Perpetrator programmes for partner violence: A rejoinder to Respect



This article is corrected by:

  1. Errata: Perpetrator programmes for partner violence: A clarification Volume 18, Issue 2, 382, Article first published online: 29 August 2013

Professor John Archer, School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 3TQ, UK (e-mail:


Purpose. To reply to the comments made by Debbonaire and Todd (2012) in relation to our critique of Respect's Position Statement.

Method. We examined their reply in relation to our original article and to the wider research literature.

Results. We show that Debbonaire and Todd's reply is largely a series of assertions, for which little or no supporting evidence is offered. Their argument is first that we are misplaced in criticizing their Position Statement, and second that the main points of the statement are defendable. We indicate why our criticisms of the statement still stand.

Conclusions. We argue that Respect have not countered our overall criticism of their position that intimate partner violence (IPV) can only be addressed as a gendered issue, that is as a consequence of patriarchal values enacted at the individual level. Instead we advocate a gender-inclusive approach applying a knowledge base derived from robust empirical research on IPV and more widely from research on human aggression.