and used fatal violence to satisfy emotional aspects in contrast to non-intimate partner murderers whose violence seemed to be rather instrumental. Furthermore, they seemed to differ in marital status, history of severe mental illness, and motives (Thomas et al., 2011). Likewise,Swogger, Walsh, and Kosson (2007) compared antisocial batterers with other antisocial criminals that did not perpetrate IPV against women and found a different profile in affective experience, impulsivity, and irresponsibility. # NODO title[1]Batterers in Prison # NODO p[1]Overall, research on male batterers have suggested that in most cases of severe IPV against women male aggressors were also generally violent beyond the family realm (Cavanough & Gelles, 2005;Fowler & Westen, 2011;Gondolf, 1988;Hamberger, Lohn, Bonge, & Tonlin, 1996;Harris, Hilton, & Rice, 2011;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). AsHerrero, Torres, Fern?ndez-Su?rez, & Rodr?guez-D?az (2016) have recently suggested, however, the fact that severe IPV against women is overrepresented in penitentiary-based samples of male batterers might lead to a lack of representativeness of the less violent batterer. To overcome this limitation, they proposed a typology that incorporates male batterers? criminal history and identified two types of convicted male batterers: generalist and specialist batterers. Generalist batterers had a long and varied criminal history that also included IPV against women among other offenses, while specialist batterers had exclusively offenses related with IPV against women. In their study,Herrero, Torres et al. (2016)linked their typology to the debate about the etiology of IPV and general violence. # NODO xref[1]Cavanough & Gelles, 2005 # NODO xref[1]Fowler & Westen, 2011 # NODO xref[1]Gondolf, 1988 # NODO xref[1]Hamberger, Lohn, Bonge, & Tonlin, 1996 # NODO xref[1]Harris, Hilton, & Rice, 2011 # NODO xref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres, Fern?ndez-Su?rez, & Rodr?guez-D?az (2016 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al. (2016) # NODO p[1]On the one hand, several researchers (Dutton, 1988;Felson, 2006;Felson & Lane, 2010;Moffit, Krueger, Caspi, & Fagan, 2000) have suggested that IPV might be explained by general theories of violence and aggression. For instance, IPV perpetrators and other offenders with criminal behavior non-related to IPV seem to be similar (Felson & Lane, 2010;Herrero, Torres, Rodr?guez, & Juarros- Basterretxea, 2017;Kiss, Schraider, Hossain, Watts, & Zimmerman, 2015). In fact, heterogeneous and long criminal history has been found in IPV batterers (Cavanough & Gelles, 2005;Fowler & Westen, 2011;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Piquero, Theobald, & Farrington, 2014) and both types of offense seem to be related to early antisocial behavior (seeHilton, Harris, & Rice, 2001). Typologies typically label this intimate partner batterer who commit other illegal acts as generally violent or antisocial batterer (Logan et al., 2001; see alsoHoltzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Shield, McCall, & Hanneke, 1988). These generally violent batterers or generalist batterers represent a sizable group of the total of imprisoned batterers (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), in accordance with theHoltzworth-Munroe and Stuart?s (1994)suggestion that generally violent or antisocial batterers will be mainly present in prison. # NODO xref[1]Dutton, 1988 # NODO xref[1]Felson, 2006 # NODO xref[1]Felson & Lane, 2010 # NODO xref[1]Moffit, Krueger, Caspi, & Fagan, 2000 # NODO xref[1]Felson & Lane, 2010 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres, Rodr?guez, & Juarros- Basterretxea, 2017 # NODO xref[1]Kiss, Schraider, Hossain, Watts, & Zimmerman, 2015 # NODO xref[1]Cavanough & Gelles, 2005 # NODO xref[1]Fowler & Westen, 2011 # NODO xref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994 # NODO xref[1]Piquero, Theobald, & Farrington, 2014 # NODO xref[1]Hilton, Harris, & Rice, 2001 # NODO xref[1]Logan et al., 2001 # NODO xref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994 # NODO xref[1]Shield, McCall, & Hanneke, 1988 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al., 2016 # NODO xref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart?s (1994) # NODO p[1]On the other hand, there is also research empirically supporting the gender perspective on IPV against women.Thomas, Dichter, and Matejkowski (2011) observed differences between intimate partner murder offenders and non-intimate partner murder offenders. Specifically, intimate partner murder offenders were more socially integrated and used fatal violence to satisfy emotional aspects in contrast to non-intimate partner murderers whose violence seemed to be rather instrumental. Furthermore, they seemed to differ in marital status, history of severe mental illness, and motives (Thomas et al., 2011). Likewise,Swogger, Walsh, and Kosson (2007) compared antisocial batterers with other antisocial criminals that did not perpetrate IPV against women and found a different profile in affective experience, impulsivity, and irresponsibility. # NODO xref[1]Thomas, Dichter, and Matejkowski (2011 # NODO xref[1]Thomas et al., 2011 # NODO xref[1]Swogger, Walsh, and Kosson (2007 ### SEC [RETURN]:

Batterers in Prison

Overall, research on male batterers have suggested that in most cases of severe IPV against women male aggressors were also generally violent beyond the family realm (Cavanough & Gelles, 2005;Fowler & Westen, 2011;Gondolf, 1988;Hamberger, Lohn, Bonge, & Tonlin, 1996;Harris, Hilton, & Rice, 2011;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). AsHerrero, Torres, Fern?ndez-Su?rez, & Rodr?guez-D?az (2016) have recently suggested, however, the fact that severe IPV against women is overrepresented in penitentiary-based samples of male batterers might lead to a lack of representativeness of the less violent batterer. To overcome this limitation, they proposed a typology that incorporates male batterers? criminal history and identified two types of convicted male batterers: generalist and specialist batterers. Generalist batterers had a long and varied criminal history that also included IPV against women among other offenses, while specialist batterers had exclusively offenses related with IPV against women. In their study,Herrero, Torres et al. (2016)linked their typology to the debate about the etiology of IPV and general violence.

On the one hand, several researchers (Dutton, 1988;Felson, 2006;Felson & Lane, 2010;Moffit, Krueger, Caspi, & Fagan, 2000) have suggested that IPV might be explained by general theories of violence and aggression. For instance, IPV perpetrators and other offenders with criminal behavior non-related to IPV seem to be similar (Felson & Lane, 2010;Herrero, Torres, Rodr?guez, & Juarros- Basterretxea, 2017;Kiss, Schraider, Hossain, Watts, & Zimmerman, 2015). In fact, heterogeneous and long criminal history has been found in IPV batterers (Cavanough & Gelles, 2005;Fowler & Westen, 2011;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Piquero, Theobald, & Farrington, 2014) and both types of offense seem to be related to early antisocial behavior (seeHilton, Harris, & Rice, 2001). Typologies typically label this intimate partner batterer who commit other illegal acts as generally violent or antisocial batterer (Logan et al., 2001; see alsoHoltzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Shield, McCall, & Hanneke, 1988). These generally violent batterers or generalist batterers represent a sizable group of the total of imprisoned batterers (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), in accordance with theHoltzworth-Munroe and Stuart?s (1994)suggestion that generally violent or antisocial batterers will be mainly present in prison.

On the other hand, there is also research empirically supporting the gender perspective on IPV against women.Thomas, Dichter, and Matejkowski (2011) observed differences between intimate partner murder offenders and non-intimate partner murder offenders. Specifically, intimate partner murder offenders were more socially integrated and used fatal violence to satisfy emotional aspects in contrast to non-intimate partner murderers whose violence seemed to be rather instrumental. Furthermore, they seemed to differ in marital status, history of severe mental illness, and motives (Thomas et al., 2011). Likewise,Swogger, Walsh, and Kosson (2007) compared antisocial batterers with other antisocial criminals that did not perpetrate IPV against women and found a different profile in affective experience, impulsivity, and irresponsibility.

# NODO sec[1]The Current ResearchDrawing both from the debate on the etiology of general violence and male IPV against women (seeBouffard & Zedaker, 2016;Felson, 2006;Felson & Lane 2010;Hilton & Eke 2016;Moffit et al., 2000) as well as from recent findings on batterers typologies in prison (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), the present study sought to answer the following research question: Do male batterers with other criminal offenses (generalist batterers) differ from other violent offenders without a criminal record of IPV against women? We hypothesize that if the IPV perpetrated by GB and general violence have a common etiology, GB and GEVM will not differ in individual, familiar, and community variables.Using data of convicted male offenders from the Penitentiary Center of Villabona (Asturias, Spain), the objectives of the present study were twofold: a) to explore the distribution of generalist batterers against women and common violent criminals without an IPV criminal record and b) to analyze their individual, family of origin, and community characteristics, seeing violence as a multidimensional phenomenon with multiples causes at different levels (seeBronfenbrenner, 1977;WHO 2002).As for the individual characteristics of offenders we analyzed personality, sexist attitudes, and alcohol and drug dependence. Personality has been linked to both general criminal behavior (Davison & Janca, 2012;Ehrensaft, Cohen, & Johnson, 2006) and IPV against women (Capaldi & Kim, 2007;Mauricio, Tein, & L?pez, 2007). As for the influence of sexist attitudes toward women, there is empirical evidence suggesting that they are an important risk factor to understand IPV against women (Ali & Naylor, 2013). Finally, different studies show that substance and alcohol use and abuse are important factors related with general violence and IPV (Fagan, 1990;Feingold, Kerr, & Capaldi, 2008;Golinelli, Longshore, & Wenzel, 2009; Kretschmar & Flannery, 2007;Lisco, Parrot, & Tharp, 2012;Reingle, Jennings, Connel, Businelle, & Chartier, 2014;Rothman, McNaughton, Johnson, & LaValley, 2012;Smith, Homish, Leonard, & Cornelius, 2012).Family of origin characteristics have also been regarded to both IPV against women (Ehrensaft et al., 2003) as well as to general violence (Fagan, 2005;Farrington, 2003;LeBlanc, 2005). Several studies of IPV focused their attention on family of origin of batterers, taking in account parental skills, educational models, socioeconomic level, or presence of abuse from parents (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016). In the present study family of origin variables were family climate and family functioning.Empirical evidence suggests that contextual factors also influence IPV against women (Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012). Thus, disadvantaged communities may influence IPV (Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012;Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, 2003) but also general violence (O?Brien & Sampson, 2015;Markowitz, Bellair, Liska, & Liu, 2001). In this sense, community social disorder, community participation and community integration were community context variables in the present study. These are characteristics of disadvantaged communities (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016) which might be related with IPV against women and violence in general.To better control for potentially biased responses in sensitive topics such as IPV (Bell & Naugle, 2007;Caetano, Schafer, Field, & Nelson, 2002;Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005;Saunders, 1991;Sugarman & Hotaling, 1997;Van de Mortel, 2008) we included a measure of social desirability in the study. # NODO title[1]The Current Research # NODO p[1]Drawing both from the debate on the etiology of general violence and male IPV against women (seeBouffard & Zedaker, 2016;Felson, 2006;Felson & Lane 2010;Hilton & Eke 2016;Moffit et al., 2000) as well as from recent findings on batterers typologies in prison (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), the present study sought to answer the following research question: Do male batterers with other criminal offenses (generalist batterers) differ from other violent offenders without a criminal record of IPV against women? We hypothesize that if the IPV perpetrated by GB and general violence have a common etiology, GB and GEVM will not differ in individual, familiar, and community variables. # NODO xref[1]Bouffard & Zedaker, 2016 # NODO xref[1]Felson, 2006 # NODO xref[1]Felson & Lane 2010 # NODO xref[1]Hilton & Eke 2016 # NODO xref[1]Moffit et al., 2000 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al., 2016 # NODO p[1]Using data of convicted male offenders from the Penitentiary Center of Villabona (Asturias, Spain), the objectives of the present study were twofold: a) to explore the distribution of generalist batterers against women and common violent criminals without an IPV criminal record and b) to analyze their individual, family of origin, and community characteristics, seeing violence as a multidimensional phenomenon with multiples causes at different levels (seeBronfenbrenner, 1977;WHO 2002). # NODO xref[1]Bronfenbrenner, 1977 # NODO xref[1]WHO 2002 # NODO p[1]As for the individual characteristics of offenders we analyzed personality, sexist attitudes, and alcohol and drug dependence. Personality has been linked to both general criminal behavior (Davison & Janca, 2012;Ehrensaft, Cohen, & Johnson, 2006) and IPV against women (Capaldi & Kim, 2007;Mauricio, Tein, & L?pez, 2007). As for the influence of sexist attitudes toward women, there is empirical evidence suggesting that they are an important risk factor to understand IPV against women (Ali & Naylor, 2013). Finally, different studies show that substance and alcohol use and abuse are important factors related with general violence and IPV (Fagan, 1990;Feingold, Kerr, & Capaldi, 2008;Golinelli, Longshore, & Wenzel, 2009; Kretschmar & Flannery, 2007;Lisco, Parrot, & Tharp, 2012;Reingle, Jennings, Connel, Businelle, & Chartier, 2014;Rothman, McNaughton, Johnson, & LaValley, 2012;Smith, Homish, Leonard, & Cornelius, 2012). # NODO xref[1]Davison & Janca, 2012 # NODO xref[1]Ehrensaft, Cohen, & Johnson, 2006 # NODO xref[1]Capaldi & Kim, 2007 # NODO xref[1]Mauricio, Tein, & L?pez, 2007 # NODO xref[1]Ali & Naylor, 2013 # NODO xref[1]Fagan, 1990 # NODO xref[1]Feingold, Kerr, & Capaldi, 2008 # NODO xref[1]Golinelli, Longshore, & Wenzel, 2009 # NODO xref[1] Kretschmar & Flannery, 2007 # NODO xref[1]Lisco, Parrot, & Tharp, 2012 # NODO xref[1]Reingle, Jennings, Connel, Businelle, & Chartier, 2014 # NODO xref[1]Rothman, McNaughton, Johnson, & LaValley, 2012 # NODO xref[1]Smith, Homish, Leonard, & Cornelius, 2012 # NODO p[1]Family of origin characteristics have also been regarded to both IPV against women (Ehrensaft et al., 2003) as well as to general violence (Fagan, 2005;Farrington, 2003;LeBlanc, 2005). Several studies of IPV focused their attention on family of origin of batterers, taking in account parental skills, educational models, socioeconomic level, or presence of abuse from parents (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016). In the present study family of origin variables were family climate and family functioning. # NODO xref[1]Ehrensaft et al., 2003 # NODO xref[1]Fagan, 2005 # NODO xref[1]Farrington, 2003 # NODO xref[1]LeBlanc, 2005 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al., 2016 # NODO p[1]Empirical evidence suggests that contextual factors also influence IPV against women (Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012). Thus, disadvantaged communities may influence IPV (Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012;Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, 2003) but also general violence (O?Brien & Sampson, 2015;Markowitz, Bellair, Liska, & Liu, 2001). In this sense, community social disorder, community participation and community integration were community context variables in the present study. These are characteristics of disadvantaged communities (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016) which might be related with IPV against women and violence in general. # NODO xref[1]Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012 # NODO xref[1]Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012 # NODO xref[1]Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, 2003 # NODO xref[1]O?Brien & Sampson, 2015 # NODO xref[1]Markowitz, Bellair, Liska, & Liu, 2001 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al., 2016 # NODO p[1]To better control for potentially biased responses in sensitive topics such as IPV (Bell & Naugle, 2007;Caetano, Schafer, Field, & Nelson, 2002;Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005;Saunders, 1991;Sugarman & Hotaling, 1997;Van de Mortel, 2008) we included a measure of social desirability in the study. # NODO xref[1]Bell & Naugle, 2007 # NODO xref[1]Caetano, Schafer, Field, & Nelson, 2002 # NODO xref[1]Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005 # NODO xref[1]Saunders, 1991 # NODO xref[1]Sugarman & Hotaling, 1997 # NODO xref[1]Van de Mortel, 2008 ### SEC [RETURN]:

The Current Research

Drawing both from the debate on the etiology of general violence and male IPV against women (seeBouffard & Zedaker, 2016;Felson, 2006;Felson & Lane 2010;Hilton & Eke 2016;Moffit et al., 2000) as well as from recent findings on batterers typologies in prison (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), the present study sought to answer the following research question: Do male batterers with other criminal offenses (generalist batterers) differ from other violent offenders without a criminal record of IPV against women? We hypothesize that if the IPV perpetrated by GB and general violence have a common etiology, GB and GEVM will not differ in individual, familiar, and community variables.

Using data of convicted male offenders from the Penitentiary Center of Villabona (Asturias, Spain), the objectives of the present study were twofold: a) to explore the distribution of generalist batterers against women and common violent criminals without an IPV criminal record and b) to analyze their individual, family of origin, and community characteristics, seeing violence as a multidimensional phenomenon with multiples causes at different levels (seeBronfenbrenner, 1977;WHO 2002).

As for the individual characteristics of offenders we analyzed personality, sexist attitudes, and alcohol and drug dependence. Personality has been linked to both general criminal behavior (Davison & Janca, 2012;Ehrensaft, Cohen, & Johnson, 2006) and IPV against women (Capaldi & Kim, 2007;Mauricio, Tein, & L?pez, 2007). As for the influence of sexist attitudes toward women, there is empirical evidence suggesting that they are an important risk factor to understand IPV against women (Ali & Naylor, 2013). Finally, different studies show that substance and alcohol use and abuse are important factors related with general violence and IPV (Fagan, 1990;Feingold, Kerr, & Capaldi, 2008;Golinelli, Longshore, & Wenzel, 2009; Kretschmar & Flannery, 2007;Lisco, Parrot, & Tharp, 2012;Reingle, Jennings, Connel, Businelle, & Chartier, 2014;Rothman, McNaughton, Johnson, & LaValley, 2012;Smith, Homish, Leonard, & Cornelius, 2012).

Family of origin characteristics have also been regarded to both IPV against women (Ehrensaft et al., 2003) as well as to general violence (Fagan, 2005;Farrington, 2003;LeBlanc, 2005). Several studies of IPV focused their attention on family of origin of batterers, taking in account parental skills, educational models, socioeconomic level, or presence of abuse from parents (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016). In the present study family of origin variables were family climate and family functioning.

Empirical evidence suggests that contextual factors also influence IPV against women (Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012). Thus, disadvantaged communities may influence IPV (Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012;Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, 2003) but also general violence (O?Brien & Sampson, 2015;Markowitz, Bellair, Liska, & Liu, 2001). In this sense, community social disorder, community participation and community integration were community context variables in the present study. These are characteristics of disadvantaged communities (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016) which might be related with IPV against women and violence in general.

To better control for potentially biased responses in sensitive topics such as IPV (Bell & Naugle, 2007;Caetano, Schafer, Field, & Nelson, 2002;Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005;Saunders, 1991;Sugarman & Hotaling, 1997;Van de Mortel, 2008) we included a measure of social desirability in the study.

# NODO sec[1]MethodParticipantsParticipants of the study were 153 men imprisoned in the Penitentiary of Villabona (Asturias, Spain). Using information from criminal and justice official records, two types of imprisoned men were identified. The first group consisted of generalist batterers (GB), defined as those men who commit IPV against women as well as other varied criminal history (seeHerrero, Torres et al., 2016). The second group consisted of those imprisoned violent offenders with a varied criminal history that not included IPV against women (Geneally Extra-family Violent Men - GEVM). GB were significantly older (M = 36.48, SD = 9.39) than GEVM (M = 32.21, SD = 9.35) (F = 7.586, p = .007, h2= .049). Marital status for both groups was mainly single (48.80% and 65.10% respectively) or divorced/separated (30.20% and 19% respectively). Minor differences were found in the marital status of the two groups, but it lacked statistical significance (c2= 4.001, p = .135). Most participants perceived themselves of middle class (GB = 69.77%, GEVM = 65.67%) (ns), and had primary (GB = 50%, GEVM = 55.22%) or secondary (GB = 34.88%, GEVM = 25.37%) studies at the most (ns).ProcedureThe researchers approached the governmental and penitentiary authorities and explained the study objectives in order to obtain permission to evaluate inmates on a set of variables. After official access was granted, the researchers identified voluntary participants and obtained informed consent from them to take part in the study. Different sources of information were used for this study. Specifically, judicial and penitentiary reports were used to obtain information about the criminal history of participants. This included information about socio-demographic variables as well as the complete record of arrests and imprisonments for each participant. Also, different self-report measures were used to evaluate the personal, family, and community contexts of participants.VariablesOutcome variable. Based on criminal trajectory (see below), participants were divided into two groups: generalist batterers (GB; 56.2%) and generally extra-familiar violent men (GEVM; 43.8%). GB were characterized by a versatile criminal history, which included IPV against women, while GEVM had a history of criminal violence which not included IPV against women.Criminal trajectory variables. The most frequent offenses committed by GB as well as GEVM were crimes against property (81% and 73.3% respectively). Both groups showed similar rates of other different offenses such as homicide, injuries, crimes against liberty and against privacy, among others. Furthermore, information about age of first non-sanctioned offense, age of first arrest and age of first imprisonment was retrieved from interviews and official records. GB and GEVM participants showed a similar onset of criminal behavior as can be seen both by the age of first non-sanctioned offense (GB, M = 13.53, SD = 6.78; GEVM, M = 13.93, SD = 6.56; F = .134, p = .715), the age of first arrest (GB, M = 19.21, SD = 6.56; GEVM, M = 18.32, SD = 5.98; F = 545, p =.461) as well as the age of first imprisonment (GB, M = 27.70, SD = 9.70; GEVM, M = 25.10, SD = 8.09; F = 3.005, p =.085). Length of criminal trajectory was measured as the time lapse between age of first non-sanctioned offense and actual age (i.e., subtracting age of first offense from actual age), being GB?s criminal trajectory longest than GEVM?s (GB, M = 17.08, SD = 9.91; GEVM, M = 13.89, SD = 8.55; F = 4.201, p = .042).Biased responses. As response bias consisting in the adoption of positive characteristics (faking good) to portray themselves in a favorable light to get prison benefits and/or parole must be suspected in prison evaluation setting (Arce, Fari?a, Seijo, & Novo, 2015), a psychometric measurement of social desirability was obtained from participants to control its effects as a covariate. As for this, psychometric approach is valid and preferable than a clinical approach (Arce, Fari?a, & Vilari?o, 2015). The Social Desirability Scale (a = .80) of the Spanish adaptation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) (Cardenal & S?nchez, 2007;Millon, 1997;Millon, Davis, & Millon, 2007) was used to control biased responses.Intimate relationship variable. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale?s (CTS-2) Psychological Aggression Subscale (a = .88) (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was used to measure levels of psychological IPV against women in participants.Individual VariablesPersonality. The Spanish adaptation of MCMI-III was used to detect personality disorders (Axis II) (Cardenal & S?nchez 2007;Millon, 1997;Millon et al., 2007). Specifically, Histrionic (17 items, a = .80), Narcissistic (24 items, a = .70), Antisocial (17 items, a = .76), and Borderline (16 items, a = .82) scales were used in this study. Means and standard deviations for each scale and study group are presented inTable 1.Substances use and abuse. Alcohol (15 items, a = .71) and Substance Dependence (14 items, a = .80) scales from the Spanish adaptation of Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) were used. Means and standard deviations for each scale and group are presented inTable 1.Sexism. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1999 ) was used to evaluate sexist attitudes. It includes 22 items and measures both Hostile (a = .85) and Benevolent Sexism (a = .82). All of the items were rated on a five-point scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Means and standard deviations for each scale and group are presented inTable 1.Family of Origin VariablesFamily climate. The Family Relationship Index (Moos & Moos, 1994) was used to measure the quality of social relationships in the family environment. It measures cohesion (a = .91), expressiveness (a = .81) and conflict (a = .83). Means and Standard Deviations for each group are presented inTable 2. Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Individual Variables Family functioning. The APGAR scale was used to assess participants? perception of family functioning (Smilkstein, 1978). It is a five 3-point items scale of family functioning (Adaptability, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve) with responses ranging from 1 (hardly ever) to 3 (almost always). In the present study, a summed-up scale score was used. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach?s a = .92). Means and standard deviations for the scale in each group of batterers are presented in Table 2. Table 2Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Family Variables Community variablesCommunity social disorder. Three items about the frequency of crime (fight, weapons, robbery, etc.), presence of drug traffic, and nightlife in the community (see Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Herrero & Gracia, 2005) were used to measure community social disorder. Item responses raged on five-point scale from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Internal consistency was adequate (a = .85). Means and standard deviations in each group are presented in Table 3. Community integration and participation. The Community Integration and Community Participation Scales (a = .82 and a = .81 respectively) of the Perceived Community Support Questionnaire (Herrero & Gracia, 2007) were used to measure sense of belonging and identification as well as participation in social activities in the Community. Category responses ranged from 1 - strongly agree - to 5 - strongly disagree. Both scales have shown adequate psychometric characteristics and predictive validity (Herrero & Gracia, 2007; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016). Means and standard deviations in each group are presented in Table 3. Table 3Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Community Variables Data AnalysesWe first conducted two-step cluster analysis of The Psychological Aggression Scale scores. This technique is appropriate to find the number of groups that better account for the sample distribution of participants across the scores of Psychological Aggression. We also conducted multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) to test for differences in criminal history between the two groups: age of first nonsanctioned offense, age of first arrest, and age of first imprisonment. Finally, we conducted separate multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) to test for differences across groups in individual, family, and community dependent variables. Social desirability was included as a covariate in all the models tested. Dependent variables were grouped in a theoretically meaningful way: personality (cluster B), substance abuse, sexism, family of origin, and community. Table 5 presents a summary of MANCOVA results. ### SEC: [sec: null] - Method - methods # NODO sec[1]ParticipantsParticipants of the study were 153 men imprisoned in the Penitentiary of Villabona (Asturias, Spain). Using information from criminal and justice official records, two types of imprisoned men were identified. The first group consisted of generalist batterers (GB), defined as those men who commit IPV against women as well as other varied criminal history (seeHerrero, Torres et al., 2016). The second group consisted of those imprisoned violent offenders with a varied criminal history that not included IPV against women (Geneally Extra-family Violent Men - GEVM). GB were significantly older (M = 36.48, SD = 9.39) than GEVM (M = 32.21, SD = 9.35) (F = 7.586, p = .007, h2= .049). Marital status for both groups was mainly single (48.80% and 65.10% respectively) or divorced/separated (30.20% and 19% respectively). Minor differences were found in the marital status of the two groups, but it lacked statistical significance (c2= 4.001, p = .135). Most participants perceived themselves of middle class (GB = 69.77%, GEVM = 65.67%) (ns), and had primary (GB = 50%, GEVM = 55.22%) or secondary (GB = 34.88%, GEVM = 25.37%) studies at the most (ns). # NODO title[1]Participants # NODO p[1]Participants of the study were 153 men imprisoned in the Penitentiary of Villabona (Asturias, Spain). Using information from criminal and justice official records, two types of imprisoned men were identified. The first group consisted of generalist batterers (GB), defined as those men who commit IPV against women as well as other varied criminal history (seeHerrero, Torres et al., 2016). The second group consisted of those imprisoned violent offenders with a varied criminal history that not included IPV against women (Geneally Extra-family Violent Men - GEVM). GB were significantly older (M = 36.48, SD = 9.39) than GEVM (M = 32.21, SD = 9.35) (F = 7.586, p = .007, h2= .049). Marital status for both groups was mainly single (48.80% and 65.10% respectively) or divorced/separated (30.20% and 19% respectively). Minor differences were found in the marital status of the two groups, but it lacked statistical significance (c2= 4.001, p = .135). Most participants perceived themselves of middle class (GB = 69.77%, GEVM = 65.67%) (ns), and had primary (GB = 50%, GEVM = 55.22%) or secondary (GB = 34.88%, GEVM = 25.37%) studies at the most (ns). # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al., 2016 # NODO sup[1]2 # NODO sup[1]2 ### SEC [RETURN]:

