Eliminating the battering of women by men: Some considerations for behavior analysis.

Martin (1995) wrote a narrative review. The paper asked behavior analysts to treat domestic violence as learned behavior.

It argued that men batter women because the violence is reinforced. Escape, avoidance, and social pay-offs keep the cycle going.

The review found no behavior-analytic studies on battering. It urged the field to build and test interventions.

The author gave a road map: define battering as operant behavior, then use ABA to weaken it.

Ludwig et al. (2023) extends the call. Their safety-review shows ABA now cuts workplace injuries with the same logic: change antecedents and consequences to stop harm.

D'Agostino et al. (2025) acts as a successor. They tell researchers to add intersectional interviews so interventions fit survivors' real contexts, answering the 1995 plea for socially valid programs.

McSweeney et al. (2000) and Mates (1990) are topically related. They show gender bias inside ABA itself, reminding us to fix our own house while we design battering interventions.

You already shape behavior every day. Use the same tools to keep people safe at home. Start by viewing violent acts as operant episodes, not moral defects. Then pilot simple ABC analyses during risk assessments. Track what triggers blows and what reinforces them. Share the data with courts and shelters so your behavior plan becomes part of the safety contract.