Books and Articles by John Hamel

NOTE:            Books can be purchased by contacting the publisher, Springer Publishing Company, at, or through online marketplaces such as Amazon.

All research articles are available for free upon request. Contact John Hamel at


  • Hamel, J. (2014). Gender-inclusive treatment of intimate partner abuse, 2nd Edition: Evidence-based approaches. New York: Springer.
  • Hamel, J., & Nicholls, T. (2007). Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment. New York: Springer
  • Hamel, J. (2008). Intimate partner and family abuse: A casebook of gender inclusive therapy. New York: Springer.


  • Cannon, C., Hamel, J., Buttell, F. P, & Ferreira, R. J. (In Press). A survey of domestic violence perpetrator programs in the U.S. and Canada: Findings and implications for policy intervention. Partner Abuse


A 15-page questionnaire, the North American Domestic Violence Intervention Program Survey (NADVIPS), was sent to directors of 3,246 domestic violence perpetrator programs (also known as batterer intervention programs, or BIPs) in U.S. and Canada. Respondent contact information was obtained from state Coalitions Against Domestic Violence and from various government agencies (e.g., Attorney General) available on the internet. A total of 238 programs completed and returned the questionnaire, a response rate of 20%. The survey yielded descriptive data on respondent characteristics; program philosophy, structure, content and service; client characteristics; treatment approach and adjunct services; and group facilitator views on intervention approaches and domestic violence policy and treatment standards. The programs varied in the extent to which they adhere to treatment approaches suggested by the empirical research literature. Additionally, chi square analyses were conducted on the associations between several factors. Significant correlations were found between respondent low level of education and adherence to a feminist-gendered program philosophy; respondent low level of education and use of a shorter assessment protocol; feminist-gendered program philosophy and incorrect facilitator knowledge about domestic violence; and feminist-gendered program philosophy and a program focus on power and control as the primary cause of domestic violence.

  • Hamel, J., Ferreira, R., & Buttell, F. (2015, March). Gender and batterer intervention: Implications of a program evaluation for policy and treatment. Research in Social Work Practice.


The purpose of the present study was to investigate the impact of gender and other variables commonly associated with intimate partner abuse perpetration on program completion and pretreatment abusiveness profiles among a sample of men and women ordered into a 52-week batterer intervention program (BIP). Method: The study employed a posttest only design with nonequivalent groups (comparing program completers to dropouts and men to women) in an analysis of 175 clients mandated into a BIP. Results: Analysis indicated that there were no significant differences between men and women in terms of program completion and that women were significantly more likely than men to report engaging in severe physical abuse perpetration, and a logistic regression analysis indicated that dropouts were 6 times more likely to have initiated physical abuse compared to completers. Conclusion: These findings reveal characteristics of BIP program participants as they relate to self-reported abusiveness and provide preliminary evidence suggesting that both BIP pretreatment profiles and treatment completion rates of men and women are similar, with implications for policy and treatment.

  • Hamel, J., Jones, D., Dutton, D., & Graham-Kevan, N. (2015). The CAT: A gender-inclusive measure of abusive and controlling tactics. Violence and Victims, 30 (4), 547-580.


Research has consistently found that partner violence, defined as physical abuse between married, cohabitating, or dating partners, is not the only type of abuse with long-term deleterious effects on victims. Male and female victims alike report that emotional abuse, along with controlling behaviors, are often as or more traumatic. Existing instruments used to measure emotional abuse and control have either been limited to male-perpetrated behaviors, as conceived in the well-known Duluth “Power and Control” wheel, or field tested on dating or general population samples. This study discusses the genesis and evolution of a gender-inclusive instrument, the Controlling and Abusive Tactics (CAT) Questionnaire, which was field tested on males and females with both a clinical and general population sample. For perpetration, a preliminary comparison across gender found no significant differences across gender for the great majority of items, with women reporting significantly higher rates on 9 items, and men reporting significantly higher rates on 6 items. Women reported higher rates of received abuse than men on 28 of 30 items in which gender differences were found to be significant, but both males and females reported higher victimization than perpetration rates on all items. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses resulted in the CAT-2, a valid and reliable instrument appropriate for clinical use by treatment providers as well as for research purposes.

  • Sielski, C., Begun, A., & Hamel, J. (2015). Expanding knowledge concerning the Safe at Home Instrument for assessing readiness-to-change among perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 6 (3). 255-272.