Participants

Participants of the study were 153 men imprisoned in the Penitentiary of Villabona (Asturias, Spain). Using information from criminal and justice official records, two types of imprisoned men were identified. The first group consisted of generalist batterers (GB), defined as those men who commit IPV against women as well as other varied criminal history (seeHerrero, Torres et al., 2016). The second group consisted of those imprisoned violent offenders with a varied criminal history that not included IPV against women (Geneally Extra-family Violent Men - GEVM). GB were significantly older (M = 36.48, SD = 9.39) than GEVM (M = 32.21, SD = 9.35) (F = 7.586, p = .007, h2= .049). Marital status for both groups was mainly single (48.80% and 65.10% respectively) or divorced/separated (30.20% and 19% respectively). Minor differences were found in the marital status of the two groups, but it lacked statistical significance (c2= 4.001, p = .135). Most participants perceived themselves of middle class (GB = 69.77%, GEVM = 65.67%) (ns), and had primary (GB = 50%, GEVM = 55.22%) or secondary (GB = 34.88%, GEVM = 25.37%) studies at the most (ns).

# NODO sec[1]ProcedureThe researchers approached the governmental and penitentiary authorities and explained the study objectives in order to obtain permission to evaluate inmates on a set of variables. After official access was granted, the researchers identified voluntary participants and obtained informed consent from them to take part in the study. Different sources of information were used for this study. Specifically, judicial and penitentiary reports were used to obtain information about the criminal history of participants. This included information about socio-demographic variables as well as the complete record of arrests and imprisonments for each participant. Also, different self-report measures were used to evaluate the personal, family, and community contexts of participants. # NODO title[1]Procedure # NODO p[1]The researchers approached the governmental and penitentiary authorities and explained the study objectives in order to obtain permission to evaluate inmates on a set of variables. After official access was granted, the researchers identified voluntary participants and obtained informed consent from them to take part in the study. Different sources of information were used for this study. Specifically, judicial and penitentiary reports were used to obtain information about the criminal history of participants. This included information about socio-demographic variables as well as the complete record of arrests and imprisonments for each participant. Also, different self-report measures were used to evaluate the personal, family, and community contexts of participants. ### SEC [RETURN]:

Procedure

The researchers approached the governmental and penitentiary authorities and explained the study objectives in order to obtain permission to evaluate inmates on a set of variables. After official access was granted, the researchers identified voluntary participants and obtained informed consent from them to take part in the study. Different sources of information were used for this study. Specifically, judicial and penitentiary reports were used to obtain information about the criminal history of participants. This included information about socio-demographic variables as well as the complete record of arrests and imprisonments for each participant. Also, different self-report measures were used to evaluate the personal, family, and community contexts of participants.

# NODO sec[1]VariablesOutcome variable. Based on criminal trajectory (see below), participants were divided into two groups: generalist batterers (GB; 56.2%) and generally extra-familiar violent men (GEVM; 43.8%). GB were characterized by a versatile criminal history, which included IPV against women, while GEVM had a history of criminal violence which not included IPV against women.Criminal trajectory variables. The most frequent offenses committed by GB as well as GEVM were crimes against property (81% and 73.3% respectively). Both groups showed similar rates of other different offenses such as homicide, injuries, crimes against liberty and against privacy, among others. Furthermore, information about age of first non-sanctioned offense, age of first arrest and age of first imprisonment was retrieved from interviews and official records. GB and GEVM participants showed a similar onset of criminal behavior as can be seen both by the age of first non-sanctioned offense (GB, M = 13.53, SD = 6.78; GEVM, M = 13.93, SD = 6.56; F = .134, p = .715), the age of first arrest (GB, M = 19.21, SD = 6.56; GEVM, M = 18.32, SD = 5.98; F = 545, p =.461) as well as the age of first imprisonment (GB, M = 27.70, SD = 9.70; GEVM, M = 25.10, SD = 8.09; F = 3.005, p =.085). Length of criminal trajectory was measured as the time lapse between age of first non-sanctioned offense and actual age (i.e., subtracting age of first offense from actual age), being GB?s criminal trajectory longest than GEVM?s (GB, M = 17.08, SD = 9.91; GEVM, M = 13.89, SD = 8.55; F = 4.201, p = .042).Biased responses. As response bias consisting in the adoption of positive characteristics (faking good) to portray themselves in a favorable light to get prison benefits and/or parole must be suspected in prison evaluation setting (Arce, Fari?a, Seijo, & Novo, 2015), a psychometric measurement of social desirability was obtained from participants to control its effects as a covariate. As for this, psychometric approach is valid and preferable than a clinical approach (Arce, Fari?a, & Vilari?o, 2015). The Social Desirability Scale (a = .80) of the Spanish adaptation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) (Cardenal & S?nchez, 2007;Millon, 1997;Millon, Davis, & Millon, 2007) was used to control biased responses.Intimate relationship variable. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale?s (CTS-2) Psychological Aggression Subscale (a = .88) (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was used to measure levels of psychological IPV against women in participants. # NODO title[1]Variables # NODO p[1]Outcome variable. Based on criminal trajectory (see below), participants were divided into two groups: generalist batterers (GB; 56.2%) and generally extra-familiar violent men (GEVM; 43.8%). GB were characterized by a versatile criminal history, which included IPV against women, while GEVM had a history of criminal violence which not included IPV against women. # NODO p[1]Criminal trajectory variables. The most frequent offenses committed by GB as well as GEVM were crimes against property (81% and 73.3% respectively). Both groups showed similar rates of other different offenses such as homicide, injuries, crimes against liberty and against privacy, among others. Furthermore, information about age of first non-sanctioned offense, age of first arrest and age of first imprisonment was retrieved from interviews and official records. GB and GEVM participants showed a similar onset of criminal behavior as can be seen both by the age of first non-sanctioned offense (GB, M = 13.53, SD = 6.78; GEVM, M = 13.93, SD = 6.56; F = .134, p = .715), the age of first arrest (GB, M = 19.21, SD = 6.56; GEVM, M = 18.32, SD = 5.98; F = 545, p =.461) as well as the age of first imprisonment (GB, M = 27.70, SD = 9.70; GEVM, M = 25.10, SD = 8.09; F = 3.005, p =.085). Length of criminal trajectory was measured as the time lapse between age of first non-sanctioned offense and actual age (i.e., subtracting age of first offense from actual age), being GB?s criminal trajectory longest than GEVM?s (GB, M = 17.08, SD = 9.91; GEVM, M = 13.89, SD = 8.55; F = 4.201, p = .042). # NODO p[1]Biased responses. As response bias consisting in the adoption of positive characteristics (faking good) to portray themselves in a favorable light to get prison benefits and/or parole must be suspected in prison evaluation setting (Arce, Fari?a, Seijo, & Novo, 2015), a psychometric measurement of social desirability was obtained from participants to control its effects as a covariate. As for this, psychometric approach is valid and preferable than a clinical approach (Arce, Fari?a, & Vilari?o, 2015). The Social Desirability Scale (a = .80) of the Spanish adaptation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) (Cardenal & S?nchez, 2007;Millon, 1997;Millon, Davis, & Millon, 2007) was used to control biased responses. # NODO xref[1]Arce, Fari?a, Seijo, & Novo, 2015 # NODO xref[1]Arce, Fari?a, & Vilari?o, 2015 # NODO xref[1]Cardenal & S?nchez, 2007 # NODO xref[1]Millon, 1997 # NODO xref[1]Millon, Davis, & Millon, 2007 # NODO p[1]Intimate relationship variable. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale?s (CTS-2) Psychological Aggression Subscale (a = .88) (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was used to measure levels of psychological IPV against women in participants. # NODO xref[1]Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996 ### SEC [RETURN]:

Variables

Outcome variable. Based on criminal trajectory (see below), participants were divided into two groups: generalist batterers (GB; 56.2%) and generally extra-familiar violent men (GEVM; 43.8%). GB were characterized by a versatile criminal history, which included IPV against women, while GEVM had a history of criminal violence which not included IPV against women.

Criminal trajectory variables. The most frequent offenses committed by GB as well as GEVM were crimes against property (81% and 73.3% respectively). Both groups showed similar rates of other different offenses such as homicide, injuries, crimes against liberty and against privacy, among others. Furthermore, information about age of first non-sanctioned offense, age of first arrest and age of first imprisonment was retrieved from interviews and official records. GB and GEVM participants showed a similar onset of criminal behavior as can be seen both by the age of first non-sanctioned offense (GB, M = 13.53, SD = 6.78; GEVM, M = 13.93, SD = 6.56; F = .134, p = .715), the age of first arrest (GB, M = 19.21, SD = 6.56; GEVM, M = 18.32, SD = 5.98; F = 545, p =.461) as well as the age of first imprisonment (GB, M = 27.70, SD = 9.70; GEVM, M = 25.10, SD = 8.09; F = 3.005, p =.085). Length of criminal trajectory was measured as the time lapse between age of first non-sanctioned offense and actual age (i.e., subtracting age of first offense from actual age), being GB?s criminal trajectory longest than GEVM?s (GB, M = 17.08, SD = 9.91; GEVM, M = 13.89, SD = 8.55; F = 4.201, p = .042).

Biased responses. As response bias consisting in the adoption of positive characteristics (faking good) to portray themselves in a favorable light to get prison benefits and/or parole must be suspected in prison evaluation setting (Arce, Fari?a, Seijo, & Novo, 2015), a psychometric measurement of social desirability was obtained from participants to control its effects as a covariate. As for this, psychometric approach is valid and preferable than a clinical approach (Arce, Fari?a, & Vilari?o, 2015). The Social Desirability Scale (a = .80) of the Spanish adaptation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) (Cardenal & S?nchez, 2007;Millon, 1997;Millon, Davis, & Millon, 2007) was used to control biased responses.

Intimate relationship variable. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale?s (CTS-2) Psychological Aggression Subscale (a = .88) (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was used to measure levels of psychological IPV against women in participants.

# NODO sec[1]Individual VariablesPersonality. The Spanish adaptation of MCMI-III was used to detect personality disorders (Axis II) (Cardenal & S?nchez 2007;Millon, 1997;Millon et al., 2007). Specifically, Histrionic (17 items, a = .80), Narcissistic (24 items, a = .70), Antisocial (17 items, a = .76), and Borderline (16 items, a = .82) scales were used in this study. Means and standard deviations for each scale and study group are presented inTable 1.Substances use and abuse. Alcohol (15 items, a = .71) and Substance Dependence (14 items, a = .80) scales from the Spanish adaptation of Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) were used. Means and standard deviations for each scale and group are presented inTable 1.Sexism. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1999 ) was used to evaluate sexist attitudes. It includes 22 items and measures both Hostile (a = .85) and Benevolent Sexism (a = .82). All of the items were rated on a five-point scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Means and standard deviations for each scale and group are presented inTable 1.Family of Origin VariablesFamily climate. The Family Relationship Index (Moos & Moos, 1994) was used to measure the quality of social relationships in the family environment. It measures cohesion (a = .91), expressiveness (a = .81) and conflict (a = .83). Means and Standard Deviations for each group are presented inTable 2. Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Individual Variables Family functioning. The APGAR scale was used to assess participants? perception of family functioning (Smilkstein, 1978). It is a five 3-point items scale of family functioning (Adaptability, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve) with responses ranging from 1 (hardly ever) to 3 (almost always). In the present study, a summed-up scale score was used. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach?s a = .92). Means and standard deviations for the scale in each group of batterers are presented in Table 2. Table 2Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Family Variables # NODO title[1]Individual Variables # NODO p[1]Personality. The Spanish adaptation of MCMI-III was used to detect personality disorders (Axis II) (Cardenal & S?nchez 2007;Millon, 1997;Millon et al., 2007). Specifically, Histrionic (17 items, a = .80), Narcissistic (24 items, a = .70), Antisocial (17 items, a = .76), and Borderline (16 items, a = .82) scales were used in this study. Means and standard deviations for each scale and study group are presented inTable 1. # NODO xref[1]Cardenal & S?nchez 2007 # NODO xref[1]Millon, 1997 # NODO xref[1]Millon et al., 2007 # NODO xref[1]Table 1 # NODO p[1]Substances use and abuse. Alcohol (15 items, a = .71) and Substance Dependence (14 items, a = .80) scales from the Spanish adaptation of Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) were used. Means and standard deviations for each scale and group are presented inTable 1. # NODO xref[1]Table 1 # NODO p[1]Sexism. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1999 ) was used to evaluate sexist attitudes. It includes 22 items and measures both Hostile (a = .85) and Benevolent Sexism (a = .82). All of the items were rated on a five-point scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Means and standard deviations for each scale and group are presented inTable 1. # NODO xref[1]Glick & Fiske, 1996 # NODO xref[1]Table 1 # NODO p[1]Family of Origin Variables # NODO p[1]Family climate. The Family Relationship Index (Moos & Moos, 1994) was used to measure the quality of social relationships in the family environment. It measures cohesion (a = .91), expressiveness (a = .81) and conflict (a = .83). Means and Standard Deviations for each group are presented inTable 2. # NODO xref[1]Moos & Moos, 1994 # NODO xref[1]Table 2 # NODO p[1] Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Individual Variables # NODO table-wrap[1]Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Individual Variables # NODO label[1]Table 1 # NODO caption[1]Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Individual Variables # NODO title[1]Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Individual Variables # NODO graphic[1] # NODO p[1]Family functioning. The APGAR scale was used to assess participants? perception of family functioning (Smilkstein, 1978). It is a five 3-point items scale of family functioning (Adaptability, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve) with responses ranging from 1 (hardly ever) to 3 (almost always). In the present study, a summed-up scale score was used. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach?s a = .92). Means and standard deviations for the scale in each group of batterers are presented in Table 2. # NODO xref[1]Smilkstein, 1978 # NODO xref[1]Table 2 # NODO p[1] Table 2Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Family Variables # NODO table-wrap[1]Table 2Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Family Variables # NODO label[1]Table 2 # NODO caption[1]Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Family Variables # NODO title[1]Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Family Variables # NODO graphic[1] ### SEC [RETURN]:

Individual Variables

Personality. The Spanish adaptation of MCMI-III was used to detect personality disorders (Axis II) (Cardenal & S?nchez 2007;Millon, 1997;Millon et al., 2007). Specifically, Histrionic (17 items, a = .80), Narcissistic (24 items, a = .70), Antisocial (17 items, a = .76), and Borderline (16 items, a = .82) scales were used in this study. Means and standard deviations for each scale and study group are presented inTable 1.

Substances use and abuse. Alcohol (15 items, a = .71) and Substance Dependence (14 items, a = .80) scales from the Spanish adaptation of Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) were used. Means and standard deviations for each scale and group are presented inTable 1.

Sexism. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1999 ) was used to evaluate sexist attitudes. It includes 22 items and measures both Hostile (a = .85) and Benevolent Sexism (a = .82). All of the items were rated on a five-point scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Means and standard deviations for each scale and group are presented inTable 1.

Family of Origin Variables

Family climate. The Family Relationship Index (Moos & Moos, 1994) was used to measure the quality of social relationships in the family environment. It measures cohesion (a = .91), expressiveness (a = .81) and conflict (a = .83). Means and Standard Deviations for each group are presented inTable 2.

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Individual Variables

Family functioning. The APGAR scale was used to assess participants? perception of family functioning (Smilkstein, 1978). It is a five 3-point items scale of family functioning (Adaptability, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve) with responses ranging from 1 (hardly ever) to 3 (almost always). In the present study, a summed-up scale score was used. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach?s a = .92). Means and standard deviations for the scale in each group of batterers are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Family Variables

# NODO sec[1]Community variablesCommunity social disorder. Three items about the frequency of crime (fight, weapons, robbery, etc.), presence of drug traffic, and nightlife in the community (see Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Herrero & Gracia, 2005) were used to measure community social disorder. Item responses raged on five-point scale from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Internal consistency was adequate (a = .85). Means and standard deviations in each group are presented in Table 3. Community integration and participation. The Community Integration and Community Participation Scales (a = .82 and a = .81 respectively) of the Perceived Community Support Questionnaire (Herrero & Gracia, 2007) were used to measure sense of belonging and identification as well as participation in social activities in the Community. Category responses ranged from 1 - strongly agree - to 5 - strongly disagree. Both scales have shown adequate psychometric characteristics and predictive validity (Herrero & Gracia, 2007; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016). Means and standard deviations in each group are presented in Table 3. Table 3Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Community Variables # NODO title[1]Community variables # NODO p[1]Community social disorder. Three items about the frequency of crime (fight, weapons, robbery, etc.), presence of drug traffic, and nightlife in the community (see Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Herrero & Gracia, 2005) were used to measure community social disorder. Item responses raged on five-point scale from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Internal consistency was adequate (a = .85). Means and standard deviations in each group are presented in Table 3. # NODO xref[1]Gracia & Herrero, 2006 # NODO xref[1]Table 3 # NODO p[1]Community integration and participation. The Community Integration and Community Participation Scales (a = .82 and a = .81 respectively) of the Perceived Community Support Questionnaire (Herrero & Gracia, 2007) were used to measure sense of belonging and identification as well as participation in social activities in the Community. Category responses ranged from 1 - strongly agree - to 5 - strongly disagree. Both scales have shown adequate psychometric characteristics and predictive validity (Herrero & Gracia, 2007; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016). Means and standard deviations in each group are presented in Table 3. # NODO xref[1]Herrero & Gracia, 2007 # NODO xref[1]Table 3 # NODO p[1] Table 3Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Community Variables # NODO table-wrap[1]Table 3Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Community Variables # NODO label[1]Table 3 # NODO caption[1]Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Community Variables # NODO title[1]Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Community Variables # NODO graphic[1] ### SEC [RETURN]:

Community variables

Community social disorder. Three items about the frequency of crime (fight, weapons, robbery, etc.), presence of drug traffic, and nightlife in the community (see Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Herrero & Gracia, 2005) were used to measure community social disorder. Item responses raged on five-point scale from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Internal consistency was adequate (a = .85). Means and standard deviations in each group are presented in Table 3.

Community integration and participation. The Community Integration and Community Participation Scales (a = .82 and a = .81 respectively) of the Perceived Community Support Questionnaire (Herrero & Gracia, 2007) were used to measure sense of belonging and identification as well as participation in social activities in the Community. Category responses ranged from 1 - strongly agree - to 5 - strongly disagree. Both scales have shown adequate psychometric characteristics and predictive validity (Herrero & Gracia, 2007; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016). Means and standard deviations in each group are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Community Variables

# NODO sec[1]Data AnalysesWe first conducted two-step cluster analysis of The Psychological Aggression Scale scores. This technique is appropriate to find the number of groups that better account for the sample distribution of participants across the scores of Psychological Aggression. We also conducted multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) to test for differences in criminal history between the two groups: age of first nonsanctioned offense, age of first arrest, and age of first imprisonment. Finally, we conducted separate multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) to test for differences across groups in individual, family, and community dependent variables. Social desirability was included as a covariate in all the models tested. Dependent variables were grouped in a theoretically meaningful way: personality (cluster B), substance abuse, sexism, family of origin, and community. Table 5 presents a summary of MANCOVA results. # NODO title[1]Data Analyses # NODO p[1]We first conducted two-step cluster analysis of The Psychological Aggression Scale scores. This technique is appropriate to find the number of groups that better account for the sample distribution of participants across the scores of Psychological Aggression. We also conducted multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) to test for differences in criminal history between the two groups: age of first nonsanctioned offense, age of first arrest, and age of first imprisonment. # NODO p[1]Finally, we conducted separate multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) to test for differences across groups in individual, family, and community dependent variables. Social desirability was included as a covariate in all the models tested. Dependent variables were grouped in a theoretically meaningful way: personality (cluster B), substance abuse, sexism, family of origin, and community. Table 5 presents a summary of MANCOVA results. # NODO xref[1]Table 5 ### SEC [RETURN]:

Data Analyses

We first conducted two-step cluster analysis of The Psychological Aggression Scale scores. This technique is appropriate to find the number of groups that better account for the sample distribution of participants across the scores of Psychological Aggression. We also conducted multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) to test for differences in criminal history between the two groups: age of first nonsanctioned offense, age of first arrest, and age of first imprisonment.

