Program Profile: Brief Motivational Interviewing for Dating Aggression

This program aims to reduce harmful behavior among young adult couples who are neither married nor cohabitating. It uses a brief counseling method to address ambivalence toward behavioral change and encourage self-motivation for behavioral change. The program is rated Promising. This program showed statistically significant reductions on reports of moderate physical aggression and harmful alcohol consumption, but no statistically significant effects on reports of psychological aggression.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Program Theory

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a counseling method that uses a brief, collaborative, client-centered, and goal-oriented approach to improve and strengthen individuals' motivations to change. MI aims to foster behavioral change by encouraging self-efficacy and personal responsibility while avoiding confrontation or blame. MI for Dating Aggression targets unmarried young adult couples (ages 18–25) who have never lived together and have a history of physical aggression (without serious injury). This version of MI addresses the partners' ambivalence toward change and encourages their motivation to change harmful behaviors. MI for Dating Aggression was designed based on similar MI interventions, which focused on risk factors such as heavy drinking or relationship stress (Marlatt et al. 1998; Cordova et al. 2005).

Program Activities

The version of MI for dating couples is a brief, one-session intervention. During the session, couples complete an individualized feedback sheet that identifies levels of aggression, risk factors for aggression, and effects of aggression. Feedback is then given by the therapist in a non-confrontational and empathetic way to each partner individually. Therapists provide individual feedback on possible impacts of aggression on the partner and the relationship, and discuss possible behavioral changes. Therapists discuss risk factors for harmful behaviors, including heavy alcohol use and psychological aggression (i.e., insults, threats, controlling behaviors). They also discuss the consequences of aggression, such as depression, anxiety, and relationship stress. Feedback addresses aggression perpetrated by both genders; however, therapists are careful to avoid blame when discussing risky behaviors. Individuals are given the opportunity to respond to the feedback while therapists reinforce and encourage any expressed desire for behavioral change. The individual feedback sessions last about 45 minutes and the results are not shared with the other partner.

In the remaining 15 minutes of the session, the therapist meets with the couple to reinforce each partner's desire and motivation to change behaviors related to aggression. At the end of the session, couples are given sealed envelopes with written summaries of their assessment, informational brochures, and a list of referrals for additional resources. In total, the MI for Dating Aggression session lasts about 2 hours.

Study

Woodin and O'Leary (2010) examined the effectiveness of brief motivational interviewing (MI) sessions on dating aggression in college-dating couples. Couples were eligible to participate if both individuals agreed to participate, if they had been dating for at least 3 months, were not married or cohabitating, and reported at least one male-to-female physical act of aggression (without serious injury) during an initial screening process. Fifty couples between the ages of 18–25 years were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group during a preliminary assessment session. Couples in the treatment group (n = 25) received the MI for Dating Aggression session; couples in the control group (n = 25) received non-motivational, individual-only feedback sessions lasting 10 minutes.

The average length of the couples' relationships was 21 ½ months. The average female participant was 19.6 years old. The racial/ethnic breakdown of female participants was white (58 percent), Asian American (38 percent), Black (4 percent), and other (4 percent). The average male participant was 20.3 years old. The racial/ethnic breakdown of male participants was white (60 percent), Asian American (42 percent), other (8 percent), American Indian (6 percent), Black (6 percent), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (6 percent). There were no significant differences between groups at pretest. All female participants were enrolled in college full time. The majority of the male participants were enrolled in college full time or part time (88 percent); the remaining men were not in college (12 percent).

Couples completed online follow-up surveys at 3, 6, and 9 months after the feedback session. Psychological (i.e., verbal and nonverbal aggressive acts) and physical aggression was assessed using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus et al., 1996). Problematic alcohol use was measured using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Data was analyzed using hierarchical linear modeling. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Therapists in the Woodin and O'Leary (2010) study attended 20 hours of training in motivational interviewing theory and techniques. A standardized treatment manual was developed for outlining session protocols. Therapists were monitored and assessed using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Scale. A standardized treatment manual is available from the first author.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Cordova, J. V., R. L. Scott, M. Dorian, S. Mirgain, D. Yaeger, and A. Groot. 2005. "The Marriage Checkup: An Indicated Preventive Intervention for Treatment-Avoidant Couples at Risk for Marital Deterioration." Behavior Therapy 36(4):301–09.

Marlatt, G. A., J. S. Baer, D. R. Kivlahan, L. A, Dimeff, M. E. Larimer, L. A. Quigley, J.M. Somers, and E. Williams.1998. "Screening and Brief Intervention for High-Risk College Student Drinkers: Results from a 2-Year Follow-Up Assessment." Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 66(4):604–15.

Straus, M. A., S. L. Hamby, S. Boney-McCoy, and D. B. Sugarman. 1996. "The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and Preliminary Psychometric Data." Journal of Family Issues 17(3):283–316.

Woodin, Erica M. "Motivational Interviewing as a Targeted Prevention Approach for Physically Aggressive Dating Couples." PhD diss., Stony Brook University, 2007.

Woodin, Erica M., Alina Sotskova, and K. Daniel O'Leary. 2012. "Do Motivational Interviewing Behaviors Predict Reductions in Partner Aggression for Men and Women?" Behaviour Research and Therapy 50(1):79–84.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Programs to Reduce Dating and Sexual Violence for Youth and Young Adults

This practice involves a range of prevention and intervention programs that are designed to address problems associated with dating violence for youth and young adults. The practice is rated Effective for reducing the perpetration of dating violence and improving dating violence knowledge and attitudes. The practice is rated Ineffective for reducing dating and sexual violence victimization, reducing sexual violence perpetration, and for improving bystander behaviors.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Attitudes & Beliefs - Dating violence knowledge
	Attitudes & Beliefs - Dating violence attitudes
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Victimization - Bystander behavior and intentions
	Crime & Delinquency - Sex-related offenses
	Victimization - Sexual abuse/exploitation
	Victimization - Domestic/intimate partner/family violence

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?