Forensic Psychology

by Graham M Davies

  PHOTO 11.3 The relationship between exposure to violent models during childhood and adult IPV is weak, and is influenced by a range of additional factors, most notably childhood conduct disorder and antisocial personality traits.

  Source: © Martin Dimitrov/Getty Images

  Attachment theory is a well-developed theory of early development, which focuses on the formation of early relationships, and the implications of how these relationships are formed for later childhood and adult functioning. In particular, the attachment model proposes the need for infants to have a secure base in the form of one or more preferred caregivers, from which they can safely explore the world, and to which they can return for safety if required (Bowlby, 1988). As a consequence, during healthy development, attachment behaviours such as crying, clinging and seeking contact lead to the development of attachments or emotional bonds between the child and parent (Goodwin, 2003) and serve to attain proximity to the caregiver in times of fear, anxiety and stress. Romantic attachment patterns have been proposed to hold particular promise in the study of IPV, as attachment regulates proximity and distance in intimate relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Box 11.2 describes the four adult attachment styles that have been identified (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

  It has been theorised by Dutton (1995, 1998, 1999) that adult IPV reflects insecure attachment styles (dismissive, preoccupied, fearful) developed during childhood, and is associated with abandonment anxiety and anger. Indeed, there is evidence that IPV men are more likely to be characterised by insecure than secure attachment styles (e.g. Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski, & Bartholomew, 1994).

  In addition, several personality constructs and styles of interpersonal functioning consistent with insecure attachment characteristics have also been found to be prevalent in samples of IPV perpetrators. For example, Dutton et al. (1994) found that fearful attachment styles were related to anger, jealousy and trauma symptoms. Murphy, Meyer and O’Leary (1994) found that maritally violent men reported higher levels of interpersonal dependency, dependency on their intimate partner, and lower self-esteem than did maritally distressed but non-violent, and maritally satisfied and non-violent men. Holtzworth-Munroe, Stuart and Hutchinson (1997) found violent men to be more likely characterised by preoccupied and disorganised attachment patterns, jealousy and higher levels of dependency on their partners than non-violent men. Studies have also identified that insecurely attached violent men are also more likely to engage in controlling behaviours, and that this combination predicts the frequency and severity of violence used (e.g. Mauricio & Gormley, 2001).

  BOX 11.2 ATTACHMENT STYLES IN BRIEF

  Attachment reflects two underlying dimensions: positivity/negativity about oneself and positivity/negativity about others.

  Those with a secure attachment style (positive view of self and others) are theorised to be comfortable with intimacy and are also autonomous in intimate relationships.

  Those with a dismissing attachment style (positive view of self and negative view of others) are compulsively self-reliant and typically minimise the importance of intimate relationships.

  Those with a preoccupied attachment style (negative view of self and positive view of others) exhibit high levels of dependency on others, and are preoccupied with the importance of intimate relationships from which they gain a sense of self-esteem.

  Those with a fearful attachment style (negative view of self and negative view of others) are afraid of rejection, which manifests itself as a fear of intimacy. Consequently, these individuals avoid social interactions and intimate relationships.

  Given the description of stalking behaviour, its association with IPV and the identified risk factors in Table 11.2, it is perhaps not surprising that stalking has been conceptualised as a form of attachment behaviour. Indeed, an attachment framework is the only coherent theoretical account of stalking to emerge within the literature to date, although others have argued for a gendered account due to the high rate of controlling behaviours associated with intimate stalking, and indeed the purported use of stalking as a means of control (e.g. Melton, 2000). Meloy (1996) first argued that obsessional following was “proximity seeking toward an angry or frightened object that usually responds adversely to the act of pursuit” (Meloy, 1996, p. 150), which uses explicit attachment terminology. There is evidence that stalking behaviours among university students are associated with anxious (preoccupied) attachment, although this seems to be mediated by anger-jealousy (Davis, Ace, & Andra, 2000). A more recent study has confirmed the association with both anxious (preoccupied) attachment style and anger (Patton, Nobles, & Fox, 2010). Although an attachment approach makes intuitive sense when explaining stalking within the context of intimate relationships, Patton et al. (2010) also argue that attachment insecurity may play a role when stalking occurs generally in circumstances where proximity to the target is desired, regardless of whether the target is previously known to the perpetrator.

  The benefit of these theories, over the gendered perspective, is that they do not assume the gender of perpetrator or victims; rather it is possible for men or women to be victims or perpetrators. Hence, surveys and empirical research that are influenced by such a gender inclusive approach may feasibly set out to test a two-tailed hypothesis about the gender of perpetrators. Empirical research suggests that various theories can account for variance in the aetiology of IPV and stalking and that collectively several theories can offer a better explanation, rather than any one theory in isolation (O’Leary, Smith Slep, & O’Leary, 2007).