Finally, we conducted separate multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) to test for differences across groups in individual, family, and community dependent variables. Social desirability was included as a covariate in all the models tested. Dependent variables were grouped in a theoretically meaningful way: personality (cluster B), substance abuse, sexism, family of origin, and community. Table 5 presents a summary of MANCOVA results.

### SEC [RETURN]: Method

Participants

Participants of the study were 153 men imprisoned in the Penitentiary of Villabona (Asturias, Spain). Using information from criminal and justice official records, two types of imprisoned men were identified. The first group consisted of generalist batterers (GB), defined as those men who commit IPV against women as well as other varied criminal history (seeHerrero, Torres et al., 2016). The second group consisted of those imprisoned violent offenders with a varied criminal history that not included IPV against women (Geneally Extra-family Violent Men - GEVM). GB were significantly older (M = 36.48, SD = 9.39) than GEVM (M = 32.21, SD = 9.35) (F = 7.586, p = .007, h2= .049). Marital status for both groups was mainly single (48.80% and 65.10% respectively) or divorced/separated (30.20% and 19% respectively). Minor differences were found in the marital status of the two groups, but it lacked statistical significance (c2= 4.001, p = .135). Most participants perceived themselves of middle class (GB = 69.77%, GEVM = 65.67%) (ns), and had primary (GB = 50%, GEVM = 55.22%) or secondary (GB = 34.88%, GEVM = 25.37%) studies at the most (ns).

Procedure

The researchers approached the governmental and penitentiary authorities and explained the study objectives in order to obtain permission to evaluate inmates on a set of variables. After official access was granted, the researchers identified voluntary participants and obtained informed consent from them to take part in the study. Different sources of information were used for this study. Specifically, judicial and penitentiary reports were used to obtain information about the criminal history of participants. This included information about socio-demographic variables as well as the complete record of arrests and imprisonments for each participant. Also, different self-report measures were used to evaluate the personal, family, and community contexts of participants.

Variables

Outcome variable. Based on criminal trajectory (see below), participants were divided into two groups: generalist batterers (GB; 56.2%) and generally extra-familiar violent men (GEVM; 43.8%). GB were characterized by a versatile criminal history, which included IPV against women, while GEVM had a history of criminal violence which not included IPV against women.

Criminal trajectory variables. The most frequent offenses committed by GB as well as GEVM were crimes against property (81% and 73.3% respectively). Both groups showed similar rates of other different offenses such as homicide, injuries, crimes against liberty and against privacy, among others. Furthermore, information about age of first non-sanctioned offense, age of first arrest and age of first imprisonment was retrieved from interviews and official records. GB and GEVM participants showed a similar onset of criminal behavior as can be seen both by the age of first non-sanctioned offense (GB, M = 13.53, SD = 6.78; GEVM, M = 13.93, SD = 6.56; F = .134, p = .715), the age of first arrest (GB, M = 19.21, SD = 6.56; GEVM, M = 18.32, SD = 5.98; F = 545, p =.461) as well as the age of first imprisonment (GB, M = 27.70, SD = 9.70; GEVM, M = 25.10, SD = 8.09; F = 3.005, p =.085). Length of criminal trajectory was measured as the time lapse between age of first non-sanctioned offense and actual age (i.e., subtracting age of first offense from actual age), being GB?s criminal trajectory longest than GEVM?s (GB, M = 17.08, SD = 9.91; GEVM, M = 13.89, SD = 8.55; F = 4.201, p = .042).

Biased responses. As response bias consisting in the adoption of positive characteristics (faking good) to portray themselves in a favorable light to get prison benefits and/or parole must be suspected in prison evaluation setting (Arce, Fari?a, Seijo, & Novo, 2015), a psychometric measurement of social desirability was obtained from participants to control its effects as a covariate. As for this, psychometric approach is valid and preferable than a clinical approach (Arce, Fari?a, & Vilari?o, 2015). The Social Desirability Scale (a = .80) of the Spanish adaptation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) (Cardenal & S?nchez, 2007;Millon, 1997;Millon, Davis, & Millon, 2007) was used to control biased responses.

Intimate relationship variable. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale?s (CTS-2) Psychological Aggression Subscale (a = .88) (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was used to measure levels of psychological IPV against women in participants.

Individual Variables

Personality. The Spanish adaptation of MCMI-III was used to detect personality disorders (Axis II) (Cardenal & S?nchez 2007;Millon, 1997;Millon et al., 2007). Specifically, Histrionic (17 items, a = .80), Narcissistic (24 items, a = .70), Antisocial (17 items, a = .76), and Borderline (16 items, a = .82) scales were used in this study. Means and standard deviations for each scale and study group are presented inTable 1.

Substances use and abuse. Alcohol (15 items, a = .71) and Substance Dependence (14 items, a = .80) scales from the Spanish adaptation of Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) were used. Means and standard deviations for each scale and group are presented inTable 1.

Sexism. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1999 ) was used to evaluate sexist attitudes. It includes 22 items and measures both Hostile (a = .85) and Benevolent Sexism (a = .82). All of the items were rated on a five-point scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Means and standard deviations for each scale and group are presented inTable 1.

Family of Origin Variables

Family climate. The Family Relationship Index (Moos & Moos, 1994) was used to measure the quality of social relationships in the family environment. It measures cohesion (a = .91), expressiveness (a = .81) and conflict (a = .83). Means and Standard Deviations for each group are presented inTable 2.

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Individual Variables

Family functioning. The APGAR scale was used to assess participants? perception of family functioning (Smilkstein, 1978). It is a five 3-point items scale of family functioning (Adaptability, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve) with responses ranging from 1 (hardly ever) to 3 (almost always). In the present study, a summed-up scale score was used. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach?s a = .92). Means and standard deviations for the scale in each group of batterers are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Family Variables

Community variables

Community social disorder. Three items about the frequency of crime (fight, weapons, robbery, etc.), presence of drug traffic, and nightlife in the community (see Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Herrero & Gracia, 2005) were used to measure community social disorder. Item responses raged on five-point scale from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Internal consistency was adequate (a = .85). Means and standard deviations in each group are presented in Table 3.

Community integration and participation. The Community Integration and Community Participation Scales (a = .82 and a = .81 respectively) of the Perceived Community Support Questionnaire (Herrero & Gracia, 2007) were used to measure sense of belonging and identification as well as participation in social activities in the Community. Category responses ranged from 1 - strongly agree - to 5 - strongly disagree. Both scales have shown adequate psychometric characteristics and predictive validity (Herrero & Gracia, 2007; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016). Means and standard deviations in each group are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Community Variables

Data Analyses

We first conducted two-step cluster analysis of The Psychological Aggression Scale scores. This technique is appropriate to find the number of groups that better account for the sample distribution of participants across the scores of Psychological Aggression. We also conducted multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) to test for differences in criminal history between the two groups: age of first nonsanctioned offense, age of first arrest, and age of first imprisonment.

Finally, we conducted separate multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) to test for differences across groups in individual, family, and community dependent variables. Social desirability was included as a covariate in all the models tested. Dependent variables were grouped in a theoretically meaningful way: personality (cluster B), substance abuse, sexism, family of origin, and community. Table 5 presents a summary of MANCOVA results.

# NODO sec[1]ResultsResults of bi-step cluster analysis showed that according to their scores on Psychological Aggression participants belonged to any of two groups (see Table 4): low (M = 4.49, SD = 4.61) and high psychological aggressio (M = 24.47, SD = 7.69). As expected, most of participants in the High Psychological Aggression Group belonged to the group of GB (68.8%), suggesting that GB participants were involved in IPV against women to a greater extent than GEVM (31.1%). This relationship was statistically significant according to the chisquared test (c2 = 4.334, p = .037, j = -.17). Table 4Pearson?s Chi-square Test between Study Groups and ClustersNote. M1 = 4.49, SD1 = 4.61; M2 = 24.47, SD2 = 7.69. Results of MANOVAs carried out to analyze the differences in the criminal trajectory of participants showed that GBs and GEVM did not differ 5 in age of first non-sanctioned crime, age of first arrest, nor age of first imprisonment (Wilk?s Lambda = .975, F3, 142 =1.198, p = .313, h2 = .025). Results from MANCOVAs did not show statistical significance, suggesting that GB and GEVM scored similarly on the individual, family, and community dependent variables (see Table 5). Table 5Summary of MANCOVA?s Means on Individual, Family of Origin, and Community Characteristics ### SEC: [sec: null] - Results - results # NODO p[1]Results of bi-step cluster analysis showed that according to their scores on Psychological Aggression participants belonged to any of two groups (see Table 4): low (M = 4.49, SD = 4.61) and high psychological aggressio (M = 24.47, SD = 7.69). As expected, most of participants in the High Psychological Aggression Group belonged to the group of GB (68.8%), suggesting that GB participants were involved in IPV against women to a greater extent than GEVM (31.1%). This relationship was statistically significant according to the chisquared test (c2 = 4.334, p = .037, j = -.17). # NODO xref[1]Table 4 # NODO p[1] Table 4Pearson?s Chi-square Test between Study Groups and ClustersNote. M1 = 4.49, SD1 = 4.61; M2 = 24.47, SD2 = 7.69. # NODO table-wrap[1]Table 4Pearson?s Chi-square Test between Study Groups and ClustersNote. M1 = 4.49, SD1 = 4.61; M2 = 24.47, SD2 = 7.69. # NODO label[1]Table 4 # NODO caption[1]Pearson?s Chi-square Test between Study Groups and Clusters # NODO title[1]Pearson?s Chi-square Test between Study Groups and Clusters # NODO graphic[1] # NODO table-wrap-foot[1]Note. M1 = 4.49, SD1 = 4.61; M2 = 24.47, SD2 = 7.69. # NODO fn[1]Note. M1 = 4.49, SD1 = 4.61; M2 = 24.47, SD2 = 7.69. # NODO p[1]Results of MANOVAs carried out to analyze the differences in the criminal trajectory of participants showed that GBs and GEVM did not differ # NODO p[1]5 in age of first non-sanctioned crime, age of first arrest, nor age of first imprisonment (Wilk?s Lambda = .975, F3, 142 =1.198, p = .313, h2 = .025). # NODO p[1]Results from MANCOVAs did not show statistical significance, suggesting that GB and GEVM scored similarly on the individual, family, and community dependent variables (see Table 5). # NODO xref[1]Table 5 # NODO p[1] Table 5Summary of MANCOVA?s Means on Individual, Family of Origin, and Community Characteristics # NODO table-wrap[1]Table 5Summary of MANCOVA?s Means on Individual, Family of Origin, and Community Characteristics # NODO label[1]Table 5 # NODO caption[1]Summary of MANCOVA?s Means on Individual, Family of Origin, and Community Characteristics # NODO title[1]Summary of MANCOVA?s Means on Individual, Family of Origin, and Community Characteristics # NODO graphic[1] ### SEC [RETURN]: Results

Results of bi-step cluster analysis showed that according to their scores on Psychological Aggression participants belonged to any of two groups (see Table 4): low (M = 4.49, SD = 4.61) and high psychological aggressio (M = 24.47, SD = 7.69). As expected, most of participants in the High Psychological Aggression Group belonged to the group of GB (68.8%), suggesting that GB participants were involved in IPV against women to a greater extent than GEVM (31.1%). This relationship was statistically significant according to the chisquared test (c2 = 4.334, p = .037, j = -.17).

Table 4

Pearson?s Chi-square Test between Study Groups and Clusters

Results of MANOVAs carried out to analyze the differences in the criminal trajectory of participants showed that GBs and GEVM did not differ

5 in age of first non-sanctioned crime, age of first arrest, nor age of first imprisonment (Wilk?s Lambda = .975, F3, 142 =1.198, p = .313, h2 = .025).

Results from MANCOVAs did not show statistical significance, suggesting that GB and GEVM scored similarly on the individual, family, and community dependent variables (see Table 5).

Table 5

Summary of MANCOVA?s Means on Individual, Family of Origin, and Community Characteristics

# NODO sec[1]DiscussionIn the present study, a comparison between two groups of violent inmates was carried out. Participants were 153 imprisoned men from the Penitentiary Center of Villabona (Asturias, Spain) belonging to two groups: the first group was comprised by generalist batterers who had heterogeneous and long violent criminal history which included IPV against women (generalist batterers -GB) (see Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), and the second group comprised generally extrafamily violent men (GEVM), who had heterogeneous and long violent criminal history which did not include IPV against women. GB had common characteristics and similarities with other types of batterers proposed in other typologies: generally violent or antisocial batterer (Holztworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994), subtype I or psychopathic partner-violent men (Fowler & Westen, 2011), high-risk offenders (Cavanough & Gelles, 2005), or type II antisocial batterer (Gondolf, 1988) among others. Our research sought to analyze both the distribution of batterers among generally violent inmate population and their potentially different individual, family, and community characteristics (see Moffit & Caspi, 1999). Regarding to the first objective, GB and GEVM group sizes were similar (n = 86 vs. n = 67), indicating that more than a half of generally violent inmates of the study had a versatile criminal history which comprised IPV against women as well as other violent crimes (see also Bouffard & Zedaker, 2016). These results give support to the idea that general violence and IPV might have a common etiology (Felson, 2006; Felson & Lane, 2010; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Moffit et al., 2000). Next, we explored the criminal history as well as sociodemographic, individual, family of origin, and community variables for each group. GB and GEVM participants showed a criminal trajectory of violence (the most frequent crimes in both groups were crimes against property, more than 73%). We could not find any statistical differences between the two groups in their criminal trajectory, including age of first offense, age of first arrest, and age of first imprisonment. Taking into account the length of criminal trajectory, results showed that criminal trajectory of GB was longer than GEVM?s. In this sense, other research has suggested that for some generally violent men criminal trajectory starts victimizing non-intimates, but progressively includes family member (like partner) among their victims (Shield et al., 1988), and it seems that long criminal trajectories increased the odds of criminal violence as well as IPV (Piquero et al., 2014). As for the individual characteristics, GB and GEVM did not differ in personality characteristics, nor substance and alcohol dependence, nor ambivalent sexism. Antisocial, histrionic, borderline, and narcissist personality have been related with violence in general, IPV against women (Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005; Fowler & Westen, 2011; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Kiwi & Sadeghi, 2015; Peters, Derefinko, & Lynam, 2016; Ru?z-Hern?ndez, Garc?a-Jim?nez, Llor-Esteban, & Godoy-Fern?ndez, 2015; Stef?nsson & Hesse, 2008; Theobald, Farrington, Coid, & Piquero, 2015) and reoffending (Kiwi & Sadeghi, 2015). According to this, our results suggest that personality characteristics do not allow to differentiate between types of criminal offenders: GB and GEVM participants showed a similar personality profile. Further, drug and/or alcohol abuse and dependence have been traditionally linked to general violence (Fagan, 1990; Kretschmar & Flannery, 2007) and IPV against women (see Gondolf, 1988; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Shield et al., 1988; Saunders, 1992), which is consistent with our finding that both GB and GEVM participants showed similar levels of alcohol and substance abuse and dependence. We also found in our study that levels of sexist attitudes toward women were similar across groups of offenders. Although this finding might challenge, research showing that more sexist, misogynistic, traditional, and gender rigid attitudes are related to IPV against women (Allen, Swan, & Raghavan, 2009; Flood & Pease, 2009), empirical research on male batterers have consistently found that antisocial/generally violent batterers show the highest levels of hostility toward women (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Holtwortz-Munroe & Stewart, 1994). Also, evidence from general population studies indicates that more violent individuals might also hold hostile attitudes toward women (Herrero, Rodr?guez, & Torres, 2016) as compared to less violent individuals. The same tendency emerged when GB and GEVM participants were compared in their family characteristics: we could not find any significant statistical difference in family functioning and family climate (cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict) across groups. These results are in line with empirical evidence showing that the family environment is related to general violence (Fagan, 2013; Flannery, Singer, Van Dulmen, Kretschmar, & Belliston, 2007; L?ng & Birk?s, 2014; Meldrum, Connolly, Flexon, & Guerette, 2015; Vanassche, Sodermans, Matthijs, & Swicegood, 2013). Our findings further suggest that dysfunctions in family of origin might be unrelated to IPV against women beyond its influence on general violence. We cannot conclude, however, that family dysfunctions are unrelated to IPV against women as there is research showing, for instance, that specialist batterers (i.e., only involved in IPV-related offenses) tend to show greater levels of conflict in their family of origin than generally violent or generalists batterers (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016). Finally, regarding community variables, GB and GEVM participants showed the same levels of community social disorder, and community integration and participation. Herrero, Torres et al. (2016) have recently showed in their study of generalist and specialist batterers that those with a more versatile criminal history refer highest levels of social disorder and lowest levels of integration and participation in their communities. In this sense, results from our study indicated that disadvantaged communities and community integration and participation are related to general violence but do not seem to distinguish among those violent offenders who also commit IPV against women. ### SEC: [sec: null] - Discussion - discussion # NODO p[1]In the present study, a comparison between two groups of violent inmates was carried out. Participants were 153 imprisoned men from the Penitentiary Center of Villabona (Asturias, Spain) belonging to two groups: the first group was comprised by generalist batterers who had heterogeneous and long violent criminal history which included IPV against women (generalist batterers -GB) (see Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), and the second group comprised generally extrafamily violent men (GEVM), who had heterogeneous and long violent criminal history which did not include IPV against women. GB had common characteristics and similarities with other types of batterers proposed in other typologies: generally violent or antisocial batterer (Holztworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994), subtype I or psychopathic partner-violent men (Fowler & Westen, 2011), high-risk offenders (Cavanough & Gelles, 2005), or type II antisocial batterer (Gondolf, 1988) among others. Our research sought to analyze both the distribution of batterers among generally violent inmate population and their potentially different individual, family, and community characteristics (see Moffit & Caspi, 1999). # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al., 2016 # NODO xref[1]Holztworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994 # NODO xref[1]Fowler & Westen, 2011 # NODO xref[1]Cavanough & Gelles, 2005 # NODO xref[1]Gondolf, 1988 # NODO xref[1]Moffit & Caspi, 1999 # NODO p[1]Regarding to the first objective, GB and GEVM group sizes were similar (n = 86 vs. n = 67), indicating that more than a half of generally violent inmates of the study had a versatile criminal history which comprised IPV against women as well as other violent crimes (see also Bouffard & Zedaker, 2016). These results give support to the idea that general violence and IPV might have a common etiology (Felson, 2006; Felson & Lane, 2010; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Moffit et al., 2000). # NODO xref[1]Bouffard & Zedaker, 2016 # NODO xref[1]Felson, 2006 # NODO xref[1]Felson & Lane, 2010 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al., 2016 # NODO xref[1]Moffit et al., 2000 # NODO p[1]Next, we explored the criminal history as well as sociodemographic, individual, family of origin, and community variables for each group. GB and GEVM participants showed a criminal trajectory of violence (the most frequent crimes in both groups were crimes against property, more than 73%). We could not find any statistical differences between the two groups in their criminal trajectory, including age of first offense, age of first arrest, and age of first imprisonment. Taking into account the length of criminal trajectory, results showed that criminal trajectory of GB was longer than GEVM?s. In this sense, other research has suggested that for some generally violent men criminal trajectory starts victimizing non-intimates, but progressively includes family member (like partner) among their victims (Shield et al., 1988), and it seems that long criminal trajectories increased the odds of criminal violence as well as IPV (Piquero et al., 2014). # NODO xref[1]Shield et al., 1988 # NODO xref[1]Piquero et al., 2014 # NODO p[1]As for the individual characteristics, GB and GEVM did not differ in personality characteristics, nor substance and alcohol dependence, nor ambivalent sexism. Antisocial, histrionic, borderline, and narcissist personality have been related with violence in general, IPV against women (Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005; Fowler & Westen, 2011; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Kiwi & Sadeghi, 2015; Peters, Derefinko, & Lynam, 2016; Ru?z-Hern?ndez, Garc?a-Jim?nez, Llor-Esteban, & Godoy-Fern?ndez, 2015; Stef?nsson & Hesse, 2008; Theobald, Farrington, Coid, & Piquero, 2015) and reoffending (Kiwi & Sadeghi, 2015). According to this, our results suggest that personality characteristics do not allow to differentiate between types of criminal offenders: GB and GEVM participants showed a similar personality profile. # NODO xref[1]Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005 # NODO xref[1]Fowler & Westen, 2011 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al., 2016 # NODO xref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994 # NODO xref[1]Kiwi & Sadeghi, 2015 # NODO xref[1]Peters, Derefinko, & Lynam, 2016 # NODO xref[1]Ru?z-Hern?ndez, Garc?a-Jim?nez, Llor-Esteban, & Godoy-Fern?ndez, 2015 # NODO xref[1]Stef?nsson & Hesse, 2008 # NODO xref[1]Theobald, Farrington, Coid, & Piquero, 2015 # NODO xref[1]Kiwi & Sadeghi, 2015 # NODO p[1]Further, drug and/or alcohol abuse and dependence have been traditionally linked to general violence (Fagan, 1990; Kretschmar & Flannery, 2007) and IPV against women (see Gondolf, 1988; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Shield et al., 1988; Saunders, 1992), which is consistent with our finding that both GB and GEVM participants showed similar levels of alcohol and substance abuse and dependence. # NODO xref[1]Fagan, 1990 # NODO xref[1] Kretschmar & Flannery, 2007 # NODO xref[1]Gondolf, 1988 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al., 2016 # NODO xref[1]Shield et al., 1988 # NODO xref[1]Saunders, 1992 # NODO p[1]We also found in our study that levels of sexist attitudes toward women were similar across groups of offenders. Although this finding might challenge, research showing that more sexist, misogynistic, traditional, and gender rigid attitudes are related to IPV against women (Allen, Swan, & Raghavan, 2009; Flood & Pease, 2009), empirical research on male batterers have consistently found that antisocial/generally violent batterers show the highest levels of hostility toward women (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Holtwortz-Munroe & Stewart, 1994). Also, evidence from general population studies indicates that more violent individuals might also hold hostile attitudes toward women (Herrero, Rodr?guez, & Torres, 2016) as compared to less violent individuals. # NODO xref[1]Allen, Swan, & Raghavan, 2009 # NODO xref[1]Flood & Pease, 2009 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al., 2016 # NODO p[1]The same tendency emerged when GB and GEVM participants were compared in their family characteristics: we could not find any significant statistical difference in family functioning and family climate (cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict) across groups. These results are in line with empirical evidence showing that the family environment is related to general violence (Fagan, 2013; Flannery, Singer, Van Dulmen, Kretschmar, & Belliston, 2007; L?ng & Birk?s, 2014; Meldrum, Connolly, Flexon, & Guerette, 2015; Vanassche, Sodermans, Matthijs, & Swicegood, 2013). Our findings further suggest that dysfunctions in family of origin might be unrelated to IPV against women beyond its influence on general violence. We cannot conclude, however, that family dysfunctions are unrelated to IPV against women as there is research showing, for instance, that specialist batterers (i.e., only involved in IPV-related offenses) tend to show greater levels of conflict in their family of origin than generally violent or generalists batterers (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016). # NODO xref[1]Fagan, 2013 # NODO xref[1] Kretschmar, & Belliston, 2007 # NODO xref[1]L?ng & Birk?s, 2014 # NODO xref[1]Meldrum, Connolly, Flexon, & Guerette, 2015 # NODO xref[1]Vanassche, Sodermans, Matthijs, & Swicegood, 2013 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al., 2016 # NODO p[1]Finally, regarding community variables, GB and GEVM participants showed the same levels of community social disorder, and community integration and participation. Herrero, Torres et al. (2016) have recently showed in their study of generalist and specialist batterers that those with a more versatile criminal history refer highest levels of social disorder and lowest levels of integration and participation in their communities. In this sense, results from our study indicated that disadvantaged communities and community integration and participation are related to general violence but do not seem to distinguish among those violent offenders who also commit IPV against women. # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al. (2016 ### SEC [RETURN]: Discussion

In the present study, a comparison between two groups of violent inmates was carried out. Participants were 153 imprisoned men from the Penitentiary Center of Villabona (Asturias, Spain) belonging to two groups: the first group was comprised by generalist batterers who had heterogeneous and long violent criminal history which included IPV against women (generalist batterers -GB) (see Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), and the second group comprised generally extrafamily violent men (GEVM), who had heterogeneous and long violent criminal history which did not include IPV against women. GB had common characteristics and similarities with other types of batterers proposed in other typologies: generally violent or antisocial batterer (Holztworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994), subtype I or psychopathic partner-violent men (Fowler & Westen, 2011), high-risk offenders (Cavanough & Gelles, 2005), or type II antisocial batterer (Gondolf, 1988) among others. Our research sought to analyze both the distribution of batterers among generally violent inmate population and their potentially different individual, family, and community characteristics (see Moffit & Caspi, 1999).

