Bonem, Stanley-Kime, and Corbin 2008

A Behavioral Approach to Understanding Domestic Violence:

A Functional Assessment Based on Batterer-Identified Contingencies
Marilyn Bonem*, Karen L. Stanley-Kime, and Michelle Corbin
Eastern Michigan University

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to introduce a new Battering Assessment Tool (BAT) consisting of 54 antecedents and
57 reinforcing or nonreinforcing consequences that is designed to assess contingencies based on self-report data and
potentially assist in the behavior modification of domestic violence perpetrators and victims. The voluntary
participants were 70 male and 3 female perpetrators of domestic violence who were court ordered to participate in a
treatment program. Participants filled out the BAT during one session in their treatment program. General findings
indicate diversity in batterer-identified antecedents and consequences to domestic violence situations, which may
suggest the need to reconsider current expected pathologies of batterers and instead utilize behavioral assessments to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

understand individual contingencies maintaining domestic violence. Keywords: domestic violence, behavioral
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

assessment, partner abuse, battered female

Though the acceptability of violent behavior
within relationships has varied with each society’s
judgments, domestic violence has existed worldwide
for as long as family units have existed; cultural
norms, religions, and public officials throughout
history have encouraged a husband’s “right” to abuse
his wife at his discretion as a means of punishment
and correction for alleged misbehavior. It was not
until the nineteenth century that laws emerged in
Britain and the United States that labeled domestic
violence, often perpetrated by the male partner, as
deviant behavior that violates social norms and is
subject to legal sanctions (Dobash & Dobash, 1978).
As noted in Atwood and Olsen (1996), public
concern for the safety of women and children in
violent situations reached a peak in the 1960s and
1970s, partially due to increased awareness of
women’s rights advocated in the feminist movement.
This national attention encouraged research on the
causes of domestic violence; the examination of the
issue in public policy; and psychological treatments
to alter destructive thought processes and behavior in
batterers.
As the secrecy of domestic violence was
expelled, estimates of national prevalence began to
reveal the true picture of the pervasiveness of such
behavior. The current estimated incidence of
domestic violence varies widely depending on the
source reporting the statistics, methods used to
collect data and the definition of what constitutes
domestic violence. A 2000 report published by the
National Institute of Justice and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention stated that, based on
telephone interviews of 16,000 men and women,
* Corresponding Author Contact: 537 Mark
Jefferson, Psychology Department, Eastern
Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197;
mbonem@emich.edu; fax#: (734) 487-6553; phone:
(734) 487-0103
approximately 25% of surveyed women and 7% of
surveyed men experienced rape or physical assault by
a partner in their lifetime. Based on the survey data,
the estimated annual number of victims of domestic
violence in the United States is 1.5 million women
and 834,732 men (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).
Despite the prevalence of domestic violence and the
abundance of domestic violence research, there has
been remarkably little systematic analysis of the
events that predict episodes of domestic violence
(Dobash & Dobash, 1984).
There is, however, a notably large body of
research that examines the relationship between
domestic violence and the functioning of the family
unit and its individual members. Children who
witness domestic violence are subject to a host of
problems and may become active participants in
domestic violence as adults. As research by
Rosenbaum and Leisring (2003) suggests, batterers
are more likely to come from a home in which
interparental violence occurred, lending support to
the theory that violent behavior in relationships is
learned through observation. Partner abusive men in
this sample (n = 118) were more likely to report
seeing their fathers drunk and witnessing the abuse of
their mothers than a general population comparison
group of men (n = 149). In addition, the partner
abusive men reported more childhood fights, more
police involvement, more instances of being beaten
by their mothers, and infrequent loving or caring acts
initiated by the parents. This and other studies seem
to suggest that the dysfunctional home life created or
perpetuated by domestic violence predicts long-term
effects on children, even increasing the likelihood
that they will become batterers themselves. Besides
elevated aggression and conduct problems,
Cummings and Davis (1994) reported that other
effects of domestic violence on children include

