4

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

624

Subject

Psychology

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

11

Uploaded by Mamaguici

Report
4-2 Short Paper: Couples Treatment Plans Jolene Whittom PSY-624 Intersection of Law and Psychology Professor Holtgrave July 30, 2023
Couples Treatment Plans Treatment of Couples Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an upsetting truth that exists within couples that are heterosexual and homosexual, and occurs within all age ranges, ethnic environments, and socioeconomic ranks, resulting in an epidemic of IPV across the globe. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 (2022), revealed that in the United States approximately 1 in 2 females, 47.3% or 59 million, and greater than 40 percent of males, 44.2% or 52.1 million have reported experiencing victimization by an intimate partner, which includes one or more of the following: contact sexual violence: such as being raped, men being forced to penetrate another person, sexual intimidation, unsolicited sexual interaction, corporeal violence, or being stalked in the course of their lifetime. The survey also revealed the extent psychological abuse victims endure with roughly half of all females, 49.4% or 61.7 million, and males, 45.1% or 53.3 million, reporting a form of emotional belligerence by an intimate partner, including expressive aggression, i.e., being insulted, humiliated, or being adversely teased in front of other people and coercive control and entrapment, which contains conducts that are meant to monitor, dominate, or threaten their significant other. (Leemis et al., 2022). The damaging impacts of IPV impact all extents of the person’s daily existence, and there is empirical confirmation that victims of IPV encounter increased adverse health, psychosomatic, and material consequences. Psychologically, IPV has been connected to heightened threats of melancholy, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorder, and suicidality. Regardless of the evidence on IPV’s adverse effect on the person’s mental and physical health, presently, effective treatments are still being debated by professionals. Research has proven that IPV treatment programs report for approximately a 10% reduction in the reoccurrence of IPV. Antunes-Alves and De Stefano (2013) posited that the offenders in IPV
relationships have a 35% probability of continuing nonviolent conducts with no program intervention, and with program intervention the reduction of recurrence percentage only increases 5%. Methodical assessments of IPV treatment empirical studies reported comparable outcomes resulting in professional skepticisms regarding the efficacy of batterer programs. This skepticism has led to the establishment of alternative or comparable treatment inventions, with some of the newer research positing that intimate partners experiencing situational violence, which is a less violent form of IPV and transpires more often because the couple tends to resolve conflict with violence, can find benefits from attending conjoint couple therapy. However, many IPV clinicians are cautious of this approach because treating the couple together has the potential to place the victim in heightened danger for violent retaliation by their abuser. With that looming fear of retribution the victim is at risk of further emotional maltreatment as the abuser can direct culpability openly onto them. Most victims of IPV do not feel safe to talk openly in front of an IPV abuser without fear of violent repercussions and that repercussion risk increases the expert’s cautiousness in employing a conjoint therapy approach. However, advocates for conjoint therapy theorize that the IPV pairs have shortfalls in their ability to communicate and appropriately resolve challenges, especially throughout a fight when one or both partners get upset. This indicates that the violent behavior that that is seen in these intimate partnerships are frequently an outcome of unsuccessful relational problem resolution, therefore employing a conjoint therapy approach, which implement learning how to effectively communicate with each other would be a primary objective (Antunes-Alves & De Stefano, 2013). Moreover, Antunes-Alves and De Stefano (2013) state that there is empirical proof that conjoint intercessions are as efficient at decreasing violent behavior as gender-specific therapies, for instance male and female only IPV classes. Even though, conjoint treatment has
shown to have comparability with the traditional male treatment programs in the reduction of violent behaviors, research has shown that conjoint therapy might be more suitable for confronting the relational struggle and inadequate problem resolution skills that are the underbelly of the IPV. In many IPV relationships, the violent behaviors exhibited are not about control, rather, an unsuccessful stratagem to deal with individual and relational challenges. Advocates of conjoint couple therapy for IPV state that this approach is a valid treatment for IPV and has been revealed to be efficacious in hindering the violence and augmenting apposite interpersonal communication in the pair (Antunes-Alves & De Stefano, 2013). Karakurt and colleagues (2016) conducted a systematic analysis and meta-analysis on the efficacy of IPV conjoint therapy in violent behavior reoffending, which indicated a positive effect from conjoint therapy. Outcomes from the initial meta-analysis pooled information from six studies with 470 partakers, indicated that IPV conjoint therapy substantially decreases IPV by point estimate —.84, z =—3.07, (p<.05) and a confidence interval of —1.37 to —.30. Additional examination is required to verify these outcomes, but there is justification to re-assess the part of conjoint therapy in IPV treatment, however, until the research is conducted it is recommended that clinicians guardedly employ this approach (Karakurt et al., 2016). The results demonstrated measured evidence that indicated the benefits of conjoint therapy for decreasing IPV. Overall, the researchers posit that implementing the conjoint therapy approach truly is dependent on each individual couple. Even as more research is conducted and new approaches are created, there has not been an approach that has empirically proven to reduce the recurrence of IPV. The Duluth model an approach that is implemented in batterer intervention programs (BIPS), and the courts tend order BIPS as their primary court ordered batterer group intervention, this approach employs aspects of the Duluth Model, cognitive behavioral methods, or an amalgamation of both (Coulter &
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help