Editorial
Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, Volume 4, Issue 3
Welcome to the third edition of 2012 of the Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research (JACPR). In keeping with our philosophy, this edition includes articles of interest to a wide range of academics and practitioners. The current edition presents a paper on mutually violent relationships and implications for treatment, a paper on attitudes towards male sexual assault victimisation, an article the UK’s response to the threat of terrorism, and a re-examination of US governmental survey data in relation to men’s experiences of aggression and coercion in intimate relationships. As always, this edition’s articles help to enhance our understanding of all forms of aggression.
The issue begins with a review of the literature by John Hamel on treatment for partner (domestic) violent perpetrators and the challenge that mutually violent relationships pose to programme facilitators. The article utilises the research and clinical literature to provide evidence-based guidance for practitioners on the assessment of violent relationships and approaches to delivering effective programmes. Models to understand partner violent behaviour,such as Dutton’s ecological model and Walker’s cyclic model, are explored in relation to individual and couple behaviour as are theories of violent behaviour. This article is an important one for those wishing to understand and intervene in such relationships.
The second article is by Michelle Davies and Stephanie J. Boden exploring the impact that a victim’s sexual preference (homosexual vs heterosexual) has on attributions of blame and responsibility in a sexual assault scenario. They find that men are more likely to blame a victim whose assault is consistent with their sexuality (e.g. male on male assault with a homosexual victim, or female on male assault for a heterosexual victim) and women are less blaming of male victims than men. The implications in terms of disclosure are discussed.
The third paper is a thought-provoking article by Imran Awan exploring civil liberties in the UK and terrorism in relation to the tension between balancing the need to protect individual rights with the need to protect against the threat of extremism and terrorism. The paper explores the “glorification offence” in relation to effectiveness and the impact on Muslim communities in Britain. Reviewing the changes of UK legislation since the 1960s, this paper investigates the growth of laws and the UK Government’s attempts to adapt to emerging terrorist threats.
The final paper by Bert H. Hoff explores the re-examines data from the US Centers for Disease Control National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey in relation to male victims of intimate partner violence. Finding that men reported being more likely than women to experience physical violence,psychological aggression and control over sexual/reproductive health within their intimate relationships compared to women’s reports, Hoff explores the implications of these findings for policy and practice.
Therefore, this issue includes a broad range of papers using different methodologies. We believe practitioners and researchers will find them interesting and informative. Further we welcome the submission of papers from readers which can further illuminate our understanding of human conflict and peace.
Nicola Graham-Kevan, Jane L. Ireland, Michelle Davies, Douglas P. Fry
