Louise Dixon

Online child sexual exploitation and abuse (OCSEA) is a complex and multifaceted form of offending that continues to increase in prevalence. Our understanding of OCSEA is challenged by evolving technologies, low rates of detection, and limited understanding of the aetiological pathways to engaging in this behaviour. The current study aimed to deepen our understanding of the aetiology of OCSEA through qualitatively exploring the lived experiences of nine men referred to New Zealand community treatment providers for OCSEA behaviours. Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, men’s life stories were examined across the lifespan, including childhood, pre-offending, offending, and post-offending timeframes. Five superordinate themes were developed. These described the impact of the men’s developmental environment on their understanding of healthy relationships; the desire for connection and feelings of not belonging; difficulties in coping with negative emotions; escalation of both legal and illegal sexual behaviours; and factors associated with ceasing offending. The application of findings to the prevention of OCSEA are considered and directions for future research are discussed.

People in the LGBTQIA+ community (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other gender/sexual minorities) experience greater rates of intimate partner aggression (IPA) than the general population and have fewer help-seeking pathways available. The current research examined the extent to which LGBTQIA+ people’s perceptions of barriers to help-seeking were associated with perceptions of societal heteronormativity—the belief that being cisgender and heterosexual is the norm—and whether the source of support was formal (e.g., police, counselors) versus informal (e.g., friends, family). The current research was conducted in two parts. In the first part of the study (Study 1a), structural equation modeling indicated a significant positive association between perceived societal heteronormativity and self-focused barriers (e.g., feeling too ashamed or guilty to seek help) but not with other-focused barriers (e.g., expecting unfair treatment). Instead, LGBTQIA+ people perceived greater other-focused barriers when considering formal compared to informal sources of support. In the second part of the study (Study 1b), we interviewed 10 LGBTQIA+ people about barriers to help-seeking for IPA. A reflexive thematic analysis identified four themes: (1) Who can hold the status of being a “victim”?; (2) The heightened importance of autonomy; (3) Formal supports need LGBTQIA+ competency; and (4) Judged by the outside in. The themes illustrated unique barriers experienced by LGBTQIA+ people when judging possible harm, choosing whether to seek help, and actual help-seeking. Altogether, current help-seeking pathways for IPA are generally inaccessible to people in the LGBTQIA+ community. IPA interventions for the LGBTQIA+ community require awareness of stigma, improved education for informal and formal support pathways, and the development of community-led interventions.

Control is theorized as central to intimate partner aggression (IPA). Tools measuring nonphysical “controlling behaviors” in relationships have therefore been developed to identify the latent construct of control. However, the underlying assumption that “controlling behaviors” form a distinct subset of IPA has not been validated. This study investigates the divergent validity of acts considered as “controlling behaviors” against other aggressive acts used in relationships. The IPA and relationship literatures were reviewed to identify 1,397 items involving “controlling,” physical, sexual, and psychologically aggressive acts perpetrated and/or experienced by an intimate partner. In total, 101 item pairs were identified and used to measure IPA tactics across these categories. In Study 1, exploratory factor analysis in a community sample (N = 561) found no evidence of a distinct factor of “controlling behaviors.” Behaviors labeled as “controlling” in existing measures were distributed across other factors, including “eclectic aggression,” “direct psychological aggression,” and “monitoring acts.” In Study 2A (N = 424 students), confirmatory factor analysis replicated the results of Study 1 and established configural measurement invariance (Study 2B), indicating no evidence for psychometric differences between samples. These results indicate that behaviors described as “controlling” in existing measures were not statistically distinguishable from other forms of IPA, and suggest that future research should investigate motivational, rather than behavioral, differences in the use of IPA. The findings challenge research to confirm whether a set of discrete behaviors can be used to accurately identify control in relationships and question the validity of tools that adopt this methodology.

This qualitative study explores the experiences of men who self-report victimization from a female intimate partner in four English-speaking countries. Forty-one men who reported any type of intimate partner abuse (IPA) from a female partner were recruited via targeted advertising in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Twelve online focus groups were conducted across countries using a phenomenologically informed design. Thematic analysis was carried out from an inductive and realist epistemological position and themes identified at a semantic level. This approach was taken to directly reflect the men’s experiences and perspectives, ensuring the voices of this hard-to-reach and overlooked population were heard. Three themes were identified across the countries: an imbalanced experience of harm; living with sustained abuse; and knowledge is power for men experiencing IPA. It was found that most participants underwent physical harm in the context of coercive control and experienced abuse over long periods of time. They were slow to recognize the magnitude of their partners’ behavior and act upon it for a range of reasons that are described in detail. In addition, promoting knowledge about the victimization of men by women, using appropriate language and active learning, was found to be important in helping the men gain autonomy and agency to break the pattern of abuse and aid their recovery. The implications of the findings for developing male-friendly IPA policy, practice, and services are discussed, in addition to the need for innovative research methodology to access hard-to-reach populations.