JOBA-OVTP 209 Volume 1, Issue 2

 The Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention
childhood psychopathology, depression, and anxiety
(as cited in Rosenbaum & Leisring, 2003).
The effects of domestic violence on the
batterer’s victim disrupt all aspects of a victim’s life,
jeopardizing social, psychological, and physical
health. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in this
population is a serious problem according to a 1999
report by Golding (as cited in Laffaye & Kennedy,
2003), which estimated that the mean prevalence of
PTSD among female victims of domestic violence
was 63.8%. A study by Laffaye and Kennedy (2003)
examined self-reported quality of life in female
victims of domestic violence and found that those
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder reported
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
significantly more impairment in physical
functioning, social functioning, and mental health,
among other impacted areas of life. As one might
expect, however, all victims of domestic violence in
this study reported a lower quality of life than non-
abused women, regardless of PTSD diagnosis. As
noted in a literature review by El-Mouelhy (2004),
physical problems related to domestic violence
include the physical damage done by the violent acts,
chronic headaches, sleep and eating disorders,
abdominal pain, and irritable bowel. These physical
problems are in addition to the increased risk of
depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts and attempts,
medical costs, and lost wages as a result of time taken
off work to recover from an abusive episode.
In an attempt to address the array of issues
that domestic violence presents, several interventions
have been developed, focusing on both the
psychological well-being of the victim as well as the
behavior of the batterer. In focusing on the victim,
interventions have attempted to achieve one or both
of two goals: physical safety and psychological well-
being. Though a victim safety plan, for example, is
not a treatment aimed either at eliminating violence
within the relationship or reducing the victim’s
consequential psychological symptoms, it remains a
popular means of empowering the victim to protect
herself by drawing upon available resources. A
safety plan is essentially designed to give the victim a
predetermined set of people, locations, and actions
that can be utilized in case of imminent abusive
situations or as a long term plan to terminate the
relationship. The safety plan theoretically provides a
necessary escape for the victim; however, in many
cases, failure to implement the plan for a variety of
reasons, perhaps due to fear of possible retaliation of
the batterer or economic dependency on the batterer,
ultimately keeps the victim in the abusive
relationship and prevents an end to the pattern of
violence (Palermo, 2004).
Treatment strategies directed toward
ameliorating the devastating psychological damage
JOBA-OVTP
2008
resulting from partner violence have also been tested,
most often involving cognitive behavioral therapy
(CBT). A review by Jones, Hughes, and Unterstaller
(2001) attempted to examine the limited literature on
treatment of domestic-violence-related PTSD to
determine the most effective treatment strategy for
victims, among other goals. CBT treatments were
noted to be the most recommended and empirically
supported methods of treatment in the literature;
suggested therapies include stress management and
stress inoculation, skill and problem solving training,
and cognitive restructuring. Although the authors do
not explicitly state the absence of exposure-based
treatment, it is assumed that CBT intervention
effective with the population of domestic abuse
victims includes only non-exposure-based treatments.
The possible effectiveness of exposure-based
therapies will be briefly discussed in the next
paragraph. The studies mentioned in the review
indicate that the focus of therapy for victims is
largely on changing behavioral symptoms incurred as
a result of the violence rather than on determining
psychological factors that may have led a victim to
the abusive relationship. This approach is notably
different from the treatment of batterers, who, as
discussed below, frequently receive treatment that
focuses on psychological problems that encourage
abuse.
In an extensive literature review of
controlled studies for PTSD, Foa and Meadows
(1997) categorized treatments used with a variety of
populations as psychodynamic, psychosocial, or
cognitive behavioral. Psychodynamic treatments,
focusing on catharsis and reducing denial, lacked
systematic studies validating effectiveness.
Psychosocial treatment includes the use of hypnosis
to address trauma-related distress, which was found
by limited methodological studies to somewhat
relieve the symptoms of PTSD. CBT treatments
such as exposure, eye movement desensitization,
anxiety management, and cognitive restructuring are
again noted as the most studied treatments and have
generally been found to be effective in PTSD
treatment. Specific to the treatment of trauma
induced by sexual abuse, the authors reviewed
several studies that suggested the effectiveness of
prolonged exposure and the possible effectiveness of
cognitive processing therapy. The degree to which
the treatments that are most effective with PTSD in
these other populations would be as effective with
victims of domestic violence has not been
determined. Because most effective interventions for
PTSD are extinction-based, we cannot assume
effectiveness with women battered by intimate
partners due to the fact that these treatments rely on
establishing safety, a difficult task with domestic
210 Volume 1, Issue 2
 Bonem, Stanley-Kime, and Corbin
violence given that the victim may currently be in the
abusive relationship.
Treatment for battering behavior has also
yielded few promising results. Since the introduction
of narrowly-focused treatment programs for batterers
in the mid-1970s, treatment methods for batterers
have developed into a group therapy approach that
employs multiple intervention techniques. For
example, the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention
Project, introduced in the early 1980s, was developed
with the rationale that the cause of domestic violence
involves a need for power and control in the
relationship; thus, a major goal of the program is to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
help batterers identify methods of obtaining power
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and control over their partners and then examining
how these methods lead to violent behavior. In
addition, batterers purportedly learn to take
responsibility for abusive behavior and to recognize
the effects that violence has on all those involved.
The batterers learn to verbalize appropriate and
nonabusive responses and are expected to replace
destructive habits with these new behaviors (Gerlock,
1997). Although this seems to be a reasonably
logical premise for treatment, research has shown
that the Duluth model has failed to create consistent
behavior change in batterers. In a meta-analytic
review of 22 quasi-experimental and experimental
studies evaluating treatments of domestic violence,
Babcock, Green, and Robie (2004) found little effect
on reducing domestic assault.
Cognitive behavior therapy, frequently
implemented for the treatment of battering behavior,
focuses not only on correcting the verbal mediators