The Revised Safe At Home instrument is based on application of the transtheorectical model of behavior change (TMBC) and offers clinicians and clients an assessment tool to measure client readiness for changing intimate partner violence (IPV) behaviors. Scale scores from this tool can be used to assess client readiness to change and evaluate treatment program outcomes. The purposes of the present study are to relate patterns in scale scores with those obtained in previous studies, across the treatment cycle, and for women as well as men. This cross-sectional study engaged 246 participants from six IPV batterer treatment programs. Analyses consisted of computing scale totals and means for five scales (precontemplation, contemplation, preparation/action, maintenance, and overall readiness), comparing scores for men and women, and drawing comparisons with reports at treatment intake only. Findings indicated similar scores on precontemplation and contemplation, but significantly higher scores on preparation/action, maintenance, and overall readiness compared to the previous study. No differences related to phase of treatment and no gender differences were significant. The potential impact of self- versus clinical interview administration of the instrument is discussed, along with additional implications for clinical practice and directions for future research using this instrument.

  • Elmquist, J., Hamel, J., Shorey, R.C., Labrecque, L., Ninnemann, A., & Stuart, G.L. (2014). Motivations for intimate partner violence in men and women arrested for domestic violence and court referred to batterer intervention programs Partner Abuse, 5 (4).


Research has attempted to elucidate men and women’s proximal motivations for perpetrating intimate partner violence (IPV). However, previous research has yet to clarify and resolve contention regarding whether motives for IPV are gender-neutral or gender specific. Thus, the purpose of this present study was to compare motives for physical IPV perpetration among a sample of men (n =90) and women (n =87) arrested for domestic violence and court-referred to batterer intervention programs. Results demonstrated that the most frequently endorsed motives for IPV by both men and women were self-defense, expression of negative emotions, and communication difficulties. With the exception of expression of negative emotions and retaliation, with women endorsing these motives more often than men, there were no significant differences between men and women’s self-reported reasons for perpetrating physical aggression. The implications of these findings for future research and intervention programs are discussed.

  • Hamel, J., Desmarais, S.L., Nicholls, T.L., Malley-Morrison, K., & Aaronson, J. (2009, July). Domestic violence and child custody: Are family court professionals’ decisions based on erroneous beliefs? Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1(2), 37-52.


If child custody decisions are based on erroneous beliefs, family courts may not be acting in the best interests of children. This study examined family court professionals beliefs about family violence. Respondents (N = 410) of diverse professions, including child custody mediators, evaluators, and therapists, family law attorneys and judges, victim advocates and university students, completed a 10-item multiple-choice quiz. Results revealed low rates of correct responding, with respondents correctly answering approximately three out of 10 items on average, based on current research in the field. Overall, response rates were highly consistent with the discredited patriarchal paradigm. Shelter workers and victim advocates had the lowest average score, and men were found to have slightly higher scores than women. More troubling, students’ scores were not significantly lower than those of family court professionals. Implications are discussed with respect to decision-making in the context of child custody disputes.

  • Muller, R., Desmarais, S., & Hamel, J. (2009). Do judicial responses to restraining order requests discriminate against male victims? Journal of Family Violence, 24, 625-637.


Every state in the United States authorizes its courts to issue civil orders of protection for victims of domestic violence. Ideally, restraining orders should be available to all victims. However, consistent with the patriarchal paradigm, research suggests that judicial responses to domestic violence temporary restraining order (TRO) requests may be sex-differentiated. This paper reports on a study that explored equal protection issues in family law by evaluating gender and violence profiles of a random sample of 157 TRO petitions involving intimate partners, dating couples, and married persons in a California district court. The majority of cases involved allegations of low or moderate levels of violence perpetrated by male defendants against female plaintiffs. Although there were no systematic differences in level of violence as a function of plaintiff sex, judges were almost 13 times more likely to grant a TRO requested by a female plaintiff against her male intimate partner, than a TRO requested by a male plaintiff against his female partner. Further analyses revealed that this sex differentiation was limited to cases involving allegations of low-level violence.

  • Hamel, J., Desmarais, S. L., & Nicholls, T. L. (2007). Perceptions of motives in intimate partner violence: Expressive versus coercive violence. Violence and Victims, 22 (5), 563-576.


This study examined perceptions of motives in the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Respondents (N = 401) of diverse professions read three vignettes and indicated their perception of the aggressor’s motive (from 1 = Exclusively Expressive; 5 = Exclusively Coercive). Half of respondents read vignettes describing male-perpetrated violence against a female partner; the other half, female-perpetrated violence against a male partner. Overall, male-perpetrated aggression was seen as more coercive than female-perpetrated aggression, particularly by shelter workers and victim advocates. Further analyses revealed that men generally gave higher ratings than women, and that women rated female-perpetrated aggression as less coercive than male-perpetrated aggression. In contrast, men did not differ in their ratings of male versus female perpetration. Implications are discussed with respect to the assessment and treatment of partner violence.

