intimate terrorism and other types of domestic violence michael p. johnson, ph.d. sociology,...
TRANSCRIPT
Intimate Terrorism and Other Types of Domestic Violence
Michael P. Johnson, Ph.D.
Sociology, Women's Studies, and
African & African American Studies
Penn State
Photos from Donna Ferrato, Living with the Enemy. New York: Aperture, 1991
McKeesport, PA
Texas Tech October 14, 2008
The Continuing Gender Debate “It’s all men” vs. “Women do it just as much as men” A small theory that reconciles the contradiction
A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases Other differences
Implications for Research and Theory Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed Need for differentiated theory
Implications for Intervention Screening/triage Intervention with perpetrators Support for survivors Custody and access issues
Agency Studies “Prove” ThatMen Are the Primary Batterers
Heterosexual intimate partner violence
by genderData Source Men Women
Divorce Court, Cleveland, 1966 92% 8%
Family Court, Ontario, 1982 94% 6%
Police, Santa Barbara, CA, 1983 94% 6%
Emergency Rooms, U.K., 1988 83% 17%
U.S., FBI, 1996-2001 75% 25%
Spousal Homicide, Canada, 1995-2005 82% 18%
Heterosexual intimate partner violence
by genderData Source Men Women
NFVS,1975 51% 49%
NSFH, 1988 53% 47%
8th & 9th Grade, NC, 1994 35% 65%
U. Maine students, 1997 39% 61%
New Zealand, 2002 39% 61%
But General Surveys “Prove” That Women Are as Violent as Men
A Small Theorythat
Reconciles the Contradiction There is more than one type of partner violence The different types of partner violence are
differently gendered And both major sampling plans are biased
Agency studies are biased toward coercive controlling violence, perpetrated almost entirely by men
General survey studies are biased toward situationally-provoked violence, which women are as likely to perpetrate as are men
The Continuing Gender Debate “It’s all men” vs. “Women do it just as much as men” A small theory that reconciles the contradiction
A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases Other differences
Implications for Research and Theory Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed Need for differentiated theory
Implications for Intervention Screening/triage Intervention with perpetrators Support for survivors Custody and access issues
Intimate TerrorismViolent Coercive Control
Violent ResistanceResisting the Intimate Terrorist
Situational Couple ViolenceSituationally-provoked Violence
Mutual Violent ControlTwo Intimate Terrorists
Control Scale
Thinking about your current husband, would you say he… …is jealous or possessive? …tries to provoke arguments? …tries to limit your contact with family and friends? …insists on knowing who you are with at all times? …calls you names or puts you down in front of others? …makes you feel inadequate? …shouts or swears at you? …frightens you? …prevents you from knowing about or having access to
the family income even when you ask?NVAWS
Intimate TerrorismViolent Coercive Control
Violent ResistanceResisting the Intimate Terrorist
Situational Couple ViolenceSituationally-provoked Violence
Mutual Violent ControlTwo Intimate Terrorists
Gender Symmetry/Asymmetryby Type of Violence
(1970s Pittsburgh: Violent husbands and wives)
Husbands Wives N
Intimate terrorism 97% 3% 97
Violent resistance 4% 96% 77
Situational couple violence 56% 44% 146
2000s Britain: IT 87% male; VR 10% male, SCV 45% male
The Biases of Major Sampling Plans(Violent men: Pittsburgh & Britain)
GeneralSample
(n = 37, 73)
ShelterSample
(n = 50, 41)
Court Sample*(n = 34)
Intimate terrorism 14%, 12% 78%, 88% 68%Violent resistance 0%, 4% 2%, 0% 0%
Situational couple violence 86%, 75% 18%, 10% 29%
*Pittsburgh only
76% severe
75% escalated29% mutual
28% severe
28% escalated69% mutual
1/25 couples
1/8 couples
Pittsburgh data
Women’s Health Outcomes by Type of Male Violence
SCV IT
Any Injury Pittsburgh 56% 94% ***
NVAWS 13% 32% ***
Severe injury Pittsburgh 28% 76% ***
NVAWS 2% 5% *
General health Chicago Good to Very Good
Fair to Good *
Post-traumatic stress+ NVAWS 37% 79% ***
Depression++ NVAWS 65% 75% ns
