An Evaluation of After-Treatment Couples' Groups for Wife Abuse

Abstract

An Evaluation of After-treatment Couples' Groups for Wife Abuse* Melanie A. Johannson and Leslie M. Tutty** This exploratory research evaluated two 12-week groups for couples who had previously completed 24-week separate gender family violence groups. Pre- and post-test measures for ten couples (N = 20) assessed levels of abuse, problem solving and communication. Severe physical abuse was virtually non-existent after the gender specific groups and remained so after the couples' groups. The women reported significant improvements on Psychological Abuse frequency and couples made significant improvements on all FAM-DR subscales. As such, after-treatment couples groups may be an effective option for couples where physical abuse has ceased and the couple wish to remain together. Key Words: couples' groups, evaluation, wife abuse. The conjoint treatment of couples who present for counselling because of wife abuse is currently one of the more controversial issues in the field of marital and family therapy. The rationale for utilizing conjoint therapy with couples for whom marital violence is a problem stems from family systems theory. Traditional family therapists perceive the cause of wife abuse as the marital interrelationship of abuser and victim characteristics (Bedrosian, 1982; Magill, 1989). As such, the violence is seen as simply another symptom of a dysfunctional relationship. Interactional, homeostatic patterns are believed to maintain the couples' complementary needs (Pressman, 1989). A consequence of utilizing a traditional conjoint approach is to allot equal responsibility for abusive behavior to both partners, since each is seen as contributing to the escalation of anger (Russell, 1988). Further, since almost half of the men who abuse their wives are not violent outside the family (Saunders, 1992), the marital dyad is the obvious focus of treatment. In reaction, a number of feminist writers have expressed great concern about the application of family systems theory to wife abuse (Bograd, 1984; Goldner, 1992; Hansen, 1993; Hansen & Goldenberg, 1993). Bograd (1984) criticized a systems approach as not only potentially dangerous to the woman, but because looking for circular patterns within the relationship subtly blames a woman for her partner's aggressive acts. Bograd also criticizes the principle of therapist neutrality whereby therapists do not confront abusive behavior nor assign responsibility for assaultive behavior. As such, violence tends to be ignored and the focus shifts from the perpetrator's abusive behavior to improving the interactions between partners. This leaves a woman vulnerable to escalating abuse after therapy sessions in which she is encouraged to talk about her partner's abusive behavior, information that her husband may find inflammatory. An extreme feminist perspective about wife assault is that the only appropriate action for abused women is the dissolution of the relationship. However, many women wish to remain with their partners, but without the abuse. Furthermore, even if the partnership ends, both men and women are at risk of forming new relationships that subsequently become abusive. As such, the most commonly recommended intervention to address wife assault is that men attend group treatment to learn alternatives to behaving abusively (Weidman, 1986). Concurrent groups for women may also be suggested, but their emphasis is on support rather than therapeutic change (Tutty, Bidgood, & Rothery, 1993; 1996). In reaction to this debate, new models of conjoint treatment have been developed that address violence directly while maintaining a systemic perspective (Kirschner & Kirschner, 1992; Magill, 1989). From this view, violence is seen as a cyclical, regulatory process that is resistant to change. Attempts to break this homeostatic system may result in more violence, a process about which professionals need to be aware so that they may recommend safety strategies (Magill, 1989). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.