  11.5 SUBTYPES OF PERPETRATORS

  11.5.1 Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration

  Empirical research has repeatedly demonstrated the presence of different types of offenders, each with different aetiology. Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) proposed a hypothetical typology of IPV men living in the community in their review of the literature. They proposed that three dimensions of severity of marital violence, generality of violence, and psychopathology/personality disorder could differentiate between three types of perpetrators. These were named the generally violent/antisocial, dysphoric/borderline, and family-only perpetrators and were proposed to account for 25%, 25%, and 50% of male IPV perpetrators in the community respectively. These three types are shown in Box 11.3.

  BOX 11.3 HOLTZWORTH-MUNROE AND STUART IPV SUBTYPES

  The generally violent/antisocial perpetrator has multiple risk factors that increase the likelihood they will act with moderate to severe levels of violence within and outside their family unit. They have the highest levels of exposure to violence in their childhood; extensive involvement with deviant peers; high impulsivity, substance abuse, criminality, antisocial personality and narcissism; negative attitudes toward woman; attitudes supportive of violence in general; lack conflict resolution skills in a wide variety of situations; and have a dismissive attachment style. They display low levels of empathy; psychological distress and depression alongside moderate levels of anger. They are likely to engage in violence to a partner in situations where they feel the need to keep or regain control, for example if they feel disrespected or rejected.

  The dysphoric/borderline perpetrator may also act out moderate to severe violence, primarily aimed at family members. They will most probably have experienced some family violence in childhood and involvement with deviant peers; demonstrate the highest levels of psychological distress, emotional volatility, depression and anger; hold moderate attitudes supportive of violence and hostility to women; display low-moderate levels of empathy, criminality and substance abuse; moderate impulsivity; and low marital communication skills. They display characteristics of borderline personality and preoccupied or fearful attachment. As such they will likely react with anger if they feel rejected, abandoned or slighted. Estrangement or threats of separation may result in stalking or harassment in attempts to maintain or re-establish the intimate relationship.

  The family-only perpetrator is violent to family members and acts out with low severity and
frequency. He demonstrates the least criminal behaviour and psychopathology and evidences similar risk to non-violent men. Their violence is likely to result from a accumulation of low level risk factors such as some exposure to family violence in childhood, poor communication skills with their partner; mild impulsivity; dependency on their partner, alcohol and drug abuse.

  The typology has gathered support from several empirical studies, which find evidence for some or all of the proposed subtypes (e.g. Boyle, O’Leary, Rosenbaum, & Hassett-Walker, 2008; Chase, O’Leary, & Heyman, 2001; Huss & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2006; Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart 2000). Limited research has examined whether similar typologies of female perpetrators exist; however, work that has finds similarities in U.S. and UK non-lethal female offenders (e.g. Babcock, Miller, & Siard, 2003). Further research into female perpetration is warranted.

  CASE STUDY 11.1 INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

  David, a 23-year-old man was convicted and sentenced for the attempted murder of his girlfriend, Heather. A prison psychologist met with David in order to understand the aetiology of his offending in more detail.

  In terms of risk factors David was unemployed at the time of the offence, and described a childhood with an absent mother and abusive and rejecting father. He explained that he did not care that his mother was not around as “women are useless, in fact there are only a couple of things women are good for – cooking and sex” (indicating negative attitudes about women). He explained how he spent a lot of time on the streets from a young age mixing with his peers on the local estate. They would steal cars, commit burglary and set fires among other antisocial acts (deviant peer group). David had abused alcohol and drugs intermittently from a young age (substance abuse) and had a long list of criminal convictions for offences such as robbery, drug dealing, burglary, violence to intimate partners, acquaintances and strangers, affray and criminal damage. His file reported that a psychiatrist diagnosed him with conduct disorder in adolescence and that he had attitudes supportive of violence.

  David had been co-habiting with Heather for three months. David was very controlling over Heather’s movements, restricting her from seeing friends, controlling all her earnings and displaying persistent jealousy over her friendships with other people, especially men (controlling behaviours). Heather had previously confided in a police officer that she thought he was going to kill her.

  On the day in question, David had been drinking heavily. David found out that Heather had left the house without his permission. He reports he was angry with her for daring to disrespect him in this way – he remembers thinking, “I will show her who’s boss”. The police statements report that he punched her repeatedly in the face and body and stamped on her head. A neighbour heard Heather’s initial screams for help, who called the police. Heather was hospitalised in intensive care for three weeks. Immediately after the assault David left the house and returned to the pub to continue drinking. He reported feeling no remorse for his actions and stated that he was angry that she had put him in prison and that she had “better watch her step when he gets out”. He also reported that she deserved it and that he was glad that he had taught her a lesson not to mess with him.