of violent behavior but also on the functional aspects
of behavior. Representative of CBT approaches to
this problem, Hamberger and Lohr (1989) describe
how past conditioning and generalization come to
play in “language conditioning processes” for
batterers. Their theory speculates about an
underlying cognitive mechanism of classical
conditioning; for example, the batterer’s continued
name-calling of his partner in times when he feels
upset by her actions eventually becomes his
permanent label for her, even when she objectively
has done nothing to anger him. This negative
emotional state the batterer develops toward the
victim leaves the batterer with persistently aversive
feelings, both emotional and physical. He then must
eventually act on the situation in an attempt to reduce
these feelings, and he will typically act in a way that
has been immediately reinforcing to him in previous
situations, perhaps using violence for immediate
relief. Language is, therefore, used as a vehicle for
violent behavior that is often labeled by the batterer
as “out of his control.” Thus, Hamberger and Lohr’s
model is essentially a two factor theory involving
JOBA-OVTP 211
2008
both classical and operant explanations of the
battering behavior. The cognitive behavior therapy
derived from this model seeks to change the thought
patterns and the resulting behavior of the batterer,
though no relationship between the two has been
empirically demonstrated. Because much time is
spent correcting dysfunctional attitudes and verbal
statements, the occurrence of which is not
documented empirically, there is frequently too little
time devoted to modification of battering behavior.
In addition, this model seems to emphasize domestic
violence as a problem of anger or stress management,
which may lead to a narrow treatment approach that
is inappropriate for some batterers. This may explain
the fact that, like the Duluth model, CBT produced
only small effect sizes (Babcock, Green, and Robie,
2004).
In summary, neither the Duluth model nor
CBT have produced outcomes consistent with
durable behavior change in batterers outside of the
therapeutic context. Referring to both therapies, it
was found that “treatment had a significant yet small
impact on the cessation of domestic assault”
(Babcock, Green, and Robie, 2004, p. 1042).
Recidivism rates, as measured by partner or police
report, were only marginally reduced as a result of
treatment when compared to men who had not
received treatment. In addition, there was no
significant difference in effect size between Duluth
and CBT models. The lack of remarkable differences
between the success of the Duluth model and CBT is
a finding that the authors attribute to the tendency to
mix elements of different theoretical approaches so
that all approaches eventually comprise many of the
same treatment techniques. Though treatments such
as the Duluth model and CBT do produce some effect
on batterers, improvements are needed and it is
premature for states to mandate the exclusive use of
any one type of treatment given the lack of
empirically-based superiority of any treatment.
Whatever the method of treatment for
batterers, be it in a group setting or individual
therapy, the thoughts and mental state of the batterer
are of primary concern. In an attempt to classify
batterers and distinguish their violent behavior from
the behavior of other men, many different personality
typologies, including sociopathic, dysphoric, and
antisocial, have emerged in the literature on domestic
violence (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Tweed
& Dutton, 1998; Huss, 2001), though little empirical
evidence supports any one personality type of men
who batter (Gondolf, 2004; O’Leary, 1999) or
provides evidence that batterers exhibit clinically
significant characteristics associated with personality
disorders compared to men who do not batter (Huss,
2001; Porcerelli, Cogan, & Hibbard, 2004). Men
Volume 1, Issue 2
 The Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention
with antisocial personality disorder, for example, are
thought to use violence impulsively as a method of
obtaining power or solving problems in the
relationship. However, as the failure of the Duluth
model may indicate, rigid thought patterns
characteristic of such a personality disorder, if such a
disorder is indeed present in a batterer, are very
resistant to change, which may explain the failure of
some programs that are lacking in terms of intensity
and duration. Indeed, in O’Leary’s (1999)
examination of the correlates of physical aggression
in relationships, the author affirms the possibility of
personality disorders in batterers and the difficulty of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
altering such resulting traits. However, he also states
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
that, due to the lack of a single personality profile of
batterers and the presence of other correlational
factors, treatments addressing the need for power and
control may not be appropriate for all perpetrators.
Gondolf’s (1988) study advocated the use of
behavioral typologies of batterers rather than the
commonly used personality typologies to avoid the
shortcomings of personality assessments in this
population, including methodological issues that arise
when assessing samples of perpetrators and
researcher interpretations of unclear results.
Thus, given the moderate success of typical
intervention strategies for both batterer and victim, a
functionally-based intervention is certainly worth
experimentation to determine its efficacy in this
population. Assessment strategies that involve
classification of battering as operant behavior and
application of a functional assessment to determine
relationships between batterer-identified antecedents
and consequences of the violent behavior are
relatively unexplored methods. By determining the
function of the abuse for the batterer and identifying
reinforcers that perpetuate the abuse, clinicians can
utilize effective behavior modification strategies to
replace abusive behavior with constructive strategies
for coping with common situations that arise in
relationships, provided that partner-solicited
reinforcers are appropriate to the relationship.
Behavior reduction techniques such as direct
reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) and
differential reinforcement of lower rates of behavior
(DRL) utilizing reinforcers that occur naturally in a
relationship can be employed to systematically
reward acceptable behavior, thereby increasing the
likelihood of integrating essential skills into the
batterer’s repertoire at the same time that the violent
behavior is being reduced. Rather than creating a
treatment program that assumes the same cognitive
processes underlying all batterers’ behavior, a
functionally-based intervention allows for
personalization of each treatment approach and for a
pace that is appropriate for each batterer’s progress
JOBA-OVTP
2008
within treatment. This approach would also allow for
many reinforcers, including the need for appropriate
levels of power and control, to be explored to
determine their applicability and replacement
behaviors for specific actions to be taught.
Through the use of functional assessment,
clinicians, researchers, and those involved in a
violent relationship can derive an understanding of
the observable situations and events that typically
lead to a violent reaction in a batterer. Once a
treatment program has been agreed upon, therapists