Regarding to the first objective, GB and GEVM group sizes were similar (n = 86 vs. n = 67), indicating that more than a half of generally violent inmates of the study had a versatile criminal history which comprised IPV against women as well as other violent crimes (see also Bouffard & Zedaker, 2016). These results give support to the idea that general violence and IPV might have a common etiology (Felson, 2006; Felson & Lane, 2010; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Moffit et al., 2000).

Next, we explored the criminal history as well as sociodemographic, individual, family of origin, and community variables for each group. GB and GEVM participants showed a criminal trajectory of violence (the most frequent crimes in both groups were crimes against property, more than 73%). We could not find any statistical differences between the two groups in their criminal trajectory, including age of first offense, age of first arrest, and age of first imprisonment. Taking into account the length of criminal trajectory, results showed that criminal trajectory of GB was longer than GEVM?s. In this sense, other research has suggested that for some generally violent men criminal trajectory starts victimizing non-intimates, but progressively includes family member (like partner) among their victims (Shield et al., 1988), and it seems that long criminal trajectories increased the odds of criminal violence as well as IPV (Piquero et al., 2014).

As for the individual characteristics, GB and GEVM did not differ in personality characteristics, nor substance and alcohol dependence, nor ambivalent sexism. Antisocial, histrionic, borderline, and narcissist personality have been related with violence in general, IPV against women (Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005; Fowler & Westen, 2011; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Kiwi & Sadeghi, 2015; Peters, Derefinko, & Lynam, 2016; Ru?z-Hern?ndez, Garc?a-Jim?nez, Llor-Esteban, & Godoy-Fern?ndez, 2015; Stef?nsson & Hesse, 2008; Theobald, Farrington, Coid, & Piquero, 2015) and reoffending (Kiwi & Sadeghi, 2015). According to this, our results suggest that personality characteristics do not allow to differentiate between types of criminal offenders: GB and GEVM participants showed a similar personality profile.

Further, drug and/or alcohol abuse and dependence have been traditionally linked to general violence (Fagan, 1990; Kretschmar & Flannery, 2007) and IPV against women (see Gondolf, 1988; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Shield et al., 1988; Saunders, 1992), which is consistent with our finding that both GB and GEVM participants showed similar levels of alcohol and substance abuse and dependence.

We also found in our study that levels of sexist attitudes toward women were similar across groups of offenders. Although this finding might challenge, research showing that more sexist, misogynistic, traditional, and gender rigid attitudes are related to IPV against women (Allen, Swan, & Raghavan, 2009; Flood & Pease, 2009), empirical research on male batterers have consistently found that antisocial/generally violent batterers show the highest levels of hostility toward women (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Holtwortz-Munroe & Stewart, 1994). Also, evidence from general population studies indicates that more violent individuals might also hold hostile attitudes toward women (Herrero, Rodr?guez, & Torres, 2016) as compared to less violent individuals.

The same tendency emerged when GB and GEVM participants were compared in their family characteristics: we could not find any significant statistical difference in family functioning and family climate (cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict) across groups. These results are in line with empirical evidence showing that the family environment is related to general violence (Fagan, 2013; Flannery, Singer, Van Dulmen, Kretschmar, & Belliston, 2007; L?ng & Birk?s, 2014; Meldrum, Connolly, Flexon, & Guerette, 2015; Vanassche, Sodermans, Matthijs, & Swicegood, 2013). Our findings further suggest that dysfunctions in family of origin might be unrelated to IPV against women beyond its influence on general violence. We cannot conclude, however, that family dysfunctions are unrelated to IPV against women as there is research showing, for instance, that specialist batterers (i.e., only involved in IPV-related offenses) tend to show greater levels of conflict in their family of origin than generally violent or generalists batterers (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016).

Finally, regarding community variables, GB and GEVM participants showed the same levels of community social disorder, and community integration and participation. Herrero, Torres et al. (2016) have recently showed in their study of generalist and specialist batterers that those with a more versatile criminal history refer highest levels of social disorder and lowest levels of integration and participation in their communities. In this sense, results from our study indicated that disadvantaged communities and community integration and participation are related to general violence but do not seem to distinguish among those violent offenders who also commit IPV against women.

# NODO sec[1]Strengths and LimitationsThe current study present strengths and potential limitations. Among the strengths are the characteristics of participants and the control of potential response bias. As for the participants, violent offenses and/or IPV against women were identified from information provided by official records, so we might be confident about the presence of general violence and IPV against women in each participant. This circumstance alleviates the problem of identification of both violent individuals and batterers through the use of self-report measures that might probably be affected of recall bias. As compared to self-reported information about criminal history, official records have the advantage of objectivity and lack of social desirability and dishonesty of inmates. When self-report measures were used in the study, however, additional statistical controls were undertaken to obtain more accurate estimates. Thus, the use of the social desirability measure in the statistical analyses might have helped to identified true statistical relationships in our study.Participants in the study were not representative of the inmate population, so we should be cautious about generalization of results. For instance, the true distribution of GB and GEVM participants in the population is unknown, so we are unsure whether the existence of generally violent batterers is rather unusual among the inmate population or not. Given that the existence of this group of batterers is key to understand the relationship between general violence and IPV against women, future research with representative samples should be undertaken to ascertain if the size of this group is relevant in the population. Available empirical evidence, however, suggest that a sizable proportion of male batterers in prison committed also non-IPV violent offenses (Felson & Lane, 2010;Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), so the classification used in this study seems tenable.Related to this, the classification of participants with regard to the types of committed offenses might have affected group stability. At first, categorization of inmates as GB or GEVM was based on official records, allowing that participants with not sanctioned IPV offenses were misclassified in the GEVM group. To overcome this potential problem, final categorization was done including self-reported IPV perpetrations disclosed during the interview. Despite the fact that few inmates admitted that they occasionally committed acts of violence that can be categorized as IPV, other inmates might have concealed similar behaviors to the interviewer. In this sense, the limitation of the existence of undetected IPV was mitigated, but not completely ruled out. # NODO title[1]Strengths and Limitations # NODO p[1]The current study present strengths and potential limitations. Among the strengths are the characteristics of participants and the control of potential response bias. As for the participants, violent offenses and/or IPV against women were identified from information provided by official records, so we might be confident about the presence of general violence and IPV against women in each participant. This circumstance alleviates the problem of identification of both violent individuals and batterers through the use of self-report measures that might probably be affected of recall bias. As compared to self-reported information about criminal history, official records have the advantage of objectivity and lack of social desirability and dishonesty of inmates. When self-report measures were used in the study, however, additional statistical controls were undertaken to obtain more accurate estimates. Thus, the use of the social desirability measure in the statistical analyses might have helped to identified true statistical relationships in our study. # NODO p[1]Participants in the study were not representative of the inmate population, so we should be cautious about generalization of results. For instance, the true distribution of GB and GEVM participants in the population is unknown, so we are unsure whether the existence of generally violent batterers is rather unusual among the inmate population or not. Given that the existence of this group of batterers is key to understand the relationship between general violence and IPV against women, future research with representative samples should be undertaken to ascertain if the size of this group is relevant in the population. Available empirical evidence, however, suggest that a sizable proportion of male batterers in prison committed also non-IPV violent offenses (Felson & Lane, 2010;Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), so the classification used in this study seems tenable. # NODO xref[1]Felson & Lane, 2010 # NODO xref[1]Herrero, Torres et al., 2016 # NODO p[1]Related to this, the classification of participants with regard to the types of committed offenses might have affected group stability. At first, categorization of inmates as GB or GEVM was based on official records, allowing that participants with not sanctioned IPV offenses were misclassified in the GEVM group. To overcome this potential problem, final categorization was done including self-reported IPV perpetrations disclosed during the interview. Despite the fact that few inmates admitted that they occasionally committed acts of violence that can be categorized as IPV, other inmates might have concealed similar behaviors to the interviewer. In this sense, the limitation of the existence of undetected IPV was mitigated, but not completely ruled out. ### SEC [RETURN]:

Strengths and Limitations

The current study present strengths and potential limitations. Among the strengths are the characteristics of participants and the control of potential response bias. As for the participants, violent offenses and/or IPV against women were identified from information provided by official records, so we might be confident about the presence of general violence and IPV against women in each participant. This circumstance alleviates the problem of identification of both violent individuals and batterers through the use of self-report measures that might probably be affected of recall bias. As compared to self-reported information about criminal history, official records have the advantage of objectivity and lack of social desirability and dishonesty of inmates. When self-report measures were used in the study, however, additional statistical controls were undertaken to obtain more accurate estimates. Thus, the use of the social desirability measure in the statistical analyses might have helped to identified true statistical relationships in our study.

Participants in the study were not representative of the inmate population, so we should be cautious about generalization of results. For instance, the true distribution of GB and GEVM participants in the population is unknown, so we are unsure whether the existence of generally violent batterers is rather unusual among the inmate population or not. Given that the existence of this group of batterers is key to understand the relationship between general violence and IPV against women, future research with representative samples should be undertaken to ascertain if the size of this group is relevant in the population. Available empirical evidence, however, suggest that a sizable proportion of male batterers in prison committed also non-IPV violent offenses (Felson & Lane, 2010;Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), so the classification used in this study seems tenable.

Related to this, the classification of participants with regard to the types of committed offenses might have affected group stability. At first, categorization of inmates as GB or GEVM was based on official records, allowing that participants with not sanctioned IPV offenses were misclassified in the GEVM group. To overcome this potential problem, final categorization was done including self-reported IPV perpetrations disclosed during the interview. Despite the fact that few inmates admitted that they occasionally committed acts of violence that can be categorized as IPV, other inmates might have concealed similar behaviors to the interviewer. In this sense, the limitation of the existence of undetected IPV was mitigated, but not completely ruled out.

