Scientists Map the Psychological Drivers Behind Men’s Intimate Partner Violence

Intimate partner violence against women remains one of the most pervasive public health problems in the world, affecting hundreds of millions of women across every region, culture and income level. Global prevalence estimates published in The Lancet and by the World Health Organization indicate that a substantial share of ever-partnered women experience physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner during their lifetime, and such violence is implicated in a large proportion of femicides. Yet while decades of research have documented the social and ecological conditions that foster abuse, from poverty and gender inequality to community norms, far less attention has been devoted to what happens inside the individual man who becomes violent. A major new review published in Nature Reviews Psychology now synthesizes the psychological evidence on why some men perpetrate intimate partner violence, and it arrives at a conclusion that could reshape how clinicians assess and treat offenders.

The review, led by Marisol Lila, Enrique Gracia, Cristina Expósito-Álvarez and Rocío Pérez-Sabater of the University of Valencia, draws together systematic reviews, meta-analyses and methodologically rigorous primary studies, with particular emphasis on findings from samples of known male perpetrators rather than community surveys alone. The authors argue that understanding individual-level psychological processes is essential for improving prevention and intervention, even though violence ultimately arises from interacting influences across multiple social and ecological levels. Their synthesis organizes the evidence into two broad domains: developmental and clinical vulnerabilities on one hand, and cognitive-affective drivers on the other.

In the first domain, the reviewers examine childhood trauma exposure, personality disorders, insecure attachment and substance use. Meta-analyses consistently show that men who experienced maltreatment in childhood, whether abuse, neglect or witnessing violence between their own parents, face elevated odds of becoming violent toward their partners in adulthood. The association is reliable but not deterministic; most survivors of childhood adversity never perpetrate violence. Studies of probation samples and batterer intervention programs further indicate that cumulative trauma predicts offending severity, and that post-traumatic stress symptoms among perpetrators are linked to treatment engagement difficulties and higher recidivism. Recent work also highlights the role of masculine discrepancy stress, the distress some men feel when they perceive themselves as falling short of masculine ideals, in linking childhood trauma to later violence through emotion dysregulation.

Personality pathology emerges as another robust thread. A meta-analysis in Clinical Psychology Review found that personality disorders, particularly borderline and antisocial configurations, predict intimate partner violence perpetration. Related research on narcissism and psychopathy shows that these traits not only raise the risk of violence but also forecast worse treatment outcomes, including dropout and repeated reassault among program participants. The classic typology of male batterers proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart in the 1990s, which distinguished subtypes differing in severity and generality of violence, continues to find empirical support, with subtypes differing in treatment completion and recidivism. Attachment insecurity adds a further layer: meta-analytic work shows that both anxious and avoidant attachment dimensions are associated with perpetration, often operating through psychological distress, substance use and affect dysregulation.

Substance use occupies a prominent place in the review. Meta-analyses confirm that alcohol problems are among the most consistent correlates of partner violence, and event-based diary studies show that physical aggression is far more likely to occur on days when men drink. The reviewers describe mechanisms such as alcohol myopia, in which intoxication narrows attention to immediate provocations and impairs inhibitory control, while noting that antisocial personality traits and trait jealousy can moderate the alcohol-violence link. Illicit drug use, including marijuana and opioids, shows similar associations in samples of men arrested for domestic violence. Importantly, substance use also predicts treatment attrition, meaning that offenders with alcohol and drug problems are less likely to complete the very programs designed to change their behavior, although those who do complete can show meaningful gains.

The second broad domain concerns cognitive-affective drivers: cognitive dysfunctions, anger and hostility, empathy deficits, and sexist or otherwise violence-supportive attitudes. Neuropsychological research summarized in the review points to subtle but reliable deficits in executive functioning among perpetrators, including impulsivity, poor attention switching and impaired working memory, which together undermine the capacity to inhibit aggressive responses during conflict. Meta-analytic evidence on anger and hostility confirms that these emotional states are among the strongest psychological correlates of perpetration, and clinical studies show that anger disturbances predict long-term criminal recidivism. The reviewers emphasize shared mechanisms that cut across domains: emotion dysregulation, hostile attribution of intent to a partner’s behavior, and impaired inhibitory control appear repeatedly as pathways through which childhood trauma, personality pathology, attachment insecurity and intoxication are translated into violence.

Empathy and related social-cognitive capacities also feature prominently. Studies of court-mandated offenders reveal deficits in emotional decoding, perspective taking and empathic concern, and some work documents atypical facial responses to others’ suffering, with low sadness and even elevated happiness displayed toward victims’ distress. Alexithymia, the difficulty identifying and describing one’s own emotions, is associated with impulsivity and cognitive and empathic dysfunction in perpetrators and offers new targets for intervention. Neuroimaging studies add biological texture, linking coercive partner behavior to lower brain volume in emotion-regulation regions and altered resting-state connectivity in social mentalizing networks, although the authors caution that such findings describe correlates rather than proven causes.

Attitudes complete the cognitive picture. The review examines ambivalent sexism, distinguishing hostile sexism, which protects men’s power, from benevolent sexism, which guards traditional gender roles, and cites meta-analytic evidence linking both to violence-against-women attitudes and behaviors. Perpetrators commonly deploy denial, minimization, justification and victim-blaming, and validated scales now measure the perceived severity, acceptability and responsibility attribution surrounding intimate partner violence against women among both the general population and offenders. Implicit attitudes toward violence have even been shown to predict treatment outcomes, suggesting that conscious beliefs capture only part of the attitudinal architecture sustaining abuse.

Crucially, the reviewers stress that these psychological drivers show small-to-moderate but reliable associations with perpetration and predict clinically relevant outcomes, including violence severity, treatment engagement and dropout, and recidivism. No single factor is sufficient, and the drivers rarely operate in isolation; instead they interact through shared mechanisms. This convergence leads the authors to argue that psychological explanations should be understood as complementary to, not competing with, broader ecological accounts of intimate partner violence. The practical payoff is a case for assessment-guided, responsivity-based interventions tailored to each perpetrator’s individual risk profile, consistent with the risk-need-responsivity model of offender rehabilitation.

Evidence for such tailoring is already accumulating. Randomized controlled trials of the Strength at Home program, which addresses trauma-related emotional dysregulation, have reduced partner violence in military and civilian samples. Integrated treatments combining cognitive behavioral therapy with substance abuse care have shown efficacy for substance-dependent offenders, and motivational enhancement therapy for alcohol problems among partner-violent men has produced promising results. Pilot trials of cognitive training designed for perpetrators have improved cognitive flexibility and reaction time, while individualized motivational plans within batterer intervention programs have improved completion rates. The Valencia group’s own randomized trial of integrated motivational strategies for perpetrators with substance use problems adds further support. Together, these findings suggest that the era of one-size-fits-all batterer programs may be giving way to a more precise, psychologically informed science of intervention, one that treats the wounded boy behind the violent man not as an excuse for abuse, but as a clinical target in the service of safety for women.

Subject of Research: Psychological drivers of men's perpetration of intimate partner violence against women

Article Title: Psychological drivers of men’s perpetration of intimate partner violence against women

Article References: Lila, M., Gracia, E., Expósito-Álvarez, C., & Pérez-Sabater, R. (2026). Psychological drivers of men’s perpetration of intimate partner violence against women. Nature Reviews Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-026-00616-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s44159-026-00616-4

Keywords: intimate partner violence, perpetrators, childhood trauma, personality disorders, attachment insecurity, substance use, anger and hostility, empathy deficits, sexism, emotion dysregulation, recidivism, batterer intervention programs