can measure changes in newly learned behavior
displayed in those situations and modify treatment as
necessary. By treating domestic violence as operant
behavior, clinicians can effectively label domestic
violence in each relationship and address the problem
rather than attributing it to nebulous and often
inappropriate “tendencies” or psychopathologies.
Bograd (1988) noted that the prevalence of domestic
violence suggests that its occurrence is likely a
function of normal psychological and behavioral
patterns of most men that has been shaped by society.
Therefore, a functional assessment for these
supposedly learned patterns of behavior is essential
and should be implemented to determine its
usefulness.
To achieve the benefits of a functional
approach to treatment, the development of a
functional assessment tool specifically applied to
domestic violence situations is necessary. The
purpose of this manuscript is to introduce a Battering
Assessment Tool (BAT) that will assess
contingencies and assist in the behavior modification
of batterers and victims. Specific antecedent and
consequence events are listed in the BAT Rating
Scale and the perpetrator and/or victim can be asked
to indicate the frequency with which each event
occurs during incidents of violence. The clinician,
who can then group these specific individual events
into general categories for ease of creating a
treatment plan, can view the situations that are ranked
highest in frequency by both individuals, gather more
information about events specific to their situation
and collaborate to determine an appropriate method
of treatment. Alternatively, researchers might
develop treatments aimed at specific functions of the
behavior that might be shared by multiple
individuals.
Method
Development of the Battering Assessment Tool
(BAT)
The BAT was developed by generating a list
of common antecedents of intimate partner violence
and incorporating these into a frequency rating scale
so that the participant could estimate the percent of
time that acts of violence were preceded by the
212 Volume 1, Issue 2
 Bonem, Stanley-Kime, and Corbin
particular events. Included items were generated
from theoretical and research literature on domestic
violence and by interviews with victims of partner
violence. The scale was modified based on feedback
from professionals in the treatment of domestic
violence.
The scale administered in the current study
included 54 antecedent or conditional events, 32 of
which were endorsed by a least one participant,
within the following categories: emotions
experienced by the perpetrator (internal factors);
behaviors displayed by the victim (partner’s
behavior); behaviors displayed by the couple’s
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
children (others’ behavior); and other events, both
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
remote and immediately preceding violent incidents.
Emotional events included feeling anxious, out of
control, depressed, angry, jealous, or frustrated.
Antecedent behaviors displayed by the victim
included making demands on the perpetrator,
annoying, threatening, criticizing, being aggressive,
interfering, not attending to the perpetrator, doing
something not allowed and use of drugs or alcohol.
Antecedent behaviors displayed by the children
included being out of control, misbehaving,
annoying, making demands, crying, arguing,
criticizing and noncompliance. Other situations
included events occurring out of the perpetrator’s
control and unacceptable behavior of others outside
the immediate family. The antecedents were divided
to create descriptive subcategories for partner’s
behavior antecedents and others’ behavior
antecedents. Antecedents categorized as partner’s
behavior were divided into the following
subcategories: partner asserted themselves, partner
was mistreating, partner made demands, chemical
issues, abandonment, and partner was not attending
to the assailant. Antecedents categorized as others’
behavior were also divided into the following
subcategories: others asserted themselves, children
misbehaved, and children were mistreating.
The scale included 57 different items
describing reinforcing and nonreinforcing
consequential events, 30 of which were endorsed by
at least one participant. Because the scale was
designed to analyze operant contingencies
maintaining the battering behavior, these items
consisted mostly of potentially reinforcing
consequences logically following from particular
antecedent events or conditions. These consequences
were described generally and many could be
conceptualized as corresponding to several
antecedent events. Likewise, generally described
antecedents might set up conditions for several
different consequences to act as reinforcers. For
example, several antecedents described negative
emotional states. The obvious reinforcing
JOBA-OVTP 213
2008
consequences would describe reduction of such
states, but other items, such as the partner soothing
the batterer, if endorsed, might also be
conceptualized as reinforcers under these conditions.
Conversely, a consequence, such as the victim
staying away from the perpetrator, might function as
a reinforcer for numerous antecedent events, such as
the victim asking the perpetrator to do something,
making demands or threatening the batterer.
Potentially reinforcing consequences fell under the
following categories: reduction of negative
emotional states, changes in the partner’s or
children’s behavior, and changes in the situation. In
addition to potential reinforcers, some consequence
items described outcomes that were either not
reinforcing or potentially aversive to the perpetrator,
such as police intervention or partner retaliation.
Participants
The voluntary participants were 70 male and
3 female perpetrators of domestic violence who were
court ordered to participate in a 12-week treatment
program that incorporated individual and group
therapy strategies to examine irrational expectations
and discuss alternatives to violence. Male
participants ranged in age from 19-62 (M = 37) years
of age and females ranged from 33-52 (M = 40) years
of age. Mean length of the relationship in which
battering occurred was 8 years, and the length of the
abusive relationships ranged from 4 months to 30
years. Almost half the participants (47%) identified
themselves as married and approximately 11%
were/are in a cohabitating relationship in which
violence did/does occur. The majority of participants
(77%) stated that either they or their partner have at
least one child. Eighty-eight percent of perpetrators
reported that he/she is currently employed and
seventy six percent of their partners are employed.
Procedure
The participants completed the rating scale
at the treatment facility during a time that was usually
scheduled for therapy. The scale was administered
one-on-one in a secluded room by one of the agency
staff members and took about 40 minutes to
complete. The staff person answered any questions
asked by the participant.
Results
As indicated above, antecedents and
consequences were grouped according to operant
contingencies that could potentially maintain violent
behavior through the mechanism of reinforcement.
The antecedents were divided into three descriptive
groups: partner’s behaviors, internal factors, and
other’s behavior; the consequences were described as
potentially reinforcing and non-reinforcing.
Antecedents from the three categories were endorsed