*** INFO NodeName: #text - Type: 3 - Value: *** INFO NodeName: back - Type: 1 - Value: null # NODO ref-list[1]ReferencesAli, P. A., & Naylor, P. B. (2013). Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the feminist, social and ecological explanations for its causation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 611-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2013.07.009 AliP. A. NaylorP. B. 2013Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the feminist, social and ecological explanations for its causationAggression and Violent Behavior18611619https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2013.07.009Allen, C. T., Swan, S. C., & Raghavan, C. (2009). Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1816-1834. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508325496 AllenC. T. SwanS. C. RaghavanC. 2009Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violenceJournal of Interpersonal Violence2418161834https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508325496Arce, R., Fari?a, F., & Seijo, D., & Novo, M. (2015). Assessing impression management with the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Assessment, 22, 769-77. https://doi.or7g/10.1177/1073191114558111 ArceR. Fari?aF. SeijoD. NovoM. 2015Assessing impression management with the MMPI-2 in child custody litigationAssessment22769777https://doi.or7g/10.1177/1073191114558111Arce, R., Fari?a, F., & Vilari?o, M. (2015). Da?o psicol?gico en casos de v?ctimas de violencia de g?nero: Un estudio comparativo de las evaluaciones forenses. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicolog?a y Salud, 6, 72-80. http:// doi:10.1016/j.rips.2015.04.002 ArceR. Fari?aF. Vilari?oM. 2015Da?o psicol?gico en casos de v?ctimas de violencia de g?nero: Un estudio comparativo de las evaluaciones forensesRevista Iberoamericana de Psicolog?a y Salud67280http:// doi:10.1016/j.rips.2015.04.002Baker, T., Metcalfe, C. F., & Jennings, W. G., (2013). What are the odds? Predicting specialization in offending over the life course. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 909-932. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812474262 BakerT. MetcalfeC. F. JenningsW. G. 2013What are the odds? Predicting specialization in offending over the life courseCriminal Justice and Behavior40909932https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812474262Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2007). Effects of social desirability on students? self-reporting of partner abuse perpetration and victimization. Violence and Victims, 22, 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007780477348 BellK. M. NaugleA. E. 2007of social desirability on students? self-reporting of partner abuse perpetration and victimizationViolence and Victims22243256https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007780477348Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531. BronfenbrennerU. 1977Toward an experimental ecology of human development.American Psychologist32513531Bouffard, L. A., & Zedaker, S. B. (2016). Are domestic violence offender?s specialist? Answers from multiple analytic approaches. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (published online before print). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816656897 BouffardL. A. ZedakerS. B. 2016Are domestic violence offender?s specialist? Answers from multiple analytic approaches.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquencypublished online before printhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816656897Caetano, R., Schafer, J., Field, C., & Nelson, S. M. (2002). Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1308-1322. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626002237858 CaetanoR. SchaferJ. FieldC. NelsonS. M. 2002Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States.Journal of Interpersonal Violence1713081322https://doi.org/10.1177/088626002237858Capaldi, D. M., & Kim, H. K. (2007). Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 253-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cpr.2006.09.001 CapaldiD. M. KimH. K. 2007Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach.Clinical Psychology Review27253265https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cpr.2006.09.001Cardenal, V., & S?nchez, M. P. (2007). Adaptaci?n y baremaci?n al espa?ol del Inventario Cl?nico Multiaxial de Millon-III (MCMI-III). Madrid: TEA. CardenalV. S?nchezM. P. 2007Adaptaci?n y baremaci?n al espa?ol del Inventario Cl?nico Multiaxial de Millon-III (MCMI-III)MadridTEACavanough, M. M., & Gelles, R. J. (2005). The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies: New directions for research, policy, and practice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 20, 155-166. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260504268763 CavanoughM. M. GellesR. J. 2005The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies: New directions for research, policy, and practice.Journal of Interpersonal Violence20155166https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260504268763Davison, S., & Janca, A. (2012). Personality disorders and criminal behavior: what is the nature of the relationship? Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 25, 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32834d18f0 DavisonS. JancaA. 2012Personality disorders and criminal behavior: what is the nature of the relationship?Current Opinion in Psychiatry253945https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32834d18f0Dutton, D. G. (1988). Profiling wife assaulters: Preliminary evidence for a trimodal analysisi. Violence and Victims, 3, 5-29. DuttonD. G. 1988Profiling wife assaulters: Preliminary evidence for a trimodal analysisi.Violence and Victims3529Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smiles, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741-753. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.741 EhrensaftM. K. CohenP. BrownJ. SmilesE. ChenH. JohnsonJ. G. 2003Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology71741753https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.741Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. G. (2006). Development of personality disorder symptoms and the risk of partner violence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 474-483. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021843X.115.3.474 EhrensaftM. K. CohenP. JohnsonJ. G. 2006Development of personality disorder symptoms and the risk of partner violence.Journal of Abnormal Psychology115474483https://doi.org/10.1037/0021843X.115.3.474European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2014). Violence against women: an EU-wide survey. Retrieved fromhttp://fra.europa. eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_en.pdf European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 2014Violence against women: an EU-wide survey.http://fra.europa. eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_en.pdfFagan, A. A. (2005). The relationship between adolescent physical abuse and criminal offending: support for an enduring and generalized cycle of violence. Journal of Family Violence 20, 179-190. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10896-005-6604-7 FaganA. A. 2005The relationship between adolescent physical abuse and criminal offending: support for an enduring and generalized cycle of violence.Journal of Family Violence20179190https://doi. org/10.1007/s10896-005-6604-7Fagan, A. A. (2013). Family-focused interventions to prevent juvenile delinquency. A case where science and policy can find common ground. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 617-650. http://doi:10.1111/17459133.12029 FaganA. A. 2013Family-focused interventions to prevent juvenile delinquency. A case where science and policy can find common ground.Criminology & Public Policy12617650http://doi:10.1111/17459133.12029Fagan, J. (1990). Intoxication and aggression. Crime and Justice, 13, 241-320. FaganJ. 1990Intoxication and aggression.Crime and Justice13241320Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues. Criminology, 41, 221-255. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00987.x FarringtonD. P. 2003Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues.Criminology41221255https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00987.xFeingold, A., Kerr, D. C. R., & Capaldi, D. M. (2008). Associations of substance use problems with intimate partner violence for at-risk men in longterm relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 429-438. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.429 FeingoldA. KerrD. C. R. CapaldiD. M. 2008Associations of substance use problems with intimate partner violence for at-risk men in longterm relationship.Journal of Family Psychology22429438https:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.429Felson, R. B. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about violence? Contexts, 5, 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2006.5.2.21 FelsonR. B. 2006Is violence against women about women or about violence?Contexts52125https://doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2006.5.2.21Felson, R. B., & Lane, K. J. (2010). Does violence involving women and intimate partners have a special etiology? Criminology, 48, 321-338. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00186.x FelsonR. B. LaneK. J. 2010Does violence involving women and intimate partners have a special etiology?Criminology48321338https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00186.xFlannery, D. J., Singer, M. I., van Dulmen, M., Kretschmar, J. M., & Belliston, L. (2007). Exposure to violence, mental health, and violent behavior. In Flannery, D. J. , Vazsonyi, A. T. , & Waldman (Ed.) , I. D., The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 302-321). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. FlanneryD. J. SingerM. I. van DulmenM. KretschmarJ. M. BellistonL. 2007Exposure to violence, mental health, and violent behavior FlanneryD. J. VazsonyiA. T. Waldman (Ed.)I. D. The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression302321New York, NYCambridge University PressFlood, M., & Pease, B. (2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 125-142. https://doi. org/10.1177/1524838009334131 FloodM. PeaseB. 2009Factors influencing attitudes to violence against womenTrauma, Violence, & Abuse10125142https://doi. org/10.1177/1524838009334131Fowler, K. A., & Westen, D. (2011). Subtyping male perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 26, 607-639. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365853 FowlerK. A. WestenD. 2011Subtyping male perpetrators of intimate partner violenceJournal of Interpersonal Violence26607639https:// doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365853Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022 3514.70.3.491 GlickP. FiskeS. T. 1996The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexismJournal of Personality and Social Psychology70491512https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022 3514.70.3.491Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quaterly, 23, 519-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999. tb00379.x GlickP. FiskeS. T. 1999The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men.Psychology of Women Quaterly23519536https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999. tb00379.xGolinelli, D., Longshore, D., & Wenzel, S. L. (2009). Substance Use and intimate partner violence: Clarifying the relevance of women?s use and partners? use. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 36, 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-008-9114-6 GolinelliD. LongshoreD. WenzelS. L. 2009Substance Use and intimate partner violence: Clarifying the relevance of women?s use and partners? useJournal of Behavioral Health Services & Research36199211https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-008-9114-6Gondolf, E. W. (1988). Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral typology of batterers. Violence and Victims , 3, 187-203. GondolfE. W. 1988Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral typology of batterers.Violence and Victims3187203Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2006). Perceived neighborhood social disorder and attitudes towards reporting domestic violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 22, 737-752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chiabu.2005.11.001 GraciaE. HerreroJ. 2006Perceived neighborhood social disorder and attitudes towards reporting domestic violence against women.Journal of Interpersonal Violence22737752https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chiabu.2005.11.001Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. F. (1996). A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions of abuse. Violence and Victims , 11, 277-292. HambergerL. K. LohrJ. M. BongeD. TolinD. F. 1996A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions of abuseViolence and Victims11277292Harris, G. T., Hilton, N. Z., & Rice, M. E. (2011). Explaining the frequency of intimate partner violence by male perpetrators: Do attitude, relationships, and neighborhod variables add to antisociality? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 309-330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810397449 HarrisG. T. HiltonN. Z. RiceM. E. 2011Explaining the frequency of intimate partner violence by male perpetrators: Do attitude, relationships, and neighborhod variables add to antisociality?Criminal Justice and Behavior38309330https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810397449Henning, K., Jones, A. R., & Holdford, R. (2005). ?I didn?t do it, but if I did I had a good reason?: Minimization, denial, and attributions of blame among male and female domestic violence offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-3647-8 HenningK. JonesA. R. HoldfordR. 2005?I didn?t do it, but if I did I had a good reason?: Minimization, denial, and attributions of blame among male and female domestic violence offenders.Journal of Family Violence20131139https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-3647-8Herrero, J., & Gracia, E. (2005). Perceived frequency of domestic violence against women and neighborhood social disorder. Psychological Reports, 97, 712-716. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.3.712-716 HerreroJ. GraciaE. 2005Perceived frequency of domestic violence against women and neighborhood social disorder.Psychological Reports97712716https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.3.712-716Herrero, J., & Gracia, E. (2007). Measuring perceived community support: Factorial structure, longitudinal invariance and predictive validity of the PCSQ (Perceived Community Support Questionnaire). Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 197-217. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jcop.20143 HerreroJ. GraciaE. 2007Measuring perceived community support: Factorial structure, longitudinal invariance and predictive validity of the PCSQ (Perceived Community Support Questionnaire).Journal of Community Psychology35197217https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jcop.20143Herrero, J., Rodr?guez-D?az, F. J., & Torres, A. (2016). Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships. Violence Against Women (Published online before print). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216642870 HerreroJ. Rodr?guez-D?azF. J. TorresA. 2016Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships.Violence Against WomenPublished online before printhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216642870Herrero, J., Torres, A., Fern?ndez-Su?rez, A., & Rodr?guez-D?az, F. J. (2016). Generalists versus specialists: Toward a typology of batterers in prison. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8, 19-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2015.09.002 HerreroJ. TorresA. Fern?ndez-Su?rezA. Rodr?guez-D?azF. J. 2016versus specialists: Toward a typology of batterers in prison.The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context81926https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2015.09.002Herrero, J., Torres, A., Rodr?guez, F. J., & Juarros-Basterretxea, J. (2017). Intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: The influence of male partners? traditional gender roles and general violence. Psychology of Violence, 7, 385-394. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000099 HerreroJ. TorresA. Rodr?guezF. J. Juarros-BasterretxeaJ. 2017Intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: The influence of male partners? traditional gender roles and general violence.Psychology of Violence7385394https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000099Hilton, N. Z., & Eke, A. W., (2016). Non-specialization of criminal careers among intimate partner violence offenders. Criminal and Justice Behavior, 7, 385-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816637886 HiltonN. Z. EkeA. W. 2016Non-specialization of criminal careers among intimate partner violence offenders.Criminal and Justice Behavior7385394https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816637886Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2001). Predicting violence by serious wife assaulters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 16, 408-423. https:// doi.org/10.1177/088626001016005002 HiltonN. Z. HarrisG. T. RiceM. E. 2001Predicting violence by serious wife assaulters.Journal of Interpersonal Violence16408423https:// doi.org/10.1177/088626001016005002Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J. C. (2004). Typologies of men who are maritally violent: Scientific and clinical implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 19, 1369-1389. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260504269693 Holtzworth-MunroeA. MeehanJ. C. 2004Typologies of men who are maritally violent: Scientific and clinical implications.Journal of Interpersonal Violence1913691389https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260504269693Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000-1019. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.1000 Holtzworth-MunroeA. MeehanJ. C. HerronK. RehmanU. StuartG. L. 2000Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology6810001019https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.1000Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2003). Do subtypes of maritally violent men continue to differ over time? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 728-740. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.728 Holtzworth-MunroeA. MeehanJ. C. HerronK. RehmanU. StuartG. L. 2003Do subtypes of maritally violent men continue to differ over time?Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology71728740https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.728Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476-497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476 Holtzworth-MunroeA. StuartG. L. 1994Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them.Psychological Bulletin116476497https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476Kiss, L., Schraiber, L. B., Hossain, M., Watts, C., & Zimmerman, C. (2015). The link between community-based violence and intimate partner violence: The effect of crime and male aggression on intimate partner violence against women. Prevention Science, 16, 881-889. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11121-015-0567-6 KissL. SchraiberL. B. HossainM. WattsC. ZimmermanC. 2015The link between community-based violence and intimate partner violence: The effect of crime and male aggression on intimate partner violence against womenPrevention Science16881889https://doi. org/10.1007/s11121-015-0567-6Kiwi, H. G., & Sadeghi, A. (2015). Investigating the prevalence of personality disorders in relation with recidivism among prisoners. European Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2, 6-9. https://doi.org/10.5455/ejfs.186161 KiwiH. G. SadeghiA. 2015Investigating the prevalence of personality disorders in relation with recidivism among prisoners.European Journal of Forensic Sciences269https://doi.org/10.5455/ejfs.186161Kretschmar, J. M., & Flannery, D. J. (2007). Substance use and violent behavior. In Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T. & Waldman, I. D. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. KretschmarJ. M. FlanneryD. J. 2007Substance use and violent behavior FlanneryD. J. VazsonyiA. T. WaldmanI. D. The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and AggressionNew York, NYCambridge University PressL?ng, A., & Birk?s, B. (2014). Machiavelism and perceived family functioning in adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.065 L?ngA. Birk?sB. 2014Machiavelism and perceived family functioning in adolescencePersonality and Individual Differences636974https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.065LeBlanc, M. (2005). An integrative personal control theory of deviant behavior: Answers to contemporary empirical and theoretical developmental criminology issues. In Farrington, D. P. (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life course theories of offending (pp. 125-163). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. LeBlancM. 2005An integrative personal control theory of deviant behavior: Answers to contemporary empirical and theoretical developmental criminology issues. FarringtonD. P. Integrated developmental and life course theories of offending125163New Brunswick, NJTransactionLisco, C. G., Parrott, D. J., & Tharp, A. T. (2012). The role of heavy episodic drinking and hostile sexism in men?s sexual aggression toward female intimate partners. Addictive Behaviors, 37, 1264-1270. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.010 LiscoC. G. ParrottD. J. TharpA. T. 2012The role of heavy episodic drinking and hostile sexism in men?s sexual aggression toward female intimate partners.Addictive Behaviors3712641270https://doi. org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.010Logan, T. K., Walker, R., & Leukefeld, C. G. (2001). Intimate partner and nonintimate violence history among drug-using, incarcerated men. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 228-243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X01452008 LoganT. K. WalkerR. LeukefeldC. G. 2001Intimate partner and nonintimate violence history among drug-using, incarcerated men.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology45228243https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X01452008Markowitz, F. E., Bellair, P. E., Liska, A., & Liu, J. H. (2001). Extending social disorganization theory: Modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear. Criminology, 39, 205-218. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00924.x MarkowitzF. E. BellairP. E. LiskaA. LiuJ. H. 2001Extending social disorganization theory: Modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear.Criminology39205218https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00924.xMauricio, A. M., Tein, J. Y., & Lopez, F. G. (2007). Borderline and antisocial personality scores as mediators between attachment and intimate partner violence. Violence and Victims , 22, 139-157. https://doi. org/10.1891/088667007780477339 MauricioA. M. TeinJ. Y. LopezF. G. 2007Borderline and antisocial personality scores as mediators between attachment and intimate partner violence.Violence and Victims22139157https://doi. org/10.1891/088667007780477339Meldrum, R. C., Connolly, G. M., Flexon, J., & Guerette, R. T. (2015). Parental low self-control, family environments, and juvenile delinquency. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 60, 1623-1644. http://doi:10.1177/0306624X15584907 MeldrumR. C. ConnollyG. M. FlexonJ. GueretteR. T. 2015Parental low self-control, family environments, and juvenile delinquency.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology6016231644http://doi:10.1177/0306624X15584907Millon, T. (1997). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) manual (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. MillonT. 1997Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) manual (2nd ed.).Minneapolis, MNNational Computer SystemsMillon, T., Davis, R., & Millon, C. (2007). MCMI-III. Manual. Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones. MillonT. DavisR. MillonC. 2007MCMI-III. ManualMadrid, SpainTEA EdicionesMoffit, T. E., & Caspi, A. (1999). Findings about partner violence from the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. MoffitT. E. CaspiA. 1999Findings about partner violence from the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study.Washington, DCNational Institute of JusticeMoffit, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, R., & Fagan, J. (2000). Partner abuse and general crime: How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology, 38, 199-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00888.x MoffitT. E. KruegerR. F. CaspiR. FaganJ. 2000Partner abuse and general crime: How are they the same? How are they different?Criminology38199232https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00888.xMoos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1994). Family Environment Scale Manual: Development, applications, research (third edition). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. MoosR. H. MoosB. S. 1994Family Environment Scale Manual: Development, applications, research (third edition).Palo Alto, CAConsulting Psychologist PressO?Brien, D. T., & Sampson, R. J. (2015). Public and private spheres of neighborhood disorder: Assessing pathways to violence using large-scale digital records. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 486-510. O?BrienD. T. SampsonR. J. 2015Public and private spheres of neighborhood disorder: Assessing pathways to violence using large-scale digital records.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency52486510Peters, J. R., Derefinko, K. J., & Lynam, D. R. (2016). Negative urgency accounts for the association between borderline personality features and intimate partner violence in young men. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30, 234-243. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_234 PetersJ. R. DerefinkoK. J. LynamD. R. 2016Negative urgency accounts for the association between borderline personality features and intimate partner violence in young men.Journal of Personality Disorders30234243https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_234Pinchevsky, G. M., & Wright, E. M. (2012). The impact of neighborhoods on intimate partner violence and victimization. Trauma Violence Abuse, 13, 112-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012445641 PinchevskyG. M. WrightE. M. 2012The impact of neighborhoods on intimate partner violence and victimization.Trauma Violence Abuse13112132https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012445641Piquero, A. R., Theobald, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2014). The overlap between offending trajectories, criminal violence, and intimate partner violence. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 286-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12472655 PiqueroA. R. TheobaldD. FarringtonD. P. 2014The overlap between offending trajectories, criminal violence, and intimate partner violence.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology58286302https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12472655Reingle, J. M., Jennings, W. G., Connell, N. M., Businelle, M. S., & Chartier, K. (2014). On the pervasiveness of event-specific alcohol use, general substance use, and mental health problems as risk factors for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 29, 2951-2970. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514527172 ReingleJ. M. JenningsW. G. ConnellN. M. BusinelleM. S. ChartierK. 2014On the pervasiveness of event-specific alcohol use, general substance use, and mental health problems as risk factors for intimate partner violence.Journal of Interpersonal Violence2929512970https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514527172Ross, J. M., & Babcock, C. (2009). Proactive and reactive violence among intimate partner violent men with antisocial and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 607-617. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10896-009-9259-y RossJ. M. BabcockC. 2009Proactive and reactive violence among intimate partner violent men with antisocial and borderline personality disorder.Journal of Family Violence24607617https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10896-009-9259-yRothman, E. F., McNaughton, L., Johnson, R. M., & LaValley, M. (2012). Does the alcohol make them do it? Dating violence perpetration and drinking among youth. Epidemiologic Reviews, 34, 103-119. https://doi. org/10.1093/epirev/mxr027 RothmanE. F. McNaughtonL. JohnsonR. M. LaValleyM. 2012Does the alcohol make them do it? Dating violence perpetration and drinking among youth.Epidemiologic Reviews34103119https://doi. org/10.1093/epirev/mxr027Ru?z-Hern?ndez, J. A., Garc?a-Jim?nez, J. J., Llor-Esteban, B., & Godoy-Fern?ndez, C. (2015). Risk factors for int?mate partner violence in prison inmates. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7, 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.003 Ru?z-Hern?ndezJ. A. Garc?a-Jim?nezJ. J. Llor-EstebanB. Godoy-Fern?ndezC. 2015Risk factors for int?mate partner violence in prison inmates.The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context74149https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.003Saunders, D. G. (1991). Procedures for adjusting self-reports of violence for social desirability bias. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 6, 336-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626091006003006 SaundersD. G. 1991Procedures for adjusting self-reports of violence for social desirability bias.Journal of Interpersonal Violence6336344https://doi.org/10.1177/088626091006003006Saunders, D. G. (1992). A typology of men who batter; three types derived from cluster analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079333 SaundersD. G. 1992A typology of men who batter; three types derived from cluster analysis.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry62264275https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079333Shield, M., McCall, G., & Hanneke, C. (1988). Patterns of family and nonfamily violence: Violent husbands and violent men. Violence and Victims , 3, 83-97. ShieldM. McCallG. HannekeC. 1988Patterns of family and nonfamily violence: Violent husbands and violent menViolence and Victims38397Smilkstein, G. (1978). The Family APGAR: A proposal for family function test and its use by physicians. Journal of Family Practice, 6, 1231-1239. SmilksteinG. 1978The Family APGAR: A proposal for family function test and its use by physicians.Journal of Family Practice612311239Smith, H. S., Homish, G. G., Leonard, K. E., & Cornelius, J. R. (2012). Intimate partner violence and specific substance use disorders: Findings from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26, 236-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0024855 SmithH. S. HomishG. G. LeonardK. E. CorneliusJ. R. 2012Intimate partner violence and specific substance use disorders: Findings from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions.Psychology of Addictive Behaviors26236245https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0024855Stef?nsson, R., & Hesse, M. (2008). Personality disorders in substance abusers: A comparison of patients treated in a prison unit and patients treated in inpatient treatment. International Journal of Mental Health and Adiction, 6, 402-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-007-9134-0 Stef?nssonR. HesseM. 2008Personality disorders in substance abusers: A comparison of patients treated in a prison unit and patients treated in inpatient treatment.International Journal of Mental Health and Adiction6402406https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-007-9134-0Straus, M. A., Hamby, S., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. https://doi. org/10.1177/019251396017003001 StrausM. A. HambyS. Boney-McCoyS. SugarmanD. 1996The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and preliminary psychometric data.Journal of Family Issues17283316https://doi. org/10.1177/019251396017003001Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1997). Intimate violence and social desirability. A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 12, 275-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012002008 SugarmanD. B. HotalingG. T. 1997Intimate violence and social desirability. A meta-analytic review.Journal of Interpersonal Violence12275290https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012002008Swogger, M. T., Walsh, Z., & Kosson, D. S. (2007). Domestic violence and psychopathic traits: Distinguishing the antisocial batterer from other antisocial offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 1-8. https://doi. org/ 10.1002/ab.20185 SwoggerM. T. WalshZ. KossonD. S. 2007Domestic violence and psychopathic traits: Distinguishing the antisocial batterer from other antisocial offenders.Aggressive Behavior3318https://doi. org/ 10.1002/ab.20185Theobald, D., Farrington, D. P., Coid, J. W., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Are male perpetrators of intimate partner violence different from convicted violent offenders? Examination of psychopathic traits and life succes in males from a community survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31, 1687-1718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515569061 TheobaldD. FarringtonD. P. CoidJ. W. PiqueroA. R. 2015Are male perpetrators of intimate partner violence different from convicted violent offenders? Examination of psychopathic traits and life succes in males from a community survey.Journal of Interpersonal Violence3116871718https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515569061Thomas, K. A., Dichter, M. E., & Matejkowski, J. (2011). Intimate versus nonintimate partner murder: A comparison of offender and situational character?stics. Homicide Studies, 15, 291-311. https://doi. org/10.1177/1088767911417803 ThomasK. A. DichterM. E. MatejkowskiJ. 2011Intimate versus nonintimate partner murder: A comparison of offender and situational character?stics.Homicide Studies15291311https://doi. org/10.1177/1088767911417803Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in selfreport research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 40-48. Van de MortelT. F. 2008Faking it: Social desirability response bias in selfreport research.Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing254048Vanassche, S., Sodermans, A. K., Matthijs, K., & Swicegood, G. (2013). The effects of family type, family relationships and parental role models on deliquency and alcohol use among flemish adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 128-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9699-5 VanasscheS. SodermansA. K. MatthijsK. SwicegoodG. 2013The effects of family type, family relationships and parental role models on deliquency and alcohol use among flemish adolescentsJournal of Child and Family Studies23128143https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9699-5Van Wyk, J. A., Benson, M. L., Fox, G. L., & DeMaris, A. (2003). Detangling individual-partner-, and community-level correlates of partner violence. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 412-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703049003004 Van WykJ. A. BensonM. L. FoxG. L. DeMarisA. 2003Detangling individual-partner-, and community-level correlates of partner violence.Crime and Delinquency49412438https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703049003004Walsh, Z., Swogger, M. T., O?Connor, B. P., Schonbrum, Y. Ch., Shea, M. T., & Stuart, G. L. (2010). Subtypes of partner violence perpetrators among male and female psychiatric patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 563-574. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019858 WalshZ. SwoggerM. T. O?ConnorB. P. SchonbrumY. Ch. SheaM. T. StuartG. L. 2010Subtypes of partner violence perpetrators among male and female psychiatric patients.Journal of Abnormal Psychology119563574https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019858World Health Organization (2002). World report on violence and health. Washington, DC: Author. World Health Organization 2002World report on violence and healthWashington, DCAuthorWorld Health Organization (2016). Violence against women: Intimate partner and sexual violence against women. Retrieved fromhttp:// www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/ World Health Organization 2016Violence against women: Intimate partner and sexual violence against womenhttp:// www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/ # NODO title[1]References # NODO ref[1]Ali, P. A., & Naylor, P. B. (2013). Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the feminist, social and ecological explanations for its causation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 611-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2013.07.009 AliP. A. NaylorP. B. 2013Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the feminist, social and ecological explanations for its causationAggression and Violent Behavior18611619https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2013.07.009 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Ali, P. A., & Naylor, P. B. (2013). Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the feminist, social and ecological explanations for its causation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 611-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2013.07.009 # NODO element-citation[1] AliP. A. NaylorP. B. 2013Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the feminist, social and ecological explanations for its causationAggression and Violent Behavior18611619https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2013.07.009 # NODO ref[1]Allen, C. T., Swan, S. C., & Raghavan, C. (2009). Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1816-1834. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508325496 AllenC. T. SwanS. C. RaghavanC. 2009Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violenceJournal of Interpersonal Violence2418161834https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508325496 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Allen, C. T., Swan, S. C., & Raghavan, C. (2009). Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1816-1834. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508325496 # NODO element-citation[1] AllenC. T. SwanS. C. RaghavanC. 2009Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violenceJournal of Interpersonal Violence2418161834https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508325496 # NODO ref[1]Arce, R., Fari?a, F., & Seijo, D., & Novo, M. (2015). Assessing impression management with the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Assessment, 22, 769-77. https://doi.or7g/10.1177/1073191114558111 ArceR. Fari?aF. SeijoD. NovoM. 2015Assessing impression management with the MMPI-2 in child custody litigationAssessment22769777https://doi.or7g/10.1177/1073191114558111 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Arce, R., Fari?a, F., & Seijo, D., & Novo, M. (2015). Assessing impression management with the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Assessment, 22, 769-77. https://doi.or7g/10.1177/1073191114558111 # NODO element-citation[1] ArceR. Fari?aF. SeijoD. NovoM. 2015Assessing impression management with the MMPI-2 in child custody litigationAssessment22769777https://doi.or7g/10.1177/1073191114558111 # NODO ref[1]Arce, R., Fari?a, F., & Vilari?o, M. (2015). Da?o psicol?gico en casos de v?ctimas de violencia de g?nero: Un estudio comparativo de las evaluaciones forenses. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicolog?a y Salud, 6, 72-80. http:// doi:10.1016/j.rips.2015.04.002 ArceR. Fari?aF. Vilari?oM. 2015Da?o psicol?gico en casos de v?ctimas de violencia de g?nero: Un estudio comparativo de las evaluaciones forensesRevista Iberoamericana de Psicolog?a y Salud67280http:// doi:10.1016/j.rips.2015.04.002 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Arce, R., Fari?a, F., & Vilari?o, M. (2015). Da?o psicol?gico en casos de v?ctimas de violencia de g?nero: Un estudio comparativo de las evaluaciones forenses. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicolog?a y Salud, 6, 72-80. http:// doi:10.1016/j.rips.2015.04.002 # NODO element-citation[1] ArceR. Fari?aF. Vilari?oM. 2015Da?o psicol?gico en casos de v?ctimas de violencia de g?nero: Un estudio comparativo de las evaluaciones forensesRevista Iberoamericana de Psicolog?a y Salud67280http:// doi:10.1016/j.rips.2015.04.002 # NODO ref[1]Baker, T., Metcalfe, C. F., & Jennings, W. G., (2013). What are the odds? Predicting specialization in offending over the life course. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 909-932. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812474262 BakerT. MetcalfeC. F. JenningsW. G. 2013What are the odds? Predicting specialization in offending over the life courseCriminal Justice and Behavior40909932https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812474262 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Baker, T., Metcalfe, C. F., & Jennings, W. G., (2013). What are the odds? Predicting specialization in offending over the life course. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 909-932. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812474262 # NODO element-citation[1] BakerT. MetcalfeC. F. JenningsW. G. 2013What are the odds? Predicting specialization in offending over the life courseCriminal Justice and Behavior40909932https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812474262 # NODO ref[1]Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2007). Effects of social desirability on students? self-reporting of partner abuse perpetration and victimization. Violence and Victims, 22, 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007780477348 BellK. M. NaugleA. E. 2007of social desirability on students? self-reporting of partner abuse perpetration and victimizationViolence and Victims22243256https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007780477348 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2007). Effects of social desirability on students? self-reporting of partner abuse perpetration and victimization. Violence and Victims, 22, 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007780477348 # NODO element-citation[1] BellK. M. NaugleA. E. 2007of social desirability on students? self-reporting of partner abuse perpetration and victimizationViolence and Victims22243256https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007780477348 # NODO ref[1]Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531. BronfenbrennerU. 1977Toward an experimental ecology of human development.American Psychologist32513531 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531. # NODO element-citation[1] BronfenbrennerU. 1977Toward an experimental ecology of human development.American Psychologist32513531 # NODO ref[1]Bouffard, L. A., & Zedaker, S. B. (2016). Are domestic violence offender?s specialist? Answers from multiple analytic approaches. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (published online before print). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816656897 BouffardL. A. ZedakerS. B. 2016Are domestic violence offender?s specialist? Answers from multiple analytic approaches.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquencypublished online before printhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816656897 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Bouffard, L. A., & Zedaker, S. B. (2016). Are domestic violence offender?s specialist? Answers from multiple analytic approaches. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (published online before print). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816656897 # NODO element-citation[1] BouffardL. A. ZedakerS. B. 2016Are domestic violence offender?s specialist? Answers from multiple analytic approaches.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquencypublished online before printhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816656897 # NODO ref[1]Caetano, R., Schafer, J., Field, C., & Nelson, S. M. (2002). Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1308-1322. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626002237858 CaetanoR. SchaferJ. FieldC. NelsonS. M. 2002Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States.Journal of Interpersonal Violence1713081322https://doi.org/10.1177/088626002237858 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Caetano, R., Schafer, J., Field, C., & Nelson, S. M. (2002). Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1308-1322. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626002237858 # NODO element-citation[1] CaetanoR. SchaferJ. FieldC. NelsonS. M. 2002Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States.Journal of Interpersonal Violence1713081322https://doi.org/10.1177/088626002237858 # NODO ref[1]Capaldi, D. M., & Kim, H. K. (2007). Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 253-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cpr.2006.09.001 CapaldiD. M. KimH. K. 2007Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach.Clinical Psychology Review27253265https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cpr.2006.09.001 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Capaldi, D. M., & Kim, H. K. (2007). Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 253-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cpr.2006.09.001 # NODO element-citation[1] CapaldiD. M. KimH. K. 2007Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach.Clinical Psychology Review27253265https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cpr.2006.09.001 # NODO ref[1]Cardenal, V., & S?nchez, M. P. (2007). Adaptaci?n y baremaci?n al espa?ol del Inventario Cl?nico Multiaxial de Millon-III (MCMI-III). Madrid: TEA. CardenalV. S?nchezM. P. 2007Adaptaci?n y baremaci?n al espa?ol del Inventario Cl?nico Multiaxial de Millon-III (MCMI-III)MadridTEA # NODO mixed-citation[1]Cardenal, V., & S?nchez, M. P. (2007). Adaptaci?n y baremaci?n al espa?ol del Inventario Cl?nico Multiaxial de Millon-III (MCMI-III). Madrid: TEA. # NODO element-citation[1] CardenalV. S?nchezM. P. 2007Adaptaci?n y baremaci?n al espa?ol del Inventario Cl?nico Multiaxial de Millon-III (MCMI-III)MadridTEA # NODO ref[1]Cavanough, M. M., & Gelles, R. J. (2005). The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies: New directions for research, policy, and practice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 20, 155-166. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260504268763 CavanoughM. M. GellesR. J. 2005The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies: New directions for research, policy, and practice.Journal of Interpersonal Violence20155166https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260504268763 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Cavanough, M. M., & Gelles, R. J. (2005). The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies: New directions for research, policy, and practice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 20, 155-166. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260504268763 # NODO element-citation[1] CavanoughM. M. GellesR. J. 2005The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies: New directions for research, policy, and practice.Journal of Interpersonal Violence20155166https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260504268763 # NODO ref[1]Davison, S., & Janca, A. (2012). Personality disorders and criminal behavior: what is the nature of the relationship? Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 25, 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32834d18f0 DavisonS. JancaA. 2012Personality disorders and criminal behavior: what is the nature of the relationship?Current Opinion in Psychiatry253945https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32834d18f0 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Davison, S., & Janca, A. (2012). Personality disorders and criminal behavior: what is the nature of the relationship? Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 25, 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32834d18f0 # NODO element-citation[1] DavisonS. JancaA. 2012Personality disorders and criminal behavior: what is the nature of the relationship?Current Opinion in Psychiatry253945https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32834d18f0 # NODO ref[1]Dutton, D. G. (1988). Profiling wife assaulters: Preliminary evidence for a trimodal analysisi. Violence and Victims, 3, 5-29. DuttonD. G. 1988Profiling wife assaulters: Preliminary evidence for a trimodal analysisi.Violence and Victims3529 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Dutton, D. G. (1988). Profiling wife assaulters: Preliminary evidence for a trimodal analysisi. Violence and Victims, 3, 5-29. # NODO element-citation[1] DuttonD. G. 1988Profiling wife assaulters: Preliminary evidence for a trimodal analysisi.Violence and Victims3529 # NODO ref[1]Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smiles, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741-753. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.741 EhrensaftM. K. CohenP. BrownJ. SmilesE. ChenH. JohnsonJ. G. 2003Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology71741753https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.741 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smiles, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741-753. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.741 # NODO element-citation[1] EhrensaftM. K. CohenP. BrownJ. SmilesE. ChenH. JohnsonJ. G. 2003Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology71741753https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.741 # NODO ref[1]Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. G. (2006). Development of personality disorder symptoms and the risk of partner violence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 474-483. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021843X.115.3.474 EhrensaftM. K. CohenP. JohnsonJ. G. 2006Development of personality disorder symptoms and the risk of partner violence.Journal of Abnormal Psychology115474483https://doi.org/10.1037/0021843X.115.3.474 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. G. (2006). Development of personality disorder symptoms and the risk of partner violence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 474-483. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021843X.115.3.474 # NODO element-citation[1] EhrensaftM. K. CohenP. JohnsonJ. G. 2006Development of personality disorder symptoms and the risk of partner violence.Journal of Abnormal Psychology115474483https://doi.org/10.1037/0021843X.115.3.474 # NODO ref[1]European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2014). Violence against women: an EU-wide survey. Retrieved fromhttp://fra.europa. eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_en.pdf European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 2014Violence against women: an EU-wide survey.http://fra.europa. eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_en.pdf # NODO mixed-citation[1]European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2014). Violence against women: an EU-wide survey. Retrieved fromhttp://fra.europa. eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_en.pdf # NODO ext-link[1]http://fra.europa. eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_en.pdf # NODO element-citation[1] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 2014Violence against women: an EU-wide survey.http://fra.europa. eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_en.pdf # NODO ref[1]Fagan, A. A. (2005). The relationship between adolescent physical abuse and criminal offending: support for an enduring and generalized cycle of violence. Journal of Family Violence 20, 179-190. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10896-005-6604-7 FaganA. A. 2005The relationship between adolescent physical abuse and criminal offending: support for an enduring and generalized cycle of violence.Journal of Family Violence20179190https://doi. org/10.1007/s10896-005-6604-7 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Fagan, A. A. (2005). The relationship between adolescent physical abuse and criminal offending: support for an enduring and generalized cycle of violence. Journal of Family Violence 20, 179-190. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10896-005-6604-7 # NODO element-citation[1] FaganA. A. 2005The relationship between adolescent physical abuse and criminal offending: support for an enduring and generalized cycle of violence.Journal of Family Violence20179190https://doi. org/10.1007/s10896-005-6604-7 # NODO ref[1]Fagan, A. A. (2013). Family-focused interventions to prevent juvenile delinquency. A case where science and policy can find common ground. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 617-650. http://doi:10.1111/17459133.12029 FaganA. A. 2013Family-focused interventions to prevent juvenile delinquency. A case where science and policy can find common ground.Criminology & Public Policy12617650http://doi:10.1111/17459133.12029 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Fagan, A. A. (2013). Family-focused interventions to prevent juvenile delinquency. A case where science and policy can find common ground. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 617-650. http://doi:10.1111/17459133.12029 # NODO element-citation[1] FaganA. A. 2013Family-focused interventions to prevent juvenile delinquency. A case where science and policy can find common ground.Criminology & Public Policy12617650http://doi:10.1111/17459133.12029 # NODO ref[1]Fagan, J. (1990). Intoxication and aggression. Crime and Justice, 13, 241-320. FaganJ. 1990Intoxication and aggression.Crime and Justice13241320 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Fagan, J. (1990). Intoxication and aggression. Crime and Justice, 13, 241-320. # NODO element-citation[1] FaganJ. 1990Intoxication and aggression.Crime and Justice13241320 # NODO ref[1]Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues. Criminology, 41, 221-255. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00987.x FarringtonD. P. 2003Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues.Criminology41221255https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00987.x # NODO mixed-citation[1]Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues. Criminology, 41, 221-255. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00987.x # NODO element-citation[1] FarringtonD. P. 2003Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues.Criminology41221255https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00987.x # NODO ref[1]Feingold, A., Kerr, D. C. R., & Capaldi, D. M. (2008). Associations of substance use problems with intimate partner violence for at-risk men in longterm relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 429-438. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.429 FeingoldA. KerrD. C. R. CapaldiD. M. 2008Associations of substance use problems with intimate partner violence for at-risk men in longterm relationship.Journal of Family Psychology22429438https:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.429 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Feingold, A., Kerr, D. C. R., & Capaldi, D. M. (2008). Associations of substance use problems with intimate partner violence for at-risk men in longterm relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 429-438. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.429 # NODO element-citation[1] FeingoldA. KerrD. C. R. CapaldiD. M. 2008Associations of substance use problems with intimate partner violence for at-risk men in longterm relationship.Journal of Family Psychology22429438https:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.429 # NODO ref[1]Felson, R. B. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about violence? Contexts, 5, 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2006.5.2.21 FelsonR. B. 2006Is violence against women about women or about violence?Contexts52125https://doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2006.5.2.21 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Felson, R. B. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about violence? Contexts, 5, 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2006.5.2.21 # NODO element-citation[1] FelsonR. B. 2006Is violence against women about women or about violence?Contexts52125https://doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2006.5.2.21 # NODO ref[1]Felson, R. B., & Lane, K. J. (2010). Does violence involving women and intimate partners have a special etiology? Criminology, 48, 321-338. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00186.x FelsonR. B. LaneK. J. 2010Does violence involving women and intimate partners have a special etiology?Criminology48321338https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00186.x # NODO mixed-citation[1]Felson, R. B., & Lane, K. J. (2010). Does violence involving women and intimate partners have a special etiology? Criminology, 48, 321-338. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00186.x # NODO element-citation[1] FelsonR. B. LaneK. J. 2010Does violence involving women and intimate partners have a special etiology?Criminology48321338https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00186.x # NODO ref[1]Flannery, D. J., Singer, M. I., van Dulmen, M., Kretschmar, J. M., & Belliston, L. (2007). Exposure to violence, mental health, and violent behavior. In Flannery, D. J. , Vazsonyi, A. T. , & Waldman (Ed.) , I. D., The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 302-321). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. FlanneryD. J. SingerM. I. van DulmenM. KretschmarJ. M. BellistonL. 2007Exposure to violence, mental health, and violent behavior FlanneryD. J. VazsonyiA. T. Waldman (Ed.)I. D. The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression302321New York, NYCambridge University Press # NODO mixed-citation[1]Flannery, D. J., Singer, M. I., van Dulmen, M., Kretschmar, J. M., & Belliston, L. (2007). Exposure to violence, mental health, and violent behavior. In Flannery, D. J. , Vazsonyi, A. T. , & Waldman (Ed.) , I. D., The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 302-321). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. # NODO element-citation[1] FlanneryD. J. SingerM. I. van DulmenM. KretschmarJ. M. BellistonL. 