+ Percent above the median for female victims of partner violence++Percent above the median for the general sample of married women
*.05 **.01 ***.001
Relationship Outcomes by Type of Male Violence
Situational
Couple
Violence
Intimate
Terrorism
Low marital happiness Pittsburgh 13% 50% ***
Left more than once Pittsburgh 26% 74% ***
NVAWS 7% 29% ***
Rarely a good time Pittsburgh 3% 20% ***
Sex often unpleasant Pittsburgh 9% 23% ***
*.05 **.01 ***.001
The Continuing Gender Debate ““It’s all men” vs. “Women do it just as much as men” A small theory that reconciles the contradiction
A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases Other differences
Implications for Research and Theory Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed Need for differentiated theory
Implications for Intervention Screening/triage Intervention with perpetrators Support for survivors Custody and access issues
We Need to Re-assess Everything Intergenerational “transmission” (Stith et al.; Johnson & Cares)
SCV: d = .11 IT: d = .35 SCV: odds ratio = 2.40 IT: odds ratio = 7.51
Marriage (Macmillan & Gartner)
SCV: b = -.62 IT: b = .58 Gender traditionalism (Sugarman & Frankel)
SCV: d = -.14 IT: d = .80 Hostility toward women (Holtzworth-Munroe et al.)
Non-viol, SCV = 154, 153 IT, IT = 135, 131
Gender, frequency, severity, escalation, mutuality, impact on victim, impact on children, etc.
Need for Differentiated Theory Intimate terrorism
Coercive control theory Gender theory Theories of paternalism
Violent Resistance Coping Entrapment
Situational couple violence Family conflict theory Communication Anger management Substance abuse
The Continuing Gender Debate “It’s all men” vs. “Women do it just as much as men” A small theory that reconciles the contradiction
A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases Other differences
Implications for Research and Theory Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed Need for differentiated theory
Implications for Intervention Screening/triage Intervention with perpetrators Support for survivors Custody and access issues
Screening/Triage Different models appropriate for different
clients To screen we need information on both
control and violence for both partners Safety first!
Safety planning—as if you were dealing with intimate terrorism
If SCV seems likely, try individual application of other approaches
If SCV and safety become clear, move to couple approaches with protections in place
Intervention with Perpetrators
SCVDependent
ITAntisocial
IT
Completed Program
77% 38% 9%
Re-arrest 18% 38% 46%
Repeat Violence
55% 62% 88%
Outcomes of Duluth-type Batterer Intervention Program
(Thirteen Months Post-adjudication)
Eckhardt et al. 2008
Success of Different Intervention Strategies by IT Sub-type
(Percent non-violent two years after completing treatment)
Dependent Antisocial
Feminist cognitive-behavioral 48% 65%
Process-psychodynamic 67% 49%
Adapted from Saunders (1996)
Intervention with PerpetratorsHold them all accountable in the criminal justice system
to provide an essential motivation for change Intimate terrorism
Control-focused education Perhaps different tactics for sub-types
Violent resistance (Support for survivors) Alternatives to violence Neutralize the entrapment
Situational couple violence Source of conflict Anger management Communication counseling Substance abuse rehab
Support for Survivors Intimate terrorism
Safety planning Long-term support Alternatives to violent resistance Empowerment to leave Transitional support
Situational couple violence Source of conflict Anger management Communication counseling Substance abuse rehab
Custody and Access Issues
Separation instigated violence Manipulative accusations Resources for thorough evaluation Custody/access options
No contact Supervised access Supervised exchanges Parallel parenting, minimal couple contact Joint custody/Co-parenting
We make big mistakes if we don’t make big distinctions.
Different types of partner violence have…
Different causes Different developmental trajectories Different effects Different successful intervention strategies