a total of 405 times, illustrating the fact that many
Volume 1, Issue 2
 The Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention
participants endorsed several antecedents to domestic
violence, while all consequences, both reinforcing
and nonreinforcing, were only endorsed 243 times.
The top ten most frequently endorsed antecedents
were, in rank order beginning with the most
frequently endorsed: felt angry, partner annoyed the
assailant, felt depressed, felt out of control, partner
yelled at the assailant, felt frustrated, partner
criticized the assailant, partner made demands,
partner physically aggressed, and partner asked the
assailant to do something. Thus, antecedents
involving the behavior of individuals other than the
partner and situations not involving the partner were
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
not among the top ten most highly endorsed
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
antecedents. Partner behavior antecedents
constituted 60% of the top ten antecedents while the
remaining 40% were categorized as internal factors.
Partner’s Behavior
As seen in Appendix A, “partner’s
behavior” was the most endorsed of the three
antecedent/consequence categories, possibly due to
the fact that there was some redundancy in the items
and that this category had the greatest number of
antecedents (18) relative to the other two categories.
Seventy three percent, or 53 out of the total 73
participants, affirmed at least one antecedent in this
category, with the majority of those (46 of the 53
participants) affirming two or more antecedents in
this category. The most endorsed antecedent
involving partner behavior was “your partner
annoyed you.” The 18 available antecedent items
related to partner’s behavior were endorsed a
combined total of 232 times; the 13 potentially
reinforcing consequences corresponding to these
antecedents were endorsed a total of 130 times while
the remaining 6 nonreinforcing consequences were
endorsed a total of 25 times. Thirty-seven of the
fifty-three participants endorsed at least one
consequence that logically followed the identified
antecedent involving partner’s behavior, with the
majority of those endorsing more than one such
consequence. This leaves 30% of the participants
who did not identify any potentially reinforcing
events related to the partner’s behavior antecedents
that they endorsed. Appendix A shows the
antecedents, each ranked within subcategories of
“partner’s behavior” by frequency of participant
endorsement, and the logical consequences to which
the participants subscribed, if any.
Internal Factors
The category of “internal factors” contained
the second most endorsed antecedents of the three
categories. Of the 73 participants, 47% (34
participants) endorsed at least one internal factor as
an antecedent to violent episodes; thirty of these 34
participants endorsed more than one antecedent
JOBA-OVTP
2008
describing an internal factor. Among the six
antecedent items provided on the BAT in this
category, internal factors were endorsed 130 times,
which reflects the fact that some subjects endorsed
three or more internal factors as antecedents to their
domestic violence situations. “Feeling angry” was
the most subscribed to antecedent in the category of
internal factors as well as compared to all other
antecedent categories; thirty participants indicated
that a feeling of anger preceded violence. However,
only 4 participants indicated that a feeling of
calmness was the consequence of domestic violence
that was preceded by anger. Of the 34 participants
who indicated at least one internal factor, 22 of those
participants endorsed at least one consequence
logically relevant to the antecedent and 15 of those
22 endorsed more than one consequence. The 9
potentially reinforcing consequences received 55
endorsements while only 2 endorsements were noted
in the only incidental consequence in this category:
child tried to stop the assailant. Appendix B shows
the antecedents, each ranked by frequency of
participant endorsement, and the consequences to
which the participants subscribed.
Others’ Behavior
Thirty two percent, or 23 of the 73
participants, endorsed at least one antecedent that fell
into the category of “others’ behavior.” This
category focused mainly on the behavior of the
couple’s child/children, though there was a
subcategory of “others asserting themselves” that did
not specifically refer to the behavior of the
perpetrator’s child. Of the 23 participants who
endorsed an antecedent in “others’ behavior,” 11
endorsed more than one of the 9 antecedents. The
most endorsed antecedent was in the subcategory of
“others asserting themselves,” the antecedent
specifically being that “something happened that you
couldn’t control.” In total, the nine category
antecedents were endorsed a total of 43 times,
making antecedents in “others’ behavior” the least
endorsed of the three antecedent/consequence
divisions. All 9 consequences in this category were
identified as potentially reinforcing and were
endorsed a total of 31 times. Only 11 of the 23
participants indicated at least one consequence
related to their antecedent; 6 of those 11 endorsed
more than one consequence. Appendix C shows the
antecedents, each ranked by frequency of participant
endorsement, and the consequences to which the
participants subscribed.
Discussion
The inability of perpetrators of domestic
violence to identify reinforcing or nonreinforcing
consequences that follow violent situations is
apparent from the BAT data. As stated above,
214 Volume 1, Issue 2
 Bonem, Stanley-Kime, and Corbin
consequences were endorsed a total of 243 times
compared to the 405 times that antecedents from any
of the three categories were endorsed. This
discrepancy may be attributed to the difficulty of
batterers, or any person for that matter, to clearly
identify what rewards their behavior and thus
encourages similar behavior in the future. That is,
batterers may not realize what they “get out of”
abusive behavior, but they are aware of what
precedes domestic violence, whether it is situations,
the actions of others, internal states, or combinations
of these. In this regard, batterers are no different
from the average non-abusive person who is involved
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
in social relationships with others; one may not be
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
able to or may not desire to concretely attribute a
benevolent action, for example, to self-gain or
reward, but operant contingencies make similar
actions more likely in the future regardless of
acknowledgement. However, while the recognition
of some contingencies may be insignificant to the
average person, abuse contingencies may be helpful
for batterers to recognize so that alternative methods
of obtaining desired results, if ethical, can be
discussed.
Given the antecedent data collected in this
study, a significant number of domestic violence
perpetrators do not fit the “classic personality” that
has appeared throughout the literature on violent
partners. While some batterers did indicate several
antecedents that may indicate a personality disorder,
many endorsed antecedents that do not fit into a
diagnostic category and may reflect the presence of
other issues, such as a lack of necessary social skills
or an inability to recognize unreasonable partner
expectations. The danger of adherence to a strict
preconception of batterers or to search for common
