Do all those convicted of gender violence have the same profile? This question guides an investigation that, for the first time, has analyzed in depth the differences between two profiles of men convicted of gender violence: specialists who have only committed violence against their partner and generalists who have also committed other types of crimes.
This study, conducted by CIMCYC researchers from the PNinsula group and the University of Otavalo/University of the Americas, compared personal and psychological characteristics, as well as the role of executive functions (cognitive skills such as working memory, inhibition, decision-making and cognitive flexibility) of men convicted of gender-based violence to better understand who they are, how they think and what differentiates them. The goal is to tailor treatments to their specific needs and reduce recidivism.
To do this, this research team evaluated 1,093 men serving sentences or participating in judicial intervention programs in prisons in Andalusia. Through interviews, psychological tests and cognitive tasks, they classified them into two groups: 523 specialists and 482 generalists. The hypothesis was that a better understanding of the psychological and social profiles of these men could improve the effectiveness of interventions and prevent future aggressions.
What differences were found between “specialist” and “generalist” perpetrators?
The results showed that specialists were older, had children and a history focused exclusively on intimate partner violence, which can include psychological, physical and sexual aggression. In addition, they tend to blame their ex-partner for their situation, and they have a greater capacity for cognitive empathy (i.e., they understand the other person's point of view better, even if they do not always share it emotionally). In contrast, generalists were younger, tended to have longer sentences, and presented more addiction problems and cognitive distortions about violence. They were also more likely to have witnessed violence in their childhood, suggesting a possible intergenerational transmission of aggressive behavior.
A particularly interesting finding was that, contrary to expectations, executive functions did not differ significantly between the two profiles. Although these types of cognitive skills have been related to violence, in this case they did not mark a clear difference between the two types of intimate partner offenders. In contrast, the ability to take perspective, a specific form of cognitive empathy, was an essential differentiating factor.
This research revealed that intimate partner offenders are not all the same. Understanding their differences could help to better adapt intervention programs: what works with a generalist aggressor -more impulsive, with more addictions to alcohol and other drugs and with widespread violence- will not necessarily be effective with a specialist, whose violence is focused on the intimate partner.
Finally, this study opens up new lines of research: are these profiles repeated in other cultures or regions? What role do economic, educational or family factors play? In addition to the above, it also invites us to review current treatments, which often begin with the assumption that all aggressors are the same and, therefore, receive standardized interventions that do not always take into account their particular characteristics.
Reference
Pérez-Cámara, N., Teva, I., Pérez-García, M., Burneo-Garcés, C., & Hidalgo-Ruzzante, N. (2025). Specialist versus generalist intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) perpetrators: Comparison on sociodemographic, violence, psychological, social cognition, and executive functioning variables. Psychology of Violence,15(2), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000539
Contact:
Noelia Pérez Cámara - noeliapc@ugr.es