2007Exposure to violence, mental health, and violent behavior FlanneryD. J. VazsonyiA. T. Waldman (Ed.)I. D. The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression302321New York, NYCambridge University Press # NODO ref[1]Flood, M., & Pease, B. (2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 125-142. https://doi. org/10.1177/1524838009334131 FloodM. PeaseB. 2009Factors influencing attitudes to violence against womenTrauma, Violence, & Abuse10125142https://doi. org/10.1177/1524838009334131 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Flood, M., & Pease, B. (2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 125-142. https://doi. org/10.1177/1524838009334131 # NODO element-citation[1] FloodM. PeaseB. 2009Factors influencing attitudes to violence against womenTrauma, Violence, & Abuse10125142https://doi. org/10.1177/1524838009334131 # NODO ref[1]Fowler, K. A., & Westen, D. (2011). Subtyping male perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 26, 607-639. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365853 FowlerK. A. WestenD. 2011Subtyping male perpetrators of intimate partner violenceJournal of Interpersonal Violence26607639https:// doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365853 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Fowler, K. A., & Westen, D. (2011). Subtyping male perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 26, 607-639. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365853 # NODO element-citation[1] FowlerK. A. WestenD. 2011Subtyping male perpetrators of intimate partner violenceJournal of Interpersonal Violence26607639https:// doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365853 # NODO ref[1]Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022 3514.70.3.491 GlickP. FiskeS. T. 1996The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexismJournal of Personality and Social Psychology70491512https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022 3514.70.3.491 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022 3514.70.3.491 # NODO element-citation[1] GlickP. FiskeS. T. 1996The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexismJournal of Personality and Social Psychology70491512https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022 3514.70.3.491 # NODO ref[1]Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quaterly, 23, 519-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999. tb00379.x GlickP. FiskeS. T. 1999The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men.Psychology of Women Quaterly23519536https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999. tb00379.x # NODO mixed-citation[1]Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quaterly, 23, 519-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999. tb00379.x # NODO element-citation[1] GlickP. FiskeS. T. 1999The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men.Psychology of Women Quaterly23519536https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999. tb00379.x # NODO ref[1]Golinelli, D., Longshore, D., & Wenzel, S. L. (2009). Substance Use and intimate partner violence: Clarifying the relevance of women?s use and partners? use. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 36, 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-008-9114-6 GolinelliD. LongshoreD. WenzelS. L. 2009Substance Use and intimate partner violence: Clarifying the relevance of women?s use and partners? useJournal of Behavioral Health Services & Research36199211https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-008-9114-6 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Golinelli, D., Longshore, D., & Wenzel, S. L. (2009). Substance Use and intimate partner violence: Clarifying the relevance of women?s use and partners? use. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 36, 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-008-9114-6 # NODO element-citation[1] GolinelliD. LongshoreD. WenzelS. L. 2009Substance Use and intimate partner violence: Clarifying the relevance of women?s use and partners? useJournal of Behavioral Health Services & Research36199211https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-008-9114-6 # NODO ref[1]Gondolf, E. W. (1988). Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral typology of batterers. Violence and Victims , 3, 187-203. GondolfE. W. 1988Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral typology of batterers.Violence and Victims3187203 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Gondolf, E. W. (1988). Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral typology of batterers. Violence and Victims , 3, 187-203. # NODO element-citation[1] GondolfE. W. 1988Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral typology of batterers.Violence and Victims3187203 # NODO ref[1]Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2006). Perceived neighborhood social disorder and attitudes towards reporting domestic violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 22, 737-752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chiabu.2005.11.001 GraciaE. HerreroJ. 2006Perceived neighborhood social disorder and attitudes towards reporting domestic violence against women.Journal of Interpersonal Violence22737752https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chiabu.2005.11.001 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2006). Perceived neighborhood social disorder and attitudes towards reporting domestic violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 22, 737-752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chiabu.2005.11.001 # NODO element-citation[1] GraciaE. HerreroJ. 2006Perceived neighborhood social disorder and attitudes towards reporting domestic violence against women.Journal of Interpersonal Violence22737752https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chiabu.2005.11.001 # NODO ref[1]Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. F. (1996). A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions of abuse. Violence and Victims , 11, 277-292. HambergerL. K. LohrJ. M. BongeD. TolinD. F. 1996A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions of abuseViolence and Victims11277292 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. F. (1996). A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions of abuse. Violence and Victims , 11, 277-292. # NODO element-citation[1] HambergerL. K. LohrJ. M. BongeD. TolinD. F. 1996A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions of abuseViolence and Victims11277292 # NODO ref[1]Harris, G. T., Hilton, N. Z., & Rice, M. E. (2011). Explaining the frequency of intimate partner violence by male perpetrators: Do attitude, relationships, and neighborhod variables add to antisociality? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 309-330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810397449 HarrisG. T. HiltonN. Z. RiceM. E. 2011Explaining the frequency of intimate partner violence by male perpetrators: Do attitude, relationships, and neighborhod variables add to antisociality?Criminal Justice and Behavior38309330https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810397449 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Harris, G. T., Hilton, N. Z., & Rice, M. E. (2011). Explaining the frequency of intimate partner violence by male perpetrators: Do attitude, relationships, and neighborhod variables add to antisociality? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 309-330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810397449 # NODO element-citation[1] HarrisG. T. HiltonN. Z. RiceM. E. 2011Explaining the frequency of intimate partner violence by male perpetrators: Do attitude, relationships, and neighborhod variables add to antisociality?Criminal Justice and Behavior38309330https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810397449 # NODO ref[1]Henning, K., Jones, A. R., & Holdford, R. (2005). ?I didn?t do it, but if I did I had a good reason?: Minimization, denial, and attributions of blame among male and female domestic violence offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-3647-8 HenningK. JonesA. R. HoldfordR. 2005?I didn?t do it, but if I did I had a good reason?: Minimization, denial, and attributions of blame among male and female domestic violence offenders.Journal of Family Violence20131139https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-3647-8 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Henning, K., Jones, A. R., & Holdford, R. (2005). ?I didn?t do it, but if I did I had a good reason?: Minimization, denial, and attributions of blame among male and female domestic violence offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-3647-8 # NODO element-citation[1] HenningK. JonesA. R. HoldfordR. 2005?I didn?t do it, but if I did I had a good reason?: Minimization, denial, and attributions of blame among male and female domestic violence offenders.Journal of Family Violence20131139https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-3647-8 # NODO ref[1]Herrero, J., & Gracia, E. (2005). Perceived frequency of domestic violence against women and neighborhood social disorder. Psychological Reports, 97, 712-716. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.3.712-716 HerreroJ. GraciaE. 2005Perceived frequency of domestic violence against women and neighborhood social disorder.Psychological Reports97712716https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.3.712-716 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Herrero, J., & Gracia, E. (2005). Perceived frequency of domestic violence against women and neighborhood social disorder. Psychological Reports, 97, 712-716. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.3.712-716 # NODO element-citation[1] HerreroJ. GraciaE. 2005Perceived frequency of domestic violence against women and neighborhood social disorder.Psychological Reports97712716https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.3.712-716 # NODO ref[1]Herrero, J., & Gracia, E. (2007). Measuring perceived community support: Factorial structure, longitudinal invariance and predictive validity of the PCSQ (Perceived Community Support Questionnaire). Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 197-217. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jcop.20143 HerreroJ. GraciaE. 2007Measuring perceived community support: Factorial structure, longitudinal invariance and predictive validity of the PCSQ (Perceived Community Support Questionnaire).Journal of Community Psychology35197217https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jcop.20143 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Herrero, J., & Gracia, E. (2007). Measuring perceived community support: Factorial structure, longitudinal invariance and predictive validity of the PCSQ (Perceived Community Support Questionnaire). Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 197-217. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jcop.20143 # NODO element-citation[1] HerreroJ. GraciaE. 2007Measuring perceived community support: Factorial structure, longitudinal invariance and predictive validity of the PCSQ (Perceived Community Support Questionnaire).Journal of Community Psychology35197217https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jcop.20143 # NODO ref[1]Herrero, J., Rodr?guez-D?az, F. J., & Torres, A. (2016). Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships. Violence Against Women (Published online before print). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216642870 HerreroJ. Rodr?guez-D?azF. J. TorresA. 2016Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships.Violence Against WomenPublished online before printhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216642870 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Herrero, J., Rodr?guez-D?az, F. J., & Torres, A. (2016). Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships. Violence Against Women (Published online before print). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216642870 # NODO element-citation[1] HerreroJ. Rodr?guez-D?azF. J. TorresA. 2016Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships.Violence Against WomenPublished online before printhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216642870 # NODO ref[1]Herrero, J., Torres, A., Fern?ndez-Su?rez, A., & Rodr?guez-D?az, F. J. (2016). Generalists versus specialists: Toward a typology of batterers in prison. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8, 19-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2015.09.002 HerreroJ. TorresA. Fern?ndez-Su?rezA. Rodr?guez-D?azF. J. 2016versus specialists: Toward a typology of batterers in prison.The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context81926https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2015.09.002 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Herrero, J., Torres, A., Fern?ndez-Su?rez, A., & Rodr?guez-D?az, F. J. (2016). Generalists versus specialists: Toward a typology of batterers in prison. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8, 19-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2015.09.002 # NODO element-citation[1] HerreroJ. TorresA. Fern?ndez-Su?rezA. Rodr?guez-D?azF. J. 2016versus specialists: Toward a typology of batterers in prison.The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context81926https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2015.09.002 # NODO ref[1]Herrero, J., Torres, A., Rodr?guez, F. J., & Juarros-Basterretxea, J. (2017). Intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: The influence of male partners? traditional gender roles and general violence. Psychology of Violence, 7, 385-394. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000099 HerreroJ. TorresA. Rodr?guezF. J. Juarros-BasterretxeaJ. 2017Intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: The influence of male partners? traditional gender roles and general violence.Psychology of Violence7385394https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000099 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Herrero, J., Torres, A., Rodr?guez, F. J., & Juarros-Basterretxea, J. (2017). Intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: The influence of male partners? traditional gender roles and general violence. Psychology of Violence, 7, 385-394. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000099 # NODO element-citation[1] HerreroJ. TorresA. Rodr?guezF. J. Juarros-BasterretxeaJ. 2017Intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: The influence of male partners? traditional gender roles and general violence.Psychology of Violence7385394https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000099 # NODO ref[1]Hilton, N. Z., & Eke, A. W., (2016). Non-specialization of criminal careers among intimate partner violence offenders. Criminal and Justice Behavior, 7, 385-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816637886 HiltonN. Z. EkeA. W. 2016Non-specialization of criminal careers among intimate partner violence offenders.Criminal and Justice Behavior7385394https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816637886 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Hilton, N. Z., & Eke, A. W., (2016). Non-specialization of criminal careers among intimate partner violence offenders. Criminal and Justice Behavior, 7, 385-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816637886 # NODO element-citation[1] HiltonN. Z. EkeA. W. 2016Non-specialization of criminal careers among intimate partner violence offenders.Criminal and Justice Behavior7385394https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816637886 # NODO ref[1]Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2001). Predicting violence by serious wife assaulters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 16, 408-423. https:// doi.org/10.1177/088626001016005002 HiltonN. Z. HarrisG. T. RiceM. E. 2001Predicting violence by serious wife assaulters.Journal of Interpersonal Violence16408423https:// doi.org/10.1177/088626001016005002 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2001). Predicting violence by serious wife assaulters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 16, 408-423. https:// doi.org/10.1177/088626001016005002 # NODO element-citation[1] HiltonN. Z. HarrisG. T. RiceM. E. 2001Predicting violence by serious wife assaulters.Journal of Interpersonal Violence16408423https:// doi.org/10.1177/088626001016005002 # NODO ref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J. C. (2004). Typologies of men who are maritally violent: Scientific and clinical implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 19, 1369-1389. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260504269693 Holtzworth-MunroeA. MeehanJ. C. 2004Typologies of men who are maritally violent: Scientific and clinical implications.Journal of Interpersonal Violence1913691389https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260504269693 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J. C. (2004). Typologies of men who are maritally violent: Scientific and clinical implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 19, 1369-1389. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260504269693 # NODO element-citation[1] Holtzworth-MunroeA. MeehanJ. C. 2004Typologies of men who are maritally violent: Scientific and clinical implications.Journal of Interpersonal Violence1913691389https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260504269693 # NODO ref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000-1019. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.1000 Holtzworth-MunroeA. MeehanJ. C. HerronK. RehmanU. StuartG. L. 2000Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology6810001019https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.1000 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000-1019. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.1000 # NODO element-citation[1] Holtzworth-MunroeA. MeehanJ. C. HerronK. RehmanU. StuartG. L. 2000Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology6810001019https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.1000 # NODO ref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2003). Do subtypes of maritally violent men continue to differ over time? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 728-740. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.728 Holtzworth-MunroeA. MeehanJ. C. HerronK. RehmanU. StuartG. L. 2003Do subtypes of maritally violent men continue to differ over time?Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology71728740https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.728 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2003). Do subtypes of maritally violent men continue to differ over time? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 728-740. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.728 # NODO element-citation[1] Holtzworth-MunroeA. MeehanJ. C. HerronK. RehmanU. StuartG. L. 2003Do subtypes of maritally violent men continue to differ over time?Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology71728740https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.728 # NODO ref[1]Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476-497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476 Holtzworth-MunroeA. StuartG. L. 1994Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them.Psychological Bulletin116476497https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476-497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476 # NODO element-citation[1] Holtzworth-MunroeA. StuartG. L. 1994Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them.Psychological Bulletin116476497https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476 # NODO ref[1]Kiss, L., Schraiber, L. B., Hossain, M., Watts, C., & Zimmerman, C. (2015). The link between community-based violence and intimate partner violence: The effect of crime and male aggression on intimate partner violence against women. Prevention Science, 16, 881-889. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11121-015-0567-6 KissL. SchraiberL. B. HossainM. WattsC. ZimmermanC. 2015The link between community-based violence and intimate partner violence: The effect of crime and male aggression on intimate partner violence against womenPrevention Science16881889https://doi. org/10.1007/s11121-015-0567-6 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Kiss, L., Schraiber, L. B., Hossain, M., Watts, C., & Zimmerman, C. (2015). The link between community-based violence and intimate partner violence: The effect of crime and male aggression on intimate partner violence against women. Prevention Science, 16, 881-889. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11121-015-0567-6 # NODO element-citation[1] KissL. SchraiberL. B. HossainM. WattsC. ZimmermanC. 2015The link between community-based violence and intimate partner violence: The effect of crime and male aggression on intimate partner violence against womenPrevention Science16881889https://doi. org/10.1007/s11121-015-0567-6 # NODO ref[1]Kiwi, H. G., & Sadeghi, A. (2015). Investigating the prevalence of personality disorders in relation with recidivism among prisoners. European Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2, 6-9. https://doi.org/10.5455/ejfs.186161 KiwiH. G. SadeghiA. 2015Investigating the prevalence of personality disorders in relation with recidivism among prisoners.European Journal of Forensic Sciences269https://doi.org/10.5455/ejfs.186161 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Kiwi, H. G., & Sadeghi, A. (2015). Investigating the prevalence of personality disorders in relation with recidivism among prisoners. European Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2, 6-9. https://doi.org/10.5455/ejfs.186161 # NODO element-citation[1] KiwiH. G. SadeghiA. 2015Investigating the prevalence of personality disorders in relation with recidivism among prisoners.European Journal of Forensic Sciences269https://doi.org/10.5455/ejfs.186161 # NODO ref[1]Kretschmar, J. M., & Flannery, D. J. (2007). Substance use and violent behavior. In Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T. & Waldman, I. D. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. KretschmarJ. M. FlanneryD. J. 2007Substance use and violent behavior FlanneryD. J. VazsonyiA. T. WaldmanI. D. The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and AggressionNew York, NYCambridge University Press # NODO mixed-citation[1]Kretschmar, J. M., & Flannery, D. J. (2007). Substance use and violent behavior. In Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T. & Waldman, I. D. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. # NODO element-citation[1] KretschmarJ. M. FlanneryD. J. 2007Substance use and violent behavior FlanneryD. J. VazsonyiA. T. WaldmanI. D. The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and AggressionNew York, NYCambridge University Press # NODO ref[1]L?ng, A., & Birk?s, B. (2014). Machiavelism and perceived family functioning in adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.065 L?ngA. Birk?sB. 2014Machiavelism and perceived family functioning in adolescencePersonality and Individual Differences636974https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.065 # NODO mixed-citation[1]L?ng, A., & Birk?s, B. (2014). Machiavelism and perceived family functioning in adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.065 # NODO element-citation[1] L?ngA. Birk?sB. 2014Machiavelism and perceived family functioning in adolescencePersonality and Individual Differences636974https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.065 # NODO ref[1]LeBlanc, M. (2005). An integrative personal control theory of deviant behavior: Answers to contemporary empirical and theoretical developmental criminology issues. In Farrington, D. P. (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life course theories of offending (pp. 125-163). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. LeBlancM. 2005An integrative personal control theory of deviant behavior: Answers to contemporary empirical and theoretical developmental criminology issues. FarringtonD. P. Integrated developmental and life course theories of offending125163New Brunswick, NJTransaction # NODO mixed-citation[1]LeBlanc, M. (2005). An integrative personal control theory of deviant behavior: Answers to contemporary empirical and theoretical developmental criminology issues. In Farrington, D. P. (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life course theories of offending (pp. 125-163). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. # NODO element-citation[1] LeBlancM. 2005An integrative personal control theory of deviant behavior: Answers to contemporary empirical and theoretical developmental criminology issues. FarringtonD. P. Integrated developmental and life course theories of offending125163New Brunswick, NJTransaction # NODO ref[1]Lisco, C. G., Parrott, D. J., & Tharp, A. T. (2012). The role of heavy episodic drinking and hostile sexism in men?s sexual aggression toward female intimate partners. Addictive Behaviors, 37, 1264-1270. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.010 LiscoC. G. ParrottD. J. TharpA. T. 2012The role of heavy episodic drinking and hostile sexism in men?s sexual aggression toward female intimate partners.Addictive Behaviors3712641270https://doi. org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.010 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Lisco, C. G., Parrott, D. J., & Tharp, A. T. (2012). The role of heavy episodic drinking and hostile sexism in men?s sexual aggression toward female intimate partners. Addictive Behaviors, 37, 1264-1270. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.010 # NODO element-citation[1] LiscoC. G. ParrottD. J. TharpA. T. 2012The role of heavy episodic drinking and hostile sexism in men?s sexual aggression toward female intimate partners.Addictive Behaviors3712641270https://doi. org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.010 # NODO ref[1]Logan, T. K., Walker, R., & Leukefeld, C. G. (2001). Intimate partner and nonintimate violence history among drug-using, incarcerated men. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 228-243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X01452008 LoganT. K. WalkerR. LeukefeldC. G. 2001Intimate partner and nonintimate violence history among drug-using, incarcerated men.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology45228243https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X01452008 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Logan, T. K., Walker, R., & Leukefeld, C. G. (2001). Intimate partner and nonintimate violence history among drug-using, incarcerated men. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 228-243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X01452008 # NODO element-citation[1] LoganT. K. WalkerR. LeukefeldC. G. 2001Intimate partner and nonintimate violence history among drug-using, incarcerated men.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology45228243https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X01452008 # NODO ref[1]Markowitz, F. E., Bellair, P. E., Liska, A., & Liu, J. H. (2001). Extending social disorganization theory: Modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear. Criminology, 39, 205-218. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00924.x MarkowitzF. E. BellairP. E. LiskaA. LiuJ. H. 2001Extending social disorganization theory: Modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear.Criminology39205218https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00924.x # NODO mixed-citation[1]Markowitz, F. E., Bellair, P. E., Liska, A., & Liu, J. H. (2001). Extending social disorganization theory: Modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear. Criminology, 39, 205-218. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00924.x # NODO element-citation[1] MarkowitzF. E. BellairP. E. LiskaA. LiuJ. H. 2001Extending social disorganization theory: Modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear.Criminology39205218https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00924.x # NODO ref[1]Mauricio, A. M., Tein, J. Y., & Lopez, F. G. (2007). Borderline and antisocial personality scores as mediators between attachment and intimate partner violence. Violence and Victims , 22, 139-157. https://doi. org/10.1891/088667007780477339 MauricioA. M. TeinJ. Y. LopezF. G. 2007Borderline and antisocial personality scores as mediators between attachment and intimate partner violence.Violence and Victims22139157https://doi. org/10.1891/088667007780477339 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Mauricio, A. M., Tein, J. Y., & Lopez, F. G. (2007). Borderline and antisocial personality scores as mediators between attachment and intimate partner violence. Violence and Victims , 22, 139-157. https://doi. org/10.1891/088667007780477339 # NODO element-citation[1] MauricioA. M. TeinJ. Y. LopezF. G. 2007Borderline and antisocial personality scores as mediators between attachment and intimate partner violence.Violence and Victims22139157https://doi. org/10.1891/088667007780477339 # NODO ref[1]Meldrum, R. C., Connolly, G. M., Flexon, J., & Guerette, R. T. (2015). Parental low self-control, family environments, and juvenile delinquency. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 60, 1623-1644. http://doi:10.1177/0306624X15584907 MeldrumR. C. ConnollyG. M. FlexonJ. GueretteR. T. 2015Parental low self-control, family environments, and juvenile delinquency.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology6016231644http://doi:10.1177/0306624X15584907 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Meldrum, R. C., Connolly, G. M., Flexon, J., & Guerette, R. T. (2015). Parental low self-control, family environments, and juvenile delinquency. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 60, 1623-1644. http://doi:10.1177/0306624X15584907 # NODO element-citation[1] MeldrumR. C. ConnollyG. M. FlexonJ. GueretteR. T. 2015Parental low self-control, family environments, and juvenile delinquency.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology6016231644http://doi:10.1177/0306624X15584907 # NODO ref[1]Millon, T. (1997). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) manual (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. MillonT. 1997Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) manual (2nd ed.).Minneapolis, MNNational Computer Systems # NODO mixed-citation[1]Millon, T. (1997). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) manual (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. # NODO element-citation[1] MillonT. 1997Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) manual (2nd ed.).Minneapolis, MNNational Computer Systems # NODO ref[1]Millon, T., Davis, R., & Millon, C. (2007). MCMI-III. Manual. Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones. MillonT. DavisR. MillonC. 2007MCMI-III. ManualMadrid, SpainTEA Ediciones # NODO mixed-citation[1]Millon, T., Davis, R., & Millon, C. (2007). MCMI-III. Manual. Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones. # NODO element-citation[1] MillonT. DavisR. MillonC. 2007MCMI-III. ManualMadrid, SpainTEA Ediciones # NODO ref[1]Moffit, T. E., & Caspi, A. (1999). Findings about partner violence from the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. MoffitT. E. CaspiA. 1999Findings about partner violence from the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study.Washington, DCNational Institute of Justice # NODO mixed-citation[1]Moffit, T. E., & Caspi, A. (1999). Findings about partner violence from the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. # NODO element-citation[1] MoffitT. E. CaspiA. 1999Findings about partner violence from the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study.Washington, DCNational Institute of Justice # NODO ref[1]Moffit, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, R., & Fagan, J. (2000). Partner abuse and general crime: How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology, 38, 199-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00888.x MoffitT. E. KruegerR. F. CaspiR. FaganJ. 2000Partner abuse and general crime: How are they the same? How are they different?Criminology38199232https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00888.x # NODO mixed-citation[1]Moffit, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, R., & Fagan, J. (2000). Partner abuse and general crime: How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology, 38, 199-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00888.x # NODO element-citation[1] MoffitT. E. KruegerR. F. CaspiR. FaganJ. 2000Partner abuse and general crime: How are they the same? How are they different?Criminology38199232https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00888.x # NODO ref[1]Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1994). Family Environment Scale Manual: Development, applications, research (third edition). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. MoosR. H. MoosB. S. 1994Family Environment Scale Manual: Development, applications, research (third edition).Palo Alto, CAConsulting Psychologist Press # NODO mixed-citation[1]Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1994). Family Environment Scale Manual: Development, applications, research (third edition). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. # NODO element-citation[1] MoosR. H. MoosB. S. 1994Family Environment Scale Manual: Development, applications, research (third edition).Palo Alto, CAConsulting Psychologist Press # NODO ref[1]O?Brien, D. T., & Sampson, R. J. (2015). Public and private spheres of neighborhood disorder: Assessing pathways to violence using large-scale digital records. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 486-510. O?BrienD. T. SampsonR. J. 2015Public and private spheres of neighborhood disorder: Assessing pathways to violence using large-scale digital records.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency52486510 # NODO mixed-citation[1]O?Brien, D. T., & Sampson, R. J. (2015). Public and private spheres of neighborhood disorder: Assessing pathways to violence using large-scale digital records. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 486-510. # NODO element-citation[1] O?BrienD. T. SampsonR. J. 2015Public and private spheres of neighborhood disorder: Assessing pathways to violence using large-scale digital records.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency52486510 # NODO ref[1]Peters, J. R., Derefinko, K. J., & Lynam, D. R. (2016). Negative urgency accounts for the association between borderline personality features and intimate partner violence in young men. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30, 234-243. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_234 PetersJ. R. DerefinkoK. J. LynamD. R. 2016Negative urgency accounts for the association between borderline personality features and intimate partner violence in young men.Journal of Personality Disorders30234243https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_234 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Peters, J. R., Derefinko, K. J., & Lynam, D. R. (2016). Negative urgency accounts for the association between borderline personality features and intimate partner violence in young men. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30, 234-243. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_234 # NODO element-citation[1] PetersJ. R. DerefinkoK. J. LynamD. R. 2016Negative urgency accounts for the association between borderline personality features and intimate partner violence in young men.Journal of Personality Disorders30234243https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_234 # NODO ref[1]Pinchevsky, G. M., & Wright, E. M. (2012). The impact of neighborhoods on intimate partner violence and victimization. Trauma Violence Abuse, 13, 112-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012445641 PinchevskyG. M. WrightE. M. 2012The impact of neighborhoods on intimate partner violence and victimization.Trauma Violence Abuse13112132https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012445641 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Pinchevsky, G. M., & Wright, E. M. (2012). The impact of neighborhoods on intimate partner violence and victimization. Trauma Violence Abuse, 13, 112-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012445641 # NODO element-citation[1] PinchevskyG. M. WrightE. M. 2012The impact of neighborhoods on intimate partner violence and victimization.Trauma Violence Abuse13112132https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012445641 # NODO ref[1]Piquero, A. R., Theobald, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2014). The overlap between offending trajectories, criminal violence, and intimate partner violence. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 286-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12472655 PiqueroA. R. TheobaldD. FarringtonD. P. 2014The overlap between offending trajectories, criminal violence, and intimate partner violence.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology58286302https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12472655 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Piquero, A. R., Theobald, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2014). The overlap between offending trajectories, criminal violence, and intimate partner violence. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 286-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12472655 # NODO element-citation[1] PiqueroA. R. TheobaldD. FarringtonD. P. 2014The overlap between offending trajectories, criminal violence, and intimate partner violence.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology58286302https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12472655 # NODO ref[1]Reingle, J. M., Jennings, W. G., Connell, N. M., Businelle, M. S., & Chartier, K. (2014). On the pervasiveness of event-specific alcohol use, general substance use, and mental health problems as risk factors for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 29, 2951-2970. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514527172 ReingleJ. M. JenningsW. G. ConnellN. M. BusinelleM. S. ChartierK. 2014On the pervasiveness of event-specific alcohol use, general substance use, and mental health problems as risk factors for intimate partner violence.Journal of Interpersonal Violence2929512970https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514527172 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Reingle, J. M., Jennings, W. G., Connell, N. M., Businelle, M. S., & Chartier, K. (2014). On the pervasiveness of event-specific alcohol use, general substance use, and mental health problems as risk factors for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 29, 2951-2970. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514527172 # NODO element-citation[1] ReingleJ. M. JenningsW. G. ConnellN. M. BusinelleM. S. ChartierK. 2014On the pervasiveness of event-specific alcohol use, general substance use, and mental health problems as risk factors for intimate partner violence.Journal of Interpersonal Violence2929512970https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514527172 # NODO ref[1]Ross, J. M., & Babcock, C. (2009). Proactive and reactive violence among intimate partner violent men with antisocial and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 607-617. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10896-009-9259-y RossJ. M. BabcockC. 2009Proactive and reactive violence among intimate partner violent men with antisocial and borderline personality disorder.Journal of Family Violence24607617https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10896-009-9259-y # NODO mixed-citation[1]Ross, J. M., & Babcock, C. (2009). Proactive and reactive violence among intimate partner violent men with antisocial and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 607-617. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10896-009-9259-y # NODO element-citation[1] RossJ. M. BabcockC. 2009Proactive and reactive violence among intimate partner violent men with antisocial and borderline personality disorder.Journal of Family Violence24607617https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10896-009-9259-y # NODO ref[1]Rothman, E. F., McNaughton, L., Johnson, R. M., & LaValley, M. (2012). Does the alcohol make them do it? Dating violence perpetration and drinking among youth. Epidemiologic Reviews, 34, 103-119. https://doi. org/10.1093/epirev/mxr027 RothmanE. F. McNaughtonL. JohnsonR. M. LaValleyM. 2012Does the alcohol make them do it? Dating violence perpetration and drinking among youth.Epidemiologic Reviews34103119https://doi. org/10.1093/epirev/mxr027 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Rothman, E. F., McNaughton, L., Johnson, R. M., & LaValley, M. (2012). Does the alcohol make them do it? Dating violence perpetration and drinking among youth. Epidemiologic Reviews, 34, 103-119. https://doi. org/10.1093/epirev/mxr027 # NODO element-citation[1] RothmanE. F. McNaughtonL. JohnsonR. M. LaValleyM. 2012Does the alcohol make them do it? Dating violence perpetration and drinking among youth.Epidemiologic Reviews34103119https://doi. org/10.1093/epirev/mxr027 # NODO ref[1]Ru?z-Hern?ndez, J. A., Garc?a-Jim?nez, J. J., Llor-Esteban, B., & Godoy-Fern?ndez, C. (2015). Risk factors for int?mate partner violence in prison inmates. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7, 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.003 Ru?z-Hern?ndezJ. A. Garc?a-Jim?nezJ. J. Llor-EstebanB. Godoy-Fern?ndezC. 2015Risk factors for int?mate partner violence in prison inmates.The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context74149https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.003 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Ru?z-Hern?ndez, J. A., Garc?a-Jim?nez, J. J., Llor-Esteban, B., & Godoy-Fern?ndez, C. (2015). Risk factors for int?mate partner violence in prison inmates. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7, 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.003 # NODO element-citation[1] Ru?z-Hern?ndezJ. A. Garc?a-Jim?nezJ. J. Llor-EstebanB. Godoy-Fern?ndezC. 2015Risk factors for int?mate partner violence in prison inmates.The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context74149https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.003 # NODO ref[1]Saunders, D. G. (1991). Procedures for adjusting self-reports of violence for social desirability bias. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 6, 336-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626091006003006 SaundersD. G. 1991Procedures for adjusting self-reports of violence for social desirability bias.Journal of Interpersonal Violence6336344https://doi.org/10.1177/088626091006003006 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Saunders, D. G. (1991). Procedures for adjusting self-reports of violence for social desirability bias. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 6, 336-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626091006003006 # NODO element-citation[1] SaundersD. G. 1991Procedures for adjusting self-reports of violence for social desirability bias.Journal of Interpersonal Violence6336344https://doi.org/10.1177/088626091006003006 # NODO ref[1]Saunders, D. G. (1992). A typology of men who batter; three types derived from cluster analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079333 SaundersD. G. 1992A typology of men who batter; three types derived from cluster analysis.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry62264275https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079333 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Saunders, D. G. (1992). A typology of men who batter; three types derived from cluster analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079333 # NODO element-citation[1] SaundersD. G. 1992A typology of men who batter; three types derived from cluster analysis.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry62264275https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079333 # NODO ref[1]Shield, M., McCall, G., & Hanneke, C. (1988). Patterns of family and nonfamily violence: Violent husbands and violent men. Violence and Victims , 3, 83-97. ShieldM. McCallG. HannekeC. 1988Patterns of family and nonfamily violence: Violent husbands and violent menViolence and Victims38397 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Shield, M., McCall, G., & Hanneke, C. (1988). Patterns of family and nonfamily violence: Violent husbands and violent men. Violence and Victims , 3, 83-97. # NODO element-citation[1] ShieldM. McCallG. HannekeC. 1988Patterns of family and nonfamily violence: Violent husbands and violent menViolence and Victims38397 # NODO ref[1]Smilkstein, G. (1978). The Family APGAR: A proposal for family function test and its use by physicians. Journal of Family Practice, 6, 1231-1239. SmilksteinG. 1978The Family APGAR: A proposal for family function test and its use by physicians.Journal of Family Practice612311239 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Smilkstein, G. (1978). The Family APGAR: A proposal for family function test and its use by physicians. Journal of Family Practice, 6, 1231-1239. # NODO element-citation[1] SmilksteinG. 1978The Family APGAR: A proposal for family function test and its use by physicians.Journal of Family Practice612311239 # NODO ref[1]Smith, H. S., Homish, G. G., Leonard, K. E., & Cornelius, J. R. (2012). Intimate partner violence and specific substance use disorders: Findings from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26, 236-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0024855 SmithH. S. HomishG. G. LeonardK. E. CorneliusJ. R. 2012Intimate partner violence and specific substance use disorders: Findings from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions.Psychology of Addictive Behaviors26236245https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0024855 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Smith, H. S., Homish, G. G., Leonard, K. E., & Cornelius, J. R. (2012). Intimate partner violence and specific substance use disorders: Findings from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26, 236-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0024855 # NODO element-citation[1] SmithH. S. HomishG. G. LeonardK. E. CorneliusJ. R. 2012Intimate partner violence and specific substance use disorders: Findings from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions.Psychology of Addictive Behaviors26236245https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0024855 # NODO ref[1]Stef?nsson, R., & Hesse, M. (2008). Personality disorders in substance abusers: A comparison of patients treated in a prison unit and patients treated in inpatient treatment. International Journal of Mental Health and Adiction, 6, 402-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-007-9134-0 Stef?nssonR. HesseM. 2008Personality disorders in substance abusers: A comparison of patients treated in a prison unit and patients treated in inpatient treatment.International Journal of Mental Health and Adiction6402406https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-007-9134-0 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Stef?nsson, R., & Hesse, M. (2008). Personality disorders in substance abusers: A comparison of patients treated in a prison unit and patients treated in inpatient treatment. International Journal of Mental Health and Adiction, 6, 402-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-007-9134-0 # NODO element-citation[1] Stef?nssonR. HesseM. 2008Personality disorders in substance abusers: A comparison of patients treated in a prison unit and patients treated in inpatient treatment.International Journal of Mental Health and Adiction6402406https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-007-9134-0 # NODO ref[1]Straus, M. A., Hamby, S., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. https://doi. org/10.1177/019251396017003001 StrausM. A. HambyS. Boney-McCoyS. SugarmanD. 1996The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and preliminary psychometric data.Journal of Family Issues17283316https://doi. org/10.1177/019251396017003001 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Straus, M. A., Hamby, S., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. https://doi. org/10.1177/019251396017003001 # NODO element-citation[1] StrausM. A. HambyS. Boney-McCoyS. SugarmanD. 1996The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and preliminary psychometric data.Journal of Family Issues17283316https://doi. org/10.1177/019251396017003001 # NODO ref[1]Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1997). Intimate violence and social desirability. A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 12, 275-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012002008 SugarmanD. B. HotalingG. T. 1997Intimate violence and social desirability. A meta-analytic review.Journal of Interpersonal Violence12275290https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012002008 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1997). Intimate violence and social desirability. A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 12, 275-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012002008 # NODO element-citation[1] SugarmanD. B. HotalingG. T. 1997Intimate violence and social desirability. A meta-analytic review.Journal of Interpersonal Violence12275290https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012002008 # NODO ref[1]Swogger, M. T., Walsh, Z., & Kosson, D. S. (2007). Domestic violence and psychopathic traits: Distinguishing the antisocial batterer from other antisocial offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 1-8. https://doi. org/ 10.1002/ab.20185 SwoggerM. T. WalshZ. KossonD. S. 2007Domestic violence and psychopathic traits: Distinguishing the antisocial batterer from other antisocial offenders.Aggressive Behavior3318https://doi. org/ 10.1002/ab.20185 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Swogger, M. T., Walsh, Z., & Kosson, D. S. (2007). Domestic violence and psychopathic traits: Distinguishing the antisocial batterer from other antisocial offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 1-8. https://doi. org/ 10.1002/ab.20185 # NODO element-citation[1] SwoggerM. T. WalshZ. KossonD. S. 2007Domestic violence and psychopathic traits: Distinguishing the antisocial batterer from other antisocial offenders.Aggressive Behavior3318https://doi. org/ 10.1002/ab.20185 # NODO ref[1]Theobald, D., Farrington, D. P., Coid, J. W., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Are male perpetrators of intimate partner violence different from convicted violent offenders? Examination of psychopathic traits and life succes in males from a community survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31, 1687-1718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515569061 TheobaldD. FarringtonD. P. CoidJ. W. PiqueroA. R. 2015Are male perpetrators of intimate partner violence different from convicted violent offenders? Examination of psychopathic traits and life succes in males from a community survey.Journal of Interpersonal Violence3116871718https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515569061 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Theobald, D., Farrington, D. P., Coid, J. W., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Are male perpetrators of intimate partner violence different from convicted violent offenders? Examination of psychopathic traits and life succes in males from a community survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31, 1687-1718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515569061 # NODO element-citation[1] TheobaldD. FarringtonD. P. CoidJ. W. PiqueroA. R. 2015Are male perpetrators of intimate partner violence different from convicted violent offenders? Examination of psychopathic traits and life succes in males from a community survey.Journal of Interpersonal Violence3116871718https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515569061 # NODO ref[1]Thomas, K. A., Dichter, M. E., & Matejkowski, J. (2011). Intimate versus nonintimate partner murder: A comparison of offender and situational character?stics. Homicide Studies, 15, 291-311. https://doi. org/10.1177/1088767911417803 ThomasK. A. DichterM. E. MatejkowskiJ. 2011Intimate versus nonintimate partner murder: A comparison of offender and situational character?stics.Homicide Studies15291311https://doi. org/10.1177/1088767911417803 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Thomas, K. A., Dichter, M. E., & Matejkowski, J. (2011). Intimate versus nonintimate partner murder: A comparison of offender and situational character?stics. Homicide Studies, 15, 291-311. https://doi. org/10.1177/1088767911417803 # NODO element-citation[1] ThomasK. A. DichterM. E. MatejkowskiJ. 2011Intimate versus nonintimate partner murder: A comparison of offender and situational character?stics.Homicide Studies15291311https://doi. org/10.1177/1088767911417803 # NODO ref[1]Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in selfreport research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 40-48. Van de MortelT. F. 2008Faking it: Social desirability response bias in selfreport research.Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing254048 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in selfreport research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 40-48. # NODO element-citation[1] Van de MortelT. F. 2008Faking it: Social desirability response bias in selfreport research.Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing254048 # NODO ref[1]Vanassche, S., Sodermans, A. K., Matthijs, K., & Swicegood, G. (2013). The effects of family type, family relationships and parental role models on deliquency and alcohol use among flemish adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 128-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9699-5 VanasscheS. SodermansA. K. MatthijsK. SwicegoodG. 2013The effects of family type, family relationships and parental role models on deliquency and alcohol use among flemish adolescentsJournal of Child and Family Studies23128143https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9699-5 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Vanassche, S., Sodermans, A. K., Matthijs, K., & Swicegood, G. (2013). The effects of family type, family relationships and parental role models on deliquency and alcohol use among flemish adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 128-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9699-5 # NODO element-citation[1] VanasscheS. SodermansA. K. MatthijsK. SwicegoodG. 2013The effects of family type, family relationships and parental role models on deliquency and alcohol use among flemish adolescentsJournal of Child and Family Studies23128143https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9699-5 # NODO ref[1]Van Wyk, J. A., Benson, M. L., Fox, G. L., & DeMaris, A. (2003). Detangling individual-partner-, and community-level correlates of partner violence. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 412-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703049003004 Van WykJ. A. BensonM. L. FoxG. L. DeMarisA. 2003Detangling individual-partner-, and community-level correlates of partner violence.Crime and Delinquency49412438https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703049003004 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Van Wyk, J. A., Benson, M. L., Fox, G. L., & DeMaris, A. (2003). Detangling individual-partner-, and community-level correlates of partner violence. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 412-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703049003004 # NODO element-citation[1] Van WykJ. A. BensonM. L. FoxG. L. DeMarisA. 2003Detangling individual-partner-, and community-level correlates of partner violence.Crime and Delinquency49412438https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703049003004 # NODO ref[1]Walsh, Z., Swogger, M. T., O?Connor, B. P., Schonbrum, Y. Ch., Shea, M. T., & Stuart, G. L. (2010). Subtypes of partner violence perpetrators among male and female psychiatric patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 563-574. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019858 WalshZ. SwoggerM. T. O?ConnorB. P. SchonbrumY. Ch. SheaM. T. StuartG. L. 2010Subtypes of partner violence perpetrators among male and female psychiatric patients.Journal of Abnormal Psychology119563574https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019858 # NODO mixed-citation[1]Walsh, Z., Swogger, M. T., O?Connor, B. P., Schonbrum, Y. Ch., Shea, M. T., & Stuart, G. L. (2010). Subtypes of partner violence perpetrators among male and female psychiatric patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 563-574. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019858 # NODO element-citation[1] WalshZ. SwoggerM. T. O?ConnorB. P. SchonbrumY. Ch. SheaM. T. StuartG. L. 2010Subtypes of partner violence perpetrators among male and female psychiatric patients.Journal of Abnormal Psychology119563574https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019858 # NODO ref[1]World Health Organization (2002). World report on violence and health. Washington, DC: Author. World Health Organization 2002World report on violence and healthWashington, DCAuthor # NODO mixed-citation[1]World Health Organization (2002). World report on violence and health. Washington, DC: Author. # NODO element-citation[1] World Health Organization 2002World report on violence and healthWashington, DCAuthor # NODO ref[1]World Health Organization (2016). Violence against women: Intimate partner and sexual violence against women. Retrieved fromhttp:// www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/ World Health Organization 2016Violence against women: Intimate partner and sexual violence against womenhttp:// www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/ # NODO mixed-citation[1]World Health Organization (2016). Violence against women: Intimate partner and sexual violence against women. Retrieved fromhttp:// www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/ # NODO ext-link[1]http:// www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/ # NODO element-citation[1] World Health Organization 2016Violence against women: Intimate partner and sexual violence against womenhttp:// www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/ # NODO fn-group[1]Funding: Support for this research was provided by FEDER funds from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO-17-PSI2016-77484-P), the Severo Ochoa scholarship (BP13134 and BP14153) from the Foundation for the Promotion of Applied Scientific Research and Technology in Asturias (FICYT, Asturias, Spain), and the assistance for pre-doctoral contracts for Teacher Training University (FPU 13/04310) from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (Spain). *** INFO NodeName: #text - Type: 3 - Value: *** OUTPUT ARTICLE
Introduction