traits of batterers (Wetzel & Ross, 1983) is clear: for
treatment purposes, there are likely a significant
number of batterers who do not fit neatly into any
personality category and treatments, thus based, will
not be effective for this group.
For example, antisocial personality disorder,
which may also be referred to as psychopathy or
sociopathy, may be an appropriate diagnosis for some
batterers, particularly those that were exposed to
domestic violence as children and developed conduct
disorder (Rosenbaum and Leisring, 2003). Those
suffering from this personality disorder have,
according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorder, a “pervasive pattern of disregard
for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins
in childhood or early adolescence and continues into
adulthood” (DSM-IV-TR, American Psychiatric
Association, 2000, p. 701). According to the DSM-
IV-TR, an individual with antisocial personality
disorder may exhibit the following behaviors: failure
JOBA-OVTP 215
2008
to conform to social expectations regarding the law,
impulsivity, deceitfulness, irritability, aggressiveness,
disregard for the safety of themselves and others,
consistent irresponsibility, and lack of remorse or
empathy toward those that they hurt.
Several antecedents in this study could be
conceptualized as fitting in with these criteria,
including the following clearly antisocial
antecedents: partner did something not allowed,
partner asked the assailant to do something, partner
made demands, partner was not attending to the
assailant, partner was attending to children, partner
threatened to leave, partner tried to leave, partner left,
assailant felt angry, children asked for things,
children did not do as told, and others did not do
what the assailant wanted. These antecedents were
endorsed 122 times out of the total 405 times that all
antecedents were endorsed. The data indicate that 46
of the 73 participants (63%) endorsed at least one of
these antecedents, which leaves a significant amount
of participants who did not endorse a typically
antisocial antecedent. In addition, of those 46 who
endorsed an antisocial antecedent, 25 endorsed three
or more of the antisocial antecedents described
above. These 25 may represent the participants who,
because of their subscription to numerous antisocial
antecedents, may actually suffer from this personality
disorder; the roughly two-thirds of participants who
subscribed to two or fewer antisocial antecedents
may represent batterers who do not fit into this
diagnostic category. While this study did not
examine the histories of each batterer and is not
designed for diagnosis, it does suggest that other
factors not associated with antisocial personality
disorder may result in a violent situation.
In addition to the classic batterer prototype,
blaming violence on the partner is a habit commonly
associated with certain diagnostic classifications of
batterers (Gondolf, 1988). The present data,
however, suggest that this lack of responsibility for
violent actions may not be present in many cases of
domestic violence or, if overt denial of responsibility
is present, the batterer can still recognize his/her role
in the initiation of violence. While “partner’s
behavior” was the most endorsed antecedent
category, a significant number of participants
indicated internal factors as antecedents to domestic
violence, suggesting that the narrow view that
perpetrators consistently blame others for their
actions is not true in all cases. Simply through the
acknowledgement of their own feelings that preceded
the violent events, these participants indicated that
they do recognize several factors, including their own
emotions, that may be affecting whether a situation
becomes violent. Some antecedents endorsed by the
batterer, such as “partner was physically aggressive,”
Volume 1, Issue 2
 The Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention
provide evidence that some batterers may not have
the skills to appropriately address situations that
would be challenging for any person in a relationship.
These examples suggest that the limited
effectiveness of commonly utilized treatment
approaches for domestic violence may be a result of
catering to a stereotype of batterers. A 4-year
longitudinal examination of the effectiveness of
several CBT domestic violence programs for
batterers (Gondolf, 2004) found that, while there is
some long-term progress in reducing assault in the
participant’s relationships, the effect of these group-
orientated CBT programs was only moderate. That
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
is, there were a number of batterers who did not reach
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sustained nonviolence and 20% continued to
reassault their partner regularly. This study also noted
that the personality profiles of the continuous
batterers were not significantly different from those
who reassaulted only one time during or after
treatment and those men who did not reassault.
Indeed, 56% of the men in his study showed no
evidence of personality disorders or major
psychological programs. As noted in Feldman &
Ridley (1995), the majority of research has been to
identify distinguishing characteristics of batterers as
opposed to men who do not batter. While years of
research have determined that there are several
subject variables correlated with battering
(witnessing parental violence, frequent alcohol use,
low self-esteem, etc), it is yet unclear what factors
play a key role in perpetuating domestic violence and
if the personalities of batterers are significantly
different from those who do not physically abuse
their partners.
Despite the fact that the BAT attempts to
approach assessment and treatment avoiding the
pitfalls of a reliance on personality constructs, it does
have certain methodological limitations that may
affect its general applicability. Perhaps the most
significant issue is the nature of the assessment tool
itself; specifically, it is a scale that relies on self-
report data from participants. As with all self-report
data, honesty and accuracy of participant reports are
uncertain, especially in a group of court-ordered
participants who have a vested interest in showing
improvement in order to terminate treatment. As
requested in the BAT, participants may attempt to
explain violent events in terms of operant
contingencies when, in actuality, they may not recall
the circumstances of the event or be able to frame it
using the given antecedents and consequences as
described. Because of reluctance or inability to
disclose the details of violent episodes, participants
may simply be conforming to what they believe the
experimenter expects of the episode or what logically
should have occurred. The task of recognizing what
JOBA-OVTP
2008
occurred both before and after a violent episode may
not easily be accomplished, as shown by the lack of
endorsed consequences. None-the-less, because
violent partner behavior most often occurs in a
private setting, self- and partner-reported data are the
only options available, with partner-reported data
being more difficult to collect.
The BAT is designed to collect data on the
general situations in which violence occurs; that is, it
does not ask the participant to recall a specific
episode of violence, such as the most recent. This
design may not be adequate for batterers who
consistently abuse for a number of reasons. Frequent
batterers may have a greater difficulty in reporting
