Article Considerations of Conjoint Couples Therapy in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence Nicole Hurless 1 and R. Rocco Cottone 1 Abstract This article reviews the current literature on the implementation of conjoint couples counseling in cases of intimate partner violence (IPV). As maintained by feminist theorists, due to the possibility of perpetuating or increasing violent behaviors within a couple, a conjoint treatment for IPV is generally contraindicated. However, multiple studies have shown that conjoint approaches do not increase the risk of harm to the victim. Following a thorough assessment of the dynamics of violence within a relationship, individual personality patterns, and adequate counselor training in IPV, a conjoint approach may be beneficial to reduce violent behaviors while increasing communication, problem-solving skills, and overall relationship satisfaction. Keywords partner violence, couples, counseling, spouse abuse Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a common public health problem in the United States. IPV encompasses physical vio- lence in addition to emotional violence, including verbal abuse, gaslighting (i.e., a form of victim blaming involving psycholo- gical manipulation leading someone to question their own sanity), coercion, manipulation, and threats of physical vio- lence (Black et al., 2011). In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported 47.1% of women in the United States experienced some kind of psychological aggression in their lifetime, and 37.3% of women experienced sexual/physical violence or stalking in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). IPV is often treated as a women’s issue, although men also suffer from partner abuse at rates comparable to women: 47.3% reported some kind of psychological abuse and 30.9% reported sexual/physical violence or stalking in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). Thus, addressing IPV represents a significant public health crisis in the United States. The Duluth Model: A Unidirectional Approach to IPV Traditionally, legislation aimed at solving the problem of IPV has been based on the Duluth model of intervention developed in the 1980s in Duluth, MN, in response to an increase in IPV- related arrests (Pence & Paymar, 1993). This model assumes that violent perpetrators are traditionally men who commit violence against women. Thus, the treatment for IPV is tradi- tionally separated by gender; male perpetrators attend batterer intervention programs while victims receive separate advocacy and resources. The Duluth model, based on feminist theory, posits that IPV is perpetuated by the patriarchal system of power and control (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Batterer interven- tion programs aim to help perpetrators abandon patriarchal use of dominance and power, male privilege, manipulation, isola- tion, and victim blaming in favor of a more egalitarian view of relationships and gender roles. Sessions are typically psychoe- ducational in nature and are designed to help men modify their approach to violence as a control and problem-solving mechanism. Unfortunately, research has found that this model of predo- minately men’s groups leads to minimal reductions in violence, with some studies showing just a 5% reduction in IPV (Bab- cock, Green, & Robbie, 2004). Some have argued that adding cognitive-behavioral elements to the model improves treatment outcomes (LaTaillade, Epstein, & Werlinich, 2006; Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005); however, the format of the intervention itself may be counterproductive. A group setting may become a place for perpetrators with lower levels of violence to implement more severe forms of violence learned from other group mem- bers (Stith & McCollum, 2011). Additionally, as noted in the Duluth “power and control wheel,” perpetrators are often adept at manipulation and control and may appear to improve in 1 University of Missouri–St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA Corresponding Author: Nicole Hurless, University of Missouri–St. Louis, 469 Marillac Hall, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA. Email: nikhurless@gmail.com The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 2018, Vol. 26(3) 324-329 ª The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1066480718795708 journals.sagepub.com/home/tfj