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) against women is a widespread problem that affects all societies and cultures. In Europe, estimates are that 22% of women have suffered physical and/or sexual partner violence since the age of 15 (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - FRA, 2014) and most of these IPV cases occurred while being in an intimate relationship. More recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) (2016)has indicated that 30% of women worldwide have suffered physical and/or sexual IPV. As for psychological IPV, more than 30% of women have experienced this form of violence by her current or a previous partner and 43% of women suffered psychological behaviors like controlling, economic violence and blackmail (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - FRA, 2014).

While IPV against women is a rather complex topic of study that needs probably to be addressed from multiple views, the last decades have witnessed an increasing interest in the study of the characteristics of aggressors. The study of typologies of IPV against women is a good example of this approach (Capaldi & Kim 2007;Logan, Walker, & Leukefeld 2001). Thus, many studies have examined different types of male perpetrators of intimate partner violence against women (Cavanaugh & Gelles 2005;Fowler & Westen 2011;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Ross & Babcock, 2009;Walsh et al. 2010) being the typology of male batterers established byHoltzworth -Munroe and Stuart (1994; see also Holtzworth-Munroe & Meehan, 2004;Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart 2003) one of the most influential. These authors studied male batterers on three dimensions (severity of marital violence, generality of the violence, and psychopathology or personality disorder) and the typology that they proposed comprised three types of batterers: (a) family only batterer, (b) dysphoric or borderline batterer, and (c) generally violent or antisocial batterer (see alsoDutton, 1988;Saunders, 1992). More recently,Cavanough and Gelles (2005) andFowler and Westen (2011)proposed two typologies with similar characteristics to that ofHoltzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994 ).Cavanough and Gelles (2005) used three dimensions - (a) severity and frequency of the violence,

(b) criminal history, and (c) psychopathology level - to identify three types of male batterers: (a) low risk offenders, (b) medium risk offenders, and (c) high risk offenders. In the same vein,Fowler and Westen (2011) differentiated three subtypes of batterers: (a) subtype 1 or psychopathic, (b) subtype 2 or hostile/controlling, and (c) subtype 3 or borderline/dependent.