  • Hamel, J. (2005). Fixing only part of the problem: Public policy and batterer intervention. Family Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin, 21 (2/3), 18-27.


The shortcomings of public policy regarding batterer intervention programs are examined. Due to a minimization of female-perpetrated assaults, public policy has promoted arrest and mandatory treatment policies that are both sexist and inefficient. Although women perpetrate half of intimate partner assaults, cause one-third of physical injuries, and engage in similar rates of emotional abuse and control tactics as men, they are seldom viewed as “batterers.” Consequently, women are rarely mandated to batterer intervention programs. A study of Batterer Intervention Programs in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area reveals that as few as 21% of male offenders are actually “batterers,” and that the rest have engaged in assaults involving no or negligible injuries. Recommendations are made with respect to public policy to make batterer intervention more efficient.


  • Hamel, J. (2016). In the best interests of children: What family law attorneys should know about domestic violence. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
  • Hamel, J. (2016). Understanding and intervening with partner abuse. In: J.L. Ireland, C.A. Ireland, N. Gredecki & M. Fisher (Eds.), International handbook on forensic psychology in secure settings. Taylor & Francis.
  • Hamel, J. (2014a). Clinical application: Intimate partner violence perpetrators. In: L.R. Grossman & S. Walfish (Eds.), Translating psychological research into practice (pp. 540-544). New York: Springer.
  • Hamel, J. (2014, May/June). Batterer intervention: Creating evidence-based programs. The Therapist.
  • Esquivel-Santovena, E., Lambert, T., & Hamel, J. (2013). Partner abuse worldwide. Partner Abuse, 4(1), 6-75.
  • Hamel, J. (2013, November). Are mental health issues the main cause of domestic violence?: Yes. CQ Researcher, 23 (41), 997. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Hamel, J., & Russell, B. (2013). The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project: Implications for law enforcement responses to domestic violence. In: B. Russell (Ed.), Perceptions of Female Offenders: How Stereotypes and Social Norms Affect Criminal Justice Responses (pp. 151-180). New York: Springer.
  • Nicholls, T. L., & Hamel, J. (2013). Intimate partner violence. In P. Zapf & B. Cutler (Eds.), American Psychological Association Handbook of Forensic Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Hamel, J. (2012). “But she’s violent, too!” Holding domestic violence offenders accountable within a systemic approach to batterer intervention. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 4 (3), 124-135.
  • Hamel, J. (2011). In dubious battle: The politics of mandatory arrest and dominant aggressor laws. Partner Abuse, 2 (2), 224-245.
  • Dutton, D., Hamel, J. & Aaronson, J. (2010). The gender paradigm in family court processes: Re-balancing the scales of justice from biased social science. Journal of Child Custody, 7 (1)
  • Hamel, J. (2010a). Do we want to be politically correct, or do we want to reduce partner abuse in our communities? Partner Abuse, 1 (1), 82-91.
  • Hamel, J. (2010b). The treatment of partner violence: Towards evidence-based practice. The Forensic Therapist, 9 (1), 9-14.
  • Dutton, D., Corvo, K., & Hamel, J. (2009). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and practice, part II: The information website of the American Bar Association. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 30-38.
  • Hamel, J. (2009a). Gender Inclusive Systemic Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse (GIST). Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1 (3), 71-76.
  • Hamel, J. (2009b). Toward a Gender-Inclusive Conception of Intimate Partner Violence Research and Theory: Part II – New Directions. International Journal of Men’s Health, 8 (1), 41-59.
  • Hamel, J. (2008). Beyond ideology: Alternative therapies for domestic violence. In: J. Hamel (Ed), Intimate partner and family abuse: A casebook of gender inclusive therapy (pp. 3-26). New York: Springer.
  • Hamel, J. (2007a). Domestic violence: A gender inclusive conception. In: J. Hamel & T. Nicholls, Family Interventions in Domestic violence: A Handbook of Gender-Inclusive Theory and Treatment (pp. 3-26). New York: Springer.
  • Hamel, J. (2007b). Gender inclusive family interventions in domestic violence: An overview. In: J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds), Family Interventions in Domestic violence: A Handbook of Gender-Inclusive Theory and Treatment (pp. 247-274). New York: Springer.
  • Hamel, J. (2007c). Male victims of domestic violence and reasons why they stay with their abuser. In N. Jackson (Ed.), Domestic Violence Encyclopedia (pp. 457-459). New York: Routledge.
  • Hamel, J. (2007d). Toward a gender-inclusive conception of intimate partner violence research and theory: Part I – Traditional perspectives. International Journal of Men’ Health, 6 (1), 36-53.