what generally occurs in domestic violence situations
because of the numerous occasions in which violence
was used. Even batterers who consistently but
infrequently abuse may be unable to assess their
recollection of abusive situations and accurately
report what generally happened before and after the
event. Further, there may be multiple reinforcement
contingencies operating during different episodes of
battering by the same individual. It is therefore
recommended that the BAT will be most useful as a
summary of batterer’s perceptions of abuse, even
though the thoroughness of the reports is uncertain.
Another limitation of the current study is
that it did not collect corroborating information from
the participants’ victims. A study by Bograd (1988)
in which both batterers and victims were asked to
describe several specific instances of violence
revealed that the reports of the two were significantly
different in both perception and understanding of
violence. Thus, the BAT provides a one-sided and
perhaps incomplete picture of violent events. When
collecting data from batterers in a treatment program,
one must also consider the possibility that some
violent episodes were not included in the
participant’s evaluation of antecedent and consequent
events; that is, they may not recognize that an
abusive event was indeed domestic violence or they
may simply be unwilling to report a specific episode.
Several antecedents and consequences on the BAT
may be underreported due to the social
unacceptability that they carry and the acceptance of
responsibility that a batterer would indicate if he/she
reported them. Significant episodes or details of
violence may be unincorporated into the batterer’s
report, though a victim may recall and disclose that
information if asked to do so.
Despite these limitations, the BAT may
represent a new view of domestic violence that was
suggested by Gondolf’s (1988) categorization based
on behavioral typologies, specifically a view centered
on operant contingencies, focusing on categorizing
the behavior and not the person. Based on BAT data
216 Volume 1, Issue 2
 Bonem, Stanley-Kime, and Corbin
and the possibility of widespread use, the
implications for future assessment and treatment of
batterers are numerous. As suggested by the data, a
batterer is best served when treated as an individual
with a personal history and unique motivations that
affect the occurrence of his or her use of violence.
Lack of empirical support for the “classic batterer
personality” may be a reason for the failure of many
group treatment programs for batterers to counter the
recidivism of domestic violence. This point is not
meant to advocate for the dismissal of group
treatment for batterers; rather, batterers could be
assessed for their perception of domestic violence,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
matched with other batterers with similar operant
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
contingencies, and be given behavior therapy in a
group format to reduce costs. This approach to the
assessment and treatment of battering behavior will
eliminate the need to classify a batterer as a certain
typology, a trend that has many serious limitations
that should be acknowledged. As Holtzworth-
Munroe and Stuart (1994) noted, proposed typologies
of batterers have generally not been replicated in two
or more samples of violent men and stability of
proposed typologies has not been determined. In
addition to these limitations, the typologies remain
mainly descriptive; that is, their use in understanding
function of domestic violence has yet to be
thoroughly explored. The limited to moderate
effectiveness of other treatments and the implications
of the BAT advise for the attempted treatment of
domestic violence to be based on motivations and
rewards rather than on vague and empirically
unsupported psychological constructs.
Author Note
Marilyn K. Bonem, Department of
Psychology, Eastern Michigan University; Karen L.
Stanley-Kime, Department of Psychology, Eastern
Michigan University; Michelle Corbin, Department
of Psychology, Eastern Michigan University.
Michelle Corbin’s current affiliation is
unknown.
The authors wish to thank Laura Grose,
Nicole Phardel, Melinda McElroy, Susan Dahlberg
and Karen Carlson Chritz for their assistance in
developing and administering the Behavior
Assessment Tool, as well as preparing conference
presentations.
Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Marilyn K. Bonem, 537
Mark Jefferson, Department of Psychology, Eastern
Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, phone
number (734) 487-0103, and email
mbonem@emich.edu.
JOBA-OVTP
2008
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. Rev.).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
Atwood, J. D., & Olsen, M. (1996). Unscrupulous scripts: Scripts
for family violence. In J. D. Atwood (Ed.), Family
scripts (pp. 239-270). Washington, DC: England :
Accelerated Development.
Babcock, J, C., Green, C. E, & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers'
treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic
violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8),
1023-1053.
Bograd, M. (1988). How battered women and abusive men account
for domestic violence: Excuses, justifications, or
explanations? In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T.
Kirkpatrick & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Coping with family
violence: Research and policy perspectives (pp. 60-77).
Thousand Oaks, CA, US : Sage Publications, Inc.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1984). The nature and antecedents
of violent events. British Journal of Criminology, 24(3),
269-288.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1978). Wives: The appropriate
victims of marital violence? Victimology, 2(3-4), 426-
442.
El-Mouelhy, M. (2004). Violence against women: A public health
problem. Journal of Primary Prevention, 25(2), 289-
303.
Feldman, C. M. & Ridley, C. A. (1995). The etiology and
treatment of domestic violence between adult partners.
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 2(4), 317-
348.
Foa, E. B.& Meadows, E. A. (1997). Psychosocial treatments for
posttraumatic stress disorder: A critical review. Annual
Review of Psychology, 48, 449-480.
Gerlock, A. A. (1997). New directions in the treatment of men who
batter women. Health Care for Women International,
18(5), 481-493.
Gondolf, E. W. (1988). Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral
typology of batterers. Violence and Victims, 3(3), 187-
203.
Gondolf, E. W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counseling programs:
A difficult task showing some effects and implications.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(6), 605-631.
Hamberger, L. K. & Lohr, J. M. (1989). Proximal causes of spouse
abuse: A theoretical analysis for cognitive-behavioral
interventions. In P. L. Caesar, & L. K. Hamberger
(Eds.), Treating men who batter: Theory, practice, and
programs (pp. 53-76). New York, NY: US : Springer
Publishing Co.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Stuart, G.L. (1994). Typologies of male
batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among
them. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 476-497.
Huss, M. T. (2001). The utility of batterer typologies and the
construct of psychopathy in domestic violence
217 Volume 1, Issue 2
 The Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention 2008