Batterers in Prison

Overall, research on male batterers have suggested that in most cases of severe IPV against women male aggressors were also generally violent beyond the family realm (Cavanough & Gelles, 2005;Fowler & Westen, 2011;Gondolf, 1988;Hamberger, Lohn, Bonge, & Tonlin, 1996;Harris, Hilton, & Rice, 2011;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). AsHerrero, Torres, Fern?ndez-Su?rez, & Rodr?guez-D?az (2016) have recently suggested, however, the fact that severe IPV against women is overrepresented in penitentiary-based samples of male batterers might lead to a lack of representativeness of the less violent batterer. To overcome this limitation, they proposed a typology that incorporates male batterers? criminal history and identified two types of convicted male batterers: generalist and specialist batterers. Generalist batterers had a long and varied criminal history that also included IPV against women among other offenses, while specialist batterers had exclusively offenses related with IPV against women. In their study,Herrero, Torres et al. (2016)linked their typology to the debate about the etiology of IPV and general violence.

On the one hand, several researchers (Dutton, 1988;Felson, 2006;Felson & Lane, 2010;Moffit, Krueger, Caspi, & Fagan, 2000) have suggested that IPV might be explained by general theories of violence and aggression. For instance, IPV perpetrators and other offenders with criminal behavior non-related to IPV seem to be similar (Felson & Lane, 2010;Herrero, Torres, Rodr?guez, & Juarros- Basterretxea, 2017;Kiss, Schraider, Hossain, Watts, & Zimmerman, 2015). In fact, heterogeneous and long criminal history has been found in IPV batterers (Cavanough & Gelles, 2005;Fowler & Westen, 2011;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Piquero, Theobald, & Farrington, 2014) and both types of offense seem to be related to early antisocial behavior (seeHilton, Harris, & Rice, 2001). Typologies typically label this intimate partner batterer who commit other illegal acts as generally violent or antisocial batterer (Logan et al., 2001; see alsoHoltzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Shield, McCall, & Hanneke, 1988). These generally violent batterers or generalist batterers represent a sizable group of the total of imprisoned batterers (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), in accordance with theHoltzworth-Munroe and Stuart?s (1994)suggestion that generally violent or antisocial batterers will be mainly present in prison.

On the other hand, there is also research empirically supporting the gender perspective on IPV against women.Thomas, Dichter, and Matejkowski (2011) observed differences between intimate partner murder offenders and non-intimate partner murder offenders. Specifically, intimate partner murder offenders were more socially integrated and used fatal violence to satisfy emotional aspects in contrast to non-intimate partner murderers whose violence seemed to be rather instrumental. Furthermore, they seemed to differ in marital status, history of severe mental illness, and motives (Thomas et al., 2011). Likewise,Swogger, Walsh, and Kosson (2007) compared antisocial batterers with other antisocial criminals that did not perpetrate IPV against women and found a different profile in affective experience, impulsivity, and irresponsibility.

The Current Research

Drawing both from the debate on the etiology of general violence and male IPV against women (seeBouffard & Zedaker, 2016;Felson, 2006;Felson & Lane 2010;Hilton & Eke 2016;Moffit et al., 2000) as well as from recent findings on batterers typologies in prison (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), the present study sought to answer the following research question: Do male batterers with other criminal offenses (generalist batterers) differ from other violent offenders without a criminal record of IPV against women? We hypothesize that if the IPV perpetrated by GB and general violence have a common etiology, GB and GEVM will not differ in individual, familiar, and community variables.

Using data of convicted male offenders from the Penitentiary Center of Villabona (Asturias, Spain), the objectives of the present study were twofold: a) to explore the distribution of generalist batterers against women and common violent criminals without an IPV criminal record and b) to analyze their individual, family of origin, and community characteristics, seeing violence as a multidimensional phenomenon with multiples causes at different levels (seeBronfenbrenner, 1977;WHO 2002).

As for the individual characteristics of offenders we analyzed personality, sexist attitudes, and alcohol and drug dependence. Personality has been linked to both general criminal behavior (Davison & Janca, 2012;Ehrensaft, Cohen, & Johnson, 2006) and IPV against women (Capaldi & Kim, 2007;Mauricio, Tein, & L?pez, 2007). As for the influence of sexist attitudes toward women, there is empirical evidence suggesting that they are an important risk factor to understand IPV against women (Ali & Naylor, 2013). Finally, different studies show that substance and alcohol use and abuse are important factors related with general violence and IPV (Fagan, 1990;Feingold, Kerr, & Capaldi, 2008;Golinelli, Longshore, & Wenzel, 2009; Kretschmar & Flannery, 2007;Lisco, Parrot, & Tharp, 2012;Reingle, Jennings, Connel, Businelle, & Chartier, 2014;Rothman, McNaughton, Johnson, & LaValley, 2012;Smith, Homish, Leonard, & Cornelius, 2012).

Family of origin characteristics have also been regarded to both IPV against women (Ehrensaft et al., 2003) as well as to general violence (Fagan, 2005;Farrington, 2003;LeBlanc, 2005). Several studies of IPV focused their attention on family of origin of batterers, taking in account parental skills, educational models, socioeconomic level, or presence of abuse from parents (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016). In the present study family of origin variables were family climate and family functioning.

Empirical evidence suggests that contextual factors also influence IPV against women (Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012). Thus, disadvantaged communities may influence IPV (Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012;Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, 2003) but also general violence (O?Brien & Sampson, 2015;Markowitz, Bellair, Liska, & Liu, 2001). In this sense, community social disorder, community participation and community integration were community context variables in the present study. These are characteristics of disadvantaged communities (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016) which might be related with IPV against women and violence in general.

To better control for potentially biased responses in sensitive topics such as IPV (Bell & Naugle, 2007;Caetano, Schafer, Field, & Nelson, 2002;Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005;Saunders, 1991;Sugarman & Hotaling, 1997;Van de Mortel, 2008) we included a measure of social desirability in the study.

Method

Participants

Participants of the study were 153 men imprisoned in the Penitentiary of Villabona (Asturias, Spain). Using information from criminal and justice official records, two types of imprisoned men were identified. The first group consisted of generalist batterers (GB), defined as those men who commit IPV against women as well as other varied criminal history (seeHerrero, Torres et al., 2016). The second group consisted of those imprisoned violent offenders with a varied criminal history that not included IPV against women (Geneally Extra-family Violent Men - GEVM). GB were significantly older (M = 36.48, SD = 9.39) than GEVM (M = 32.21, SD = 9.35) (F = 7.586, p = .007, h2= .049). Marital status for both groups was mainly single (48.80% and 65.10% respectively) or divorced/separated (30.20% and 19% respectively). Minor differences were found in the marital status of the two groups, but it lacked statistical significance (c2= 4.001, p = .135). Most participants perceived themselves of middle class (GB = 69.77%, GEVM = 65.67%) (ns), and had primary (GB = 50%, GEVM = 55.22%) or secondary (GB = 34.88%, GEVM = 25.37%) studies at the most (ns).

Procedure

The researchers approached the governmental and penitentiary authorities and explained the study objectives in order to obtain permission to evaluate inmates on a set of variables. After official access was granted, the researchers identified voluntary participants and obtained informed consent from them to take part in the study. Different sources of information were used for this study. Specifically, judicial and penitentiary reports were used to obtain information about the criminal history of participants. This included information about socio-demographic variables as well as the complete record of arrests and imprisonments for each participant. Also, different self-report measures were used to evaluate the personal, family, and community contexts of participants.

Variables

Outcome variable. Based on criminal trajectory (see below), participants were divided into two groups: generalist batterers (GB; 56.2%) and generally extra-familiar violent men (GEVM; 43.8%). GB were characterized by a versatile criminal history, which included IPV against women, while GEVM had a history of criminal violence which not included IPV against women.

Criminal trajectory variables. The most frequent offenses committed by GB as well as GEVM were crimes against property (81% and 73.3% respectively). Both groups showed similar rates of other different offenses such as homicide, injuries, crimes against liberty and against privacy, among others. Furthermore, information about age of first non-sanctioned offense, age of first arrest and age of first imprisonment was retrieved from interviews and official records. GB and GEVM participants showed a similar onset of criminal behavior as can be seen both by the age of first non-sanctioned offense (GB, M = 13.53, SD = 6.78; GEVM, M = 13.93, SD = 6.56; F = .134, p = .715), the age of first arrest (GB, M = 19.21, SD = 6.56; GEVM, M = 18.32, SD = 5.98; F = 545, p =.461) as well as the age of first imprisonment (GB, M = 27.70, SD = 9.70; GEVM, M = 25.10, SD = 8.09; F = 3.005, p =.085). Length of criminal trajectory was measured as the time lapse between age of first non-sanctioned offense and actual age (i.e., subtracting age of first offense from actual age), being GB?s criminal trajectory longest than GEVM?s (GB, M = 17.08, SD = 9.91; GEVM, M = 13.89, SD = 8.55; F = 4.201, p = .042).

Biased responses. As response bias consisting in the adoption of positive characteristics (faking good) to portray themselves in a favorable light to get prison benefits and/or parole must be suspected in prison evaluation setting (Arce, Fari?a, Seijo, & Novo, 2015), a psychometric measurement of social desirability was obtained from participants to control its effects as a covariate. As for this, psychometric approach is valid and preferable than a clinical approach (Arce, Fari?a, & Vilari?o, 2015). The Social Desirability Scale (a = .80) of the Spanish adaptation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) (Cardenal & S?nchez, 2007;Millon, 1997;Millon, Davis, & Millon, 2007) was used to control biased responses.

Intimate relationship variable. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale?s (CTS-2) Psychological Aggression Subscale (a = .88) (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was used to measure levels of psychological IPV against women in participants.

Individual Variables

Personality. The Spanish adaptation of MCMI-III was used to detect personality disorders (Axis II) (Cardenal & S?nchez 2007;Millon, 1997;Millon et al., 2007). Specifically, Histrionic (17 items, a = .80), Narcissistic (24 items, a = .70), Antisocial (17 items, a = .76), and Borderline (16 items, a = .82) scales were used in this study. Means and standard deviations for each scale and study group are presented inTable 1.

Substances use and abuse. Alcohol (15 items, a = .71) and Substance Dependence (14 items, a = .80) scales from the Spanish adaptation of Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) were used. Means and standard deviations for each scale and group are presented inTable 1.

Sexism. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1999 ) was used to evaluate sexist attitudes. It includes 22 items and measures both Hostile (a = .85) and Benevolent Sexism (a = .82). All of the items were rated on a five-point scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Means and standard deviations for each scale and group are presented inTable 1.

Family of Origin Variables

Family climate. The Family Relationship Index (Moos & Moos, 1994) was used to measure the quality of social relationships in the family environment. It measures cohesion (a = .91), expressiveness (a = .81) and conflict (a = .83). Means and Standard Deviations for each group are presented inTable 2.

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Individual Variables

Family functioning. The APGAR scale was used to assess participants? perception of family functioning (Smilkstein, 1978). It is a five 3-point items scale of family functioning (Adaptability, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve) with responses ranging from 1 (hardly ever) to 3 (almost always). In the present study, a summed-up scale score was used. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach?s a = .92). Means and standard deviations for the scale in each group of batterers are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Family Variables

Community variables

Community social disorder. Three items about the frequency of crime (fight, weapons, robbery, etc.), presence of drug traffic, and nightlife in the community (see Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Herrero & Gracia, 2005) were used to measure community social disorder. Item responses raged on five-point scale from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Internal consistency was adequate (a = .85). Means and standard deviations in each group are presented in Table 3.

Community integration and participation. The Community Integration and Community Participation Scales (a = .82 and a = .81 respectively) of the Perceived Community Support Questionnaire (Herrero & Gracia, 2007) were used to measure sense of belonging and identification as well as participation in social activities in the Community. Category responses ranged from 1 - strongly agree - to 5 - strongly disagree. Both scales have shown adequate psychometric characteristics and predictive validity (Herrero & Gracia, 2007; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016). Means and standard deviations in each group are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences on Community Variables

Data Analyses

We first conducted two-step cluster analysis of The Psychological Aggression Scale scores. This technique is appropriate to find the number of groups that better account for the sample distribution of participants across the scores of Psychological Aggression. We also conducted multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) to test for differences in criminal history between the two groups: age of first nonsanctioned offense, age of first arrest, and age of first imprisonment.

Finally, we conducted separate multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) to test for differences across groups in individual, family, and community dependent variables. Social desirability was included as a covariate in all the models tested. Dependent variables were grouped in a theoretically meaningful way: personality (cluster B), substance abuse, sexism, family of origin, and community. Table 5 presents a summary of MANCOVA results.

Results

Results of bi-step cluster analysis showed that according to their scores on Psychological Aggression participants belonged to any of two groups (see Table 4): low (M = 4.49, SD = 4.61) and high psychological aggressio (M = 24.47, SD = 7.69). As expected, most of participants in the High Psychological Aggression Group belonged to the group of GB (68.8%), suggesting that GB participants were involved in IPV against women to a greater extent than GEVM (31.1%). This relationship was statistically significant according to the chisquared test (c2 = 4.334, p = .037, j = -.17).

Table 4

Pearson?s Chi-square Test between Study Groups and Clusters

Results of MANOVAs carried out to analyze the differences in the criminal trajectory of participants showed that GBs and GEVM did not differ

5 in age of first non-sanctioned crime, age of first arrest, nor age of first imprisonment (Wilk?s Lambda = .975, F3, 142 =1.198, p = .313, h2 = .025).

Results from MANCOVAs did not show statistical significance, suggesting that GB and GEVM scored similarly on the individual, family, and community dependent variables (see Table 5).

Table 5

Summary of MANCOVA?s Means on Individual, Family of Origin, and Community Characteristics

Discussion

In the present study, a comparison between two groups of violent inmates was carried out. Participants were 153 imprisoned men from the Penitentiary Center of Villabona (Asturias, Spain) belonging to two groups: the first group was comprised by generalist batterers who had heterogeneous and long violent criminal history which included IPV against women (generalist batterers -GB) (see Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), and the second group comprised generally extrafamily violent men (GEVM), who had heterogeneous and long violent criminal history which did not include IPV against women. GB had common characteristics and similarities with other types of batterers proposed in other typologies: generally violent or antisocial batterer (Holztworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994), subtype I or psychopathic partner-violent men (Fowler & Westen, 2011), high-risk offenders (Cavanough & Gelles, 2005), or type II antisocial batterer (Gondolf, 1988) among others. Our research sought to analyze both the distribution of batterers among generally violent inmate population and their potentially different individual, family, and community characteristics (see Moffit & Caspi, 1999).

Regarding to the first objective, GB and GEVM group sizes were similar (n = 86 vs. n = 67), indicating that more than a half of generally violent inmates of the study had a versatile criminal history which comprised IPV against women as well as other violent crimes (see also Bouffard & Zedaker, 2016). These results give support to the idea that general violence and IPV might have a common etiology (Felson, 2006; Felson & Lane, 2010; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Moffit et al., 2000).

Next, we explored the criminal history as well as sociodemographic, individual, family of origin, and community variables for each group. GB and GEVM participants showed a criminal trajectory of violence (the most frequent crimes in both groups were crimes against property, more than 73%). We could not find any statistical differences between the two groups in their criminal trajectory, including age of first offense, age of first arrest, and age of first imprisonment. Taking into account the length of criminal trajectory, results showed that criminal trajectory of GB was longer than GEVM?s. In this sense, other research has suggested that for some generally violent men criminal trajectory starts victimizing non-intimates, but progressively includes family member (like partner) among their victims (Shield et al., 1988), and it seems that long criminal trajectories increased the odds of criminal violence as well as IPV (Piquero et al., 2014).

As for the individual characteristics, GB and GEVM did not differ in personality characteristics, nor substance and alcohol dependence, nor ambivalent sexism. Antisocial, histrionic, borderline, and narcissist personality have been related with violence in general, IPV against women (Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005; Fowler & Westen, 2011; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Kiwi & Sadeghi, 2015; Peters, Derefinko, & Lynam, 2016; Ru?z-Hern?ndez, Garc?a-Jim?nez, Llor-Esteban, & Godoy-Fern?ndez, 2015; Stef?nsson & Hesse, 2008; Theobald, Farrington, Coid, & Piquero, 2015) and reoffending (Kiwi & Sadeghi, 2015). According to this, our results suggest that personality characteristics do not allow to differentiate between types of criminal offenders: GB and GEVM participants showed a similar personality profile.

Further, drug and/or alcohol abuse and dependence have been traditionally linked to general violence (Fagan, 1990; Kretschmar & Flannery, 2007) and IPV against women (see Gondolf, 1988; Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Shield et al., 1988; Saunders, 1992), which is consistent with our finding that both GB and GEVM participants showed similar levels of alcohol and substance abuse and dependence.

We also found in our study that levels of sexist attitudes toward women were similar across groups of offenders. Although this finding might challenge, research showing that more sexist, misogynistic, traditional, and gender rigid attitudes are related to IPV against women (Allen, Swan, & Raghavan, 2009; Flood & Pease, 2009), empirical research on male batterers have consistently found that antisocial/generally violent batterers show the highest levels of hostility toward women (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016; Holtwortz-Munroe & Stewart, 1994). Also, evidence from general population studies indicates that more violent individuals might also hold hostile attitudes toward women (Herrero, Rodr?guez, & Torres, 2016) as compared to less violent individuals.

The same tendency emerged when GB and GEVM participants were compared in their family characteristics: we could not find any significant statistical difference in family functioning and family climate (cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict) across groups. These results are in line with empirical evidence showing that the family environment is related to general violence (Fagan, 2013; Flannery, Singer, Van Dulmen, Kretschmar, & Belliston, 2007; L?ng & Birk?s, 2014; Meldrum, Connolly, Flexon, & Guerette, 2015; Vanassche, Sodermans, Matthijs, & Swicegood, 2013). Our findings further suggest that dysfunctions in family of origin might be unrelated to IPV against women beyond its influence on general violence. We cannot conclude, however, that family dysfunctions are unrelated to IPV against women as there is research showing, for instance, that specialist batterers (i.e., only involved in IPV-related offenses) tend to show greater levels of conflict in their family of origin than generally violent or generalists batterers (Herrero, Torres et al., 2016).

Finally, regarding community variables, GB and GEVM participants showed the same levels of community social disorder, and community integration and participation. Herrero, Torres et al. (2016) have recently showed in their study of generalist and specialist batterers that those with a more versatile criminal history refer highest levels of social disorder and lowest levels of integration and participation in their communities. In this sense, results from our study indicated that disadvantaged communities and community integration and participation are related to general violence but do not seem to distinguish among those violent offenders who also commit IPV against women.

Strengths and Limitations

The current study present strengths and potential limitations. Among the strengths are the characteristics of participants and the control of potential response bias. As for the participants, violent offenses and/or IPV against women were identified from information provided by official records, so we might be confident about the presence of general violence and IPV against women in each participant. This circumstance alleviates the problem of identification of both violent individuals and batterers through the use of self-report measures that might probably be affected of recall bias. As compared to self-reported information about criminal history, official records have the advantage of objectivity and lack of social desirability and dishonesty of inmates. When self-report measures were used in the study, however, additional statistical controls were undertaken to obtain more accurate estimates. Thus, the use of the social desirability measure in the statistical analyses might have helped to identified true statistical relationships in our study.

Participants in the study were not representative of the inmate population, so we should be cautious about generalization of results. For instance, the true distribution of GB and GEVM participants in the population is unknown, so we are unsure whether the existence of generally violent batterers is rather unusual among the inmate population or not. Given that the existence of this group of batterers is key to understand the relationship between general violence and IPV against women, future research with representative samples should be undertaken to ascertain if the size of this group is relevant in the population. Available empirical evidence, however, suggest that a sizable proportion of male batterers in prison committed also non-IPV violent offenses (Felson & Lane, 2010;Herrero, Torres et al., 2016), so the classification used in this study seems tenable.

Related to this, the classification of participants with regard to the types of committed offenses might have affected group stability. At first, categorization of inmates as GB or GEVM was based on official records, allowing that participants with not sanctioned IPV offenses were misclassified in the GEVM group. To overcome this potential problem, final categorization was done including self-reported IPV perpetrations disclosed during the interview. Despite the fact that few inmates admitted that they occasionally committed acts of violence that can be categorized as IPV, other inmates might have concealed similar behaviors to the interviewer. In this sense, the limitation of the existence of undetected IPV was mitigated, but not completely ruled out.

References

Copyright © 2018. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid

 
© Copyright 2018. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid ContactPrivacy PolicyCookies Policy

We use our own and third­party cookies. The data we compile is analysed to improve the website and to offer more personalized services. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more information, see our cookies policy

Aceptar
h**a**