Offense process models are descriptive theories that provide a temporal outline of an offense—including its cognitive, behavioral, contextual, and motivational components—from a perpetrator’s perspective. Offense process models have been developed for a wide range of criminal offending (e.g., alcohol-impaired driving, child sexual offending, rape, aggravated robbery, homicide), but remain underdeveloped for family violence. The purpose of this study was to develop an offense process model of family violence. We conducted individual semistructured interviews with 27 participants—14 men and 13 women—completing community-based family violence perpetrator treatment programs, and systematically analyzed participants’ narratives of family violence events using grounded theory methods. The resulting event process model of family violence (FVEPM) contains four sections, arranged temporally from the most distal to the most proximal factors in relation to the family violence event: (1) background factors, (2) event build-up, (3) event, and (4) post-event. Each section outlines the cognitive, behavioral, contextual, and motivational factors that contribute to family violence perpetration. The FVEPM is the first attempt to consider whether a single offense process model can account for a broader range of family violence than that used solely by men toward their female intimate partners. Furthermore, the FVEPM highlights the dynamic nature of family violence events (FVEs), and the salient role of situational and interpersonal factors in contributing to family violence perpetration. We argue that the FVEPM has the potential to accommodate a range of types of family violence perpetration, and makes a useful contribution to theory and research on event-based models from a perpetrator perspective.

This review adapts a previously prescribed multifactorial model of multiple perpetrator sexual offending (Harkins & Dixon, 2010) to more fully inform explanations of different types of interpersonal violent crime. First, factors within the sociocultural and situational contexts of the model are reviewed, as well as the interactions between them and the individual context, to examine their role in explaining a broad range of violent crimes. Exemplars of street-gang and intimate partner violence are then examined to assess how the empirical evidence supports the proposed framework. It is concluded that the adapted multifactorial model lays the foundations for fuller causal explanations of violent crime without restricting the focus to a specific crime type, or level of explanation, in addition to bridging interdisciplinary theoretical gaps.

Research shows that the experiences of male victims of partner abuse (PA) are often denied by the public and the professionals who are charged to support PA victims. Recruiting female victims for research on PA victimization is relatively easy because there are existing structures to serve this group of victims. Thus, male victims are considered a hard-to-reach (HTR) population, and studying them can be difficult. This article focuses on the use of technology to collect qualitative data from male PA victims in an international study focusing on male victims. The researchers used their own professional networks to recruit and screen a convenience sample of male victims of female-to-male PA, in four different English-speaking countries: Australia, Canada, England, and the United States. Four web-based, video-enabled, focus groups were held for each country—for a total of 12 groups and 41 male participants. This article addresses recruitment methods, the use of technology in data collection, protecting the confidentiality of male victims, methods for informed consent, and lessons learned to facilitate future research.

Intimate partner violence is predominantly viewed as a social problem of men’s violence against women. However, a growing evidence base suggests an equal prevalence rate for male and female perpetrated intimate partner physical aggression. Moreover, female perpetrated intimate partner violence is often assumed to be reactive, yet there is limited evidence to support this notion. In this article, we describe the results of two studies that investigated the prevalence of female perpetrated intimate partner physical aggression, and its correlates in heterosexual female university students. The relationships of personality traits, resting heart rate, and heart rate variability (a correlate of vagal activity) were compared between females who did and did not report having engaged in intimate partner physical aggression. In Study 1, we found that 30.9% of participants reported enacting intimate partner physical aggression during the preceding 12 months. This finding suggests that a considerable number of undergraduate females aggress against their intimate partners. Perpetrators, relative to nonperpetrators, scored higher on secondary psychopathic traits. In Study 2, female intimate partner violence was shown to be associated with low resting heart rate and high heart rate variability. Perpetrators, relative to nonperpetrators, scored higher on psychopathic traits that index emotional resilience and unempathic tendencies, and reported increased proactive and reactive aggression. This raises the possibility that some incidences of female intimate partner physical aggression represent proactive aggressive acts. These findings also support the frequently found association between low resting heart rate and aggression, but raise the prospect that the reported aggressive acts reflect high heart rate variability and strong parasympathetic nervous system activity.