U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Psychological Differences Between Court-Referred and Self-Referred Wife Assaulters

NCJ Number
148916
Journal
Criminal Justice and Behavior Volume: 21 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1994) Pages: 203-222
Author(s)
D G Dutton; A J Starzomski
Date Published
1994
Length
20 pages
Annotation
Forty court-referred and 40 self-referred men in treatment for wife assault were assessed on a battery of psychopathology and personality measures.
Abstract
The men in the two referral groups did not differ significantly in demographic characteristics of age, education, alcohol use, ethnicity, and occupational status. The Conflict Tactics Scale measured the frequency and intensity of 19 tactics used by couples to resolve conflict. Other instruments used in the study were the Self-Report Instrument for Borderline Personality Organization, Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II, Multidimensional Anger Inventory, Interpersonal Jealousy Scale, Michigan Alcohol Screening Test, Drug Abuse Screening Test, the Trauma Symptom Checklist, the Egna Minnen Betraffande Uppfostran, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and the Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Men entering the Vancouver Assaultive Husbands Program and the Victoria Family violence Project were administered all the scales either prior to treatment or during the first 3 weeks of treatment. Although both groups exhibited high degrees of psychopathology and similar personality profiles, self-referred men scored significantly higher on borderline personality organization, marital conflict, anger, depression, and total trauma symptoms. The two groups exhibited distinct patterns of socially desirable responding. A discriminant function analysis of scores corrected for social desirability correctly classified 88 percent of the men into court-referred and self-referred groups. The study concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings for theory, assessment, and treatment. 5 tables and 63 references