  The prison psychologist concluded that David evidenced characteristics similar to a generally violent/antisocial offender.

  CASE STUDY 11.2 STALKING

  Simon, a 36-year-old man was convicted and is awaiting sentence for the harassment and threats to kill his ex-girlfriend, Sarah. The probation psychologist has met with Simon in order to understand the aetiology of his offending in more detail, to inform the judge’s sentencing decision.

  In terms of risk factors Simon was employed at the time of the offence, and describes a childhood during which he experienced prolonged physical abuse from his mother and sexual abuse from his father. In addition, Simon reports that his father was also abusive towards his mother, and that he frequently witnessed these incidents. He explains that for many years he experienced flashbacks concerning these incidents, and that such was his fear of his parents he would frequently wet the bed as a young child (trauma symptoms). He ran away from home at the age of 13, and was subsequently placed in local authority care after reporting his experiences. Simon has spent much of his life in intimate relationships but reports that he has difficulty trusting anyone, particularly women. He reports that even when relationships seem to be going well he believes that his partner is unfaithful, and cannot trust them when he can’t see what they are doing. Simon claims that these feelings preoccupy him constantly and that regardless of what his partner says or does to try and reassure him, nothing seems to make him feel better. Simon has a criminal record, which comprises mainly convictions for harassment and criminal damage, all of which focus on partners or ex-partners.

  Simon had been co-habiting with Sarah for three years before Sarah ended their relationship some five years ago. When they were together Simon was very controlling over Sarah’s movements, needing to know exactly where she was going and whom she was going to be with. He also displayed persistent jealousy over her friendships with other people, especially men (controlling behaviours). Sarah had never made any complaints to the police about Simon’s behaviour.

  Sarah has been gathering evidence regarding her harassment by Simon during the course of the last five years, ever since their relationship ended. The evidence under consideration indicates that Sarah has received more than 50 threatening letters, hundreds of seemingly anonymous threatening emails and, for the last six months, a wreath of roses once a month with a doctored photograph depicting her violent death attached to it with a “date of execution” highlighted.

  11.5.2 Stalking Perpetration

  Given the previous discussion of the application of attachment theory to stalking behaviours, it is not surprising that stalking within intimate relationships has been identified as falling into the dysphoric/borderline subgroup of IPV perpetrators (Dutton & Kerry, 1999) (see Box 11.3), and that borderline personality traits are risk factors for stalking (De Smet et al., 2015). However, despite the potential relevance of anxious (preoccupied) attachment to all forms of stalking, considerable attempts have also been made to identify subtypes of stalkers. In contrast to those identified within the IPV literature, stalker subtypes are typically identified by the characteristics of their victims. A potentially useful typology has been refined by Zona, Palarea, and Lane (1998). They identified three stalking types as shown in Box 11.4.

  BOX 11.4 ZONA, PALAREA, AND LANE (1998) STALKING TYPOLOGY

  Erotomanic stalking is conducted by individuals who hold the delusional belief that the victim, who is unattainable to them, loves them. The stalking behaviours are therefore used as extreme attention-seeking behaviours in order to make the target aware of their existence. Typically this occurs when the target is a member of the perpetrator’s social network and is more likely to occur in female stalkers who pursue high status males with whom they have no previous relationship.

  Simple obsessional stalking typically arises either from an intimate relationship or from an acquaintance known through work or professional setting. Motives within these two subcategories have been identified as either the desire to maintain or re-start an intimate relationship, or vengeance for a perceived act of mistreatment (which Simon from Case Study 11.2 clearly fits).

  Love-obsessional stalking occurs when the target is known to the stalker but there is no previous intimate relationship between them. Such a target might include public figures with power and/or status, or celebrities.

  Classifications of stalkers, as shown in Box 11.4, have been criticised in the literature due to the vagueness with which subtypes are identified (e.g. Westrup, 1998) and their basis in clinical samples that are unlikely to be representative. However, taken together, such evidence about the heterogeneity of IPV and stalking perpetration supports the need for a multi-factor framework to guide understanding of these problems. Indeed, this is important as some research suggest
s different types of men will benefit from different types of intervention (e.g. Saunders, 1996).

  11.6 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: RISK ASSESSMENT

  Risk assessments are undertaken in many walks of life to determine the level of risk that an identified threat poses. In the case of IPV, risk assessments are carried out by numerous types of professionals (e.g. police, psychologists, social workers, independent domestic violence advocates) to understand the risk of harm (usually categorised at high, medium or low risk levels) that an individual perpetrator poses to their current or ex-intimate partner. Such assessments are useful in a number of domains such as in safety planning for victims or other family members, developing a treatment plan and evaluating post-treatment risk. The validity and reliability of risk assessments is therefore of importance if professionals are to predict the likelihood of harm posed to a victim with a good degree of accuracy.