perpetrators. Dissertation Abstracts International,

Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61(7-B).
Jones, L., Hughes, M., & Unterstaller, U. (2001). Post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) in victims of domestic violence:
A review of the research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,
2(2), 99-119.
Laffaye, C., Kennedy, C. & Stein, M. B. (2003). Post-traumatic
stress disorder and health-related quality of life in
female victims of intimate partner violence. Violence
and Victims, 18(2), 227-238.
Rosenbaum, A. N., & Leisring, P. A. (2003). Beyond power and
control: Towards an understanding of partner abusive
men. Journal of Comparative Family Studies Special
Issue: Violence Against Women in the Family, 34(1), 7-
22.
Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. National Institute of Justice and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000).
Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner
Violence. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/181867.txt.

O’Leary, K. D. (1999). Developmental and affective issues in Tweed, R.G. & Dutton, D.G. (1998). A comparison of impulsive
assessing and treating partner aggression. Clinical and instrumental subgroups of batterers. Violence and
Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(4), 400-414. Victims, 13(3), 217-230.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Palermo, G. B. (2004). The faces of violence (2nd ed.). Illinois: Wetzel, L., & Ross, M. A. (1983). Psychological and social
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Charles C. Thomas Publisher, LTD. ramifications of battering: Observations leading to a

counseling methodology for victims of domestic
Porcerelli, J. H., Cogan, R., & Hibbard, S. (2004). Personality violence. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 61(7), 423-
characteristics of partner violent men: A Q-sort 428.
approach. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18(2), 151-
162.
Appendix A

Antecedents and Consequences Related to Partner’s Behavior

Note that all antecedents and consequences are followed by the number of endorsements in parentheses.

Total Antecedent Endorsement for Partner’s Behavior: 232

Total Consequence Endorsement for Partner’s Behavior: 155

Partner asserted themselves

1. Antecedent: Partner annoyed the assailant (25)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner stayed away from the assailant (14)
• The assailant got less attention after violent episode (10)
• Partner left the assailant or left the home (6)
• Partner stopped annoying the assailant (5)
2. Antecedent: Partner threatened to call the police (15)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner left the assailant or left the home (5)
3. Antecedent: Partner did something not allowed (9)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner did what the assailant want (1)
Nonreinforcing Consequences
• Partner had visible marks (1)
4. Antecedent: Partner interfered with children (7)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Child stayed away from the assailant (3)
• Partner left the assailant or left the home (1)
Partner was mistreating
1. Partner criticized the assailant (23)
Reinforcing Consequences
• The assailant got less attention after violent episode (8)
• Partner stayed away from the assailant (6)

JOBA-OVTP 218 Volume 1, Issue 2

 Bonem, Stanley-Kime, and Corbin 2008

• Partner left the assailant or left the home (2)

2. Partner yelled at the assailant (20)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner stayed away from the assailant (6)
• The assailant got less attention after violent episode (6)
• Partner left the assailant or left the home (4)
• Partner stops yelling at the assailant (2)
Nonreinforcing Consequences
• Partner had visible marks (1)
3. Partner was physically aggressive (16)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner stopped aggressing (5)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

• Partner stayed away from the assailant (4)

• Partner left the assailant or left the home (1)
Nonreinforcing Consequences
• Police were called (6)
• Police were involved (6)
4. Partner was ignoring the assailant (14)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner attended to the assailant (3)
• Child attended to the assailant (3)
5. Partner was abusing children (2)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner stopped aggressing (1)
Partner made demands
1. Partner made demands (21)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner stayed away from the assailant (7)
• Partner left the assailant or left the home (4)
• The assailant did not have to do ___ (1)
Nonreinforcing Consequences
• Property was damaged (6)
2. Partner asked the assailant to do something (17)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner stayed away from the assailant (7)
• Partner left the assailant or left the home (1)
• Partner stops making demands (1)
Nonreinforcing Consequences
• Property was damaged (4)
• Partner had visible marks (1)
Chemical issues
1. Partner was taking drugs/alcohol (16)
2. Partner was drunk or high (14)
Abandonment
1. Partner threatened to leave (15)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner left the assailant or left the home (4)
2. Partner left (2)
3. Partner tried to leave (1)

JOBA-OVTP 219 Volume 1, Issue 2

 The Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention 2008

Partner not attending

1. Partner was not attending to the assailant (10)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner attended to the assailant (2)
• The assailant and partner had sex (2)
2. Partner was attending to children (5)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner attended to the assailant instead of others (2)
• Child attended to the assailant (2)
• Child stayed away from the assailant (1)

Appendix B
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Antecedents and Consequences Related to Internal Factors

Note that all antecedents and consequences are followed by the number of endorsements in parentheses.

Total Antecedent Endorsement for Internal Factors: 130

Total Consequence Endorsement for Internal Factors: 57

1. Felt angry (30)

Reinforcing Consequences
• Felt calm (4)
2. Felt depressed (26)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Felt less depressed (5)
3. Felt frustrated (25)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Felt calm (4)
4. Felt out of control (23)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Felt less powerless (13)
• Got control (7)
• Felt strength (7)
• Felt in control (5)
• Felt power (5)
Nonreinforcing Consequences
• Child tried to stop the assailant (2)
5. Felt anxious (14)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Felt calm (4)
6. Felt jealous (12)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Partner attended to the assailant, not the child (1)

Appendix C

Antecedents and Consequences Related to Others’ Behavior

Note that all antecedents and consequences are followed by the number of endorsements in parentheses.

JOBA-OVTP 220 Volume 1, Issue 2

 Bonem, Stanley-Kime, and Corbin 2008

Total Antecedent Endorsement for Others’ Behavior: 43

Total Consequence Endorsement for Others’ Behavior: 31

Others asserted themselves

1. Something happened the assailant couldn’t control (20)
Reinforcing Consequences
• The assailant got control (7)
• The assailant felt in control (6)
2. Didn’t do what the assailant wanted (9)
Reinforcing Consequences
• The assailant got control (3)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

• The assailant got something he/she wanted (1)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Children misbehaved
1. Child annoyed the assailant (4)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Child left the assailant alone (3)
• Child stayed away from the assailant (3)
• The assailant got less attention after violent episode (2)
2. Child didn’t do as told (3)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Child obeyed (1)
3. Child misbehaved (2)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Child stopped misbehaving (1)
4. Child cried (2)
5. Child argued with the assailant (1)
Children mistreated
1. Child put the assailant down (2)
Reinforcing Consequences
• Child left the assailant alone (2)
• Child stopped putting the assailant down (1)
• The assailant got less attention after violent episode (1)

JOBA-OVTP 221 Volume 1, Issue 2