1. Abuser in Intimate Partner Violence The 9th NSFP Stockholm, 24- 26.8.2011 Hannu Säävälä et al Oulu University Hospital, Department of Psychiatry

2. Abuser in Intimate Partner Violence  Hannu Säävälä 1&2, MD, PhD, forensic psychiatrist  Riitta Hannus 2, Social Worker  Tuija Korhonen 2, Psychologist  Riitta Pohjoisvirta 2, Social Worker  Santtu Salonen 2, Social Worker ===== 1 Oulu University Hospital, Department of Psychiatry 2 Oulu Mother and Child Home and Shelter

3. Abuser in Intimate Partner Violence  Oulu Mother and Child Home and Shelter  Outpatient and shelter  Services for the victim, the abuser and the children  Population base appr 200 000

4. Integrated framework  Theoretical  socio-cultural: Gendered violence  Psychiatric: Individual psychology  Systemic : Family dynamics  Practical  Individual work  Family work  Team work

5. Study data  All Client-cases during 2003-5, N=447  Shelter 62%, outpatient 38%  Statistical analysis, 154 variables  Abuser 97% male  Victim ’ s violence in 22% of cases

6. Selection of Study Subjects All client cases N=447 victim identif N=431 perp identif N=425 16 cases omitted 6 cases omitted victim partner N=383 partner cases N=374 42 cases omitted 9 cases omitted

7. Aims of the study  Is it possible to differenciate between serious and less serious violence?  What are the differences in serious and less serious violence?  Violence: Problem of the abuser or Culturally determined?

8. Assessment of violence (Johnson 1995)  Intimate terrorism (IT)  Controlling  Serious physical attacks or traumatizing effect on the victim  Common couple violence (CCV)  Non-controlling  Non-serious physical attacks and non- traumatizing effect on the victim

9. In terror the size matters

10. Mental traumatization is central to seriousness of violence

11. Classification of cases (% of all, N=235) Common couple violence (CCV)75% Intimate terrorism (IT) 25%

12. Intimate terrorism Abuser ’ s violence more frequently In previous relationship (N=79, p=0.032) Lead to previous convictions (N=87, p<0.00) From the start of the present relationship (N=157, p=0.008) Towards children (N=146, p<0.00) Also outside home (N=137, p<0.00) Unilaterally (N=144, p<0.00)

13. Intimate terrorism Abuser ’ s mental problems: More often Dominant traits (N=168, p<0.00) Labile affective traits(N=176 p<0.00) Paranoid traits (N=157, p<0.00) Dissociative symptoms (N=123, p=0.036) No depressive traits(N=131, p=0.004) Problems with intoxicants(N=178, p=0.001) Violent also when sober (N=124, p=0.027)

14. Intimate terrorism is a mental problem of the abuser Dutton 2007

15. Intimate terrorism The Attitudes of the Abuser: More often patriarchal (N=152, p=0.002) Did not take responsibility of his/her actions (N=150, p<0.00) Was not motivated to strive for non- violence (N=163, p<0.00)

16. Intimate terrorism is a culturally determined phenomenon Walker 1989, Archer 2006

17. Problems of the Study  Standardization  Reliability of classifications  Missing info of clients  Generalizability of results

18. Conclusions of the study  IPV is not a uniform phenomenon  We need integrated approaches to tackle the problem of IPV  It is possible to assess IPV  Helps to plan  Safety measures  Suitable working methods