Types of Domestic ViolenceResearch Evidence and Implications

Michael P. Johnson, Ph.D.Sociology, Women's Studies, and African & African American Studies

Penn State

www.personal.psu.edu/mpj

Photos from Donna Ferrato, Living with the Enemy. New York: Aperture, 1991

McKeesport, PA

Women’s RefugeConference 2012

Blenheim, New ZealandOctober 27, 2012

Are Women Really as Violent as Men? Anti-feminist politics and conflicting data Explaining the ostensible contradictions

A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases

Dramatic Differences Among the Types Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation A few health and relationship consequences Different risk factors for perpetration

Policy Implications

The Anti-feminist BacklashAttack Feminist ResearchDeny the Role of Gender

Attack Programs that Address Violence against Women

“The gender paradigm. . . biased social science.” Dutton et al., 2010

“Men as likely to suffer spousal abuse, Statscan says.” Globe and Mail July 27, 2002 (Web site)

“…the Ontario Government may be in violation of their obligations… [because] the existing network of shelters for victims of family violence exclude[s] men….” The Men’s Project, February 2009: Submission to the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General

Heterosexual intimate partner violence by gender

Data Source Men Women

Canada, GSS, 2004 54% 46%Norway, Statistics Norway, 2003 55% 45%New Zealand, Dunedin, 2002, 25 year olds 39% 61%Sweden, university students, c. 2001 52% 48%U.S., NSFH, 1988 53% 47%U.S., NFVS, 1975—the beginning 51% 49%

General Surveys Indicate That Women Are as Violent as Men

But Agency Studies Indicate ThatMen Are the Primary Batterers

Heterosexual intimate partner violence

by genderData Source Men WomenSweden, partner assault, 2010 80% 20%New Zealand protection orders, 2007 90% 9%New Zealand hospitals, IPV assaults, 2006 91% 9%Canada, spousal homicide, 1995-2005 82% 18%U.S., FBI, partner assault,1996-2001 75% 25%U.K., emergency rooms, 1988 83% 17%Ontario, family court, 1982 94% 6%

Differentiating Among Types of Intimate Partner Violence

Explains the Contradictions There is more than one type of partner violence

One type is perpetrated mostly by men, another by both men and women

Agency studies are dominated by the male-perpetrated type, general surveys by the gender-symmetric type

Are Women Really as Violent as Men? Anti-feminist politics and conflicting data Explaining the ostensible contradictions

A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases

Dramatic Differences Among the Types Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation A few health and relationship consequences Different risk factors for perpetration

Policy Implications

Intimate TerrorismViolent Coercive Control

Violent ResistanceResisting the Intimate Terrorist

Situational Couple ViolenceSituationally-provoked Violence

Intimate TerrorismViolent Coercive Control

Pattern of violent coercive control The basic pattern is the use of multiple control

tactics (violent and non-violent) to attempt to take general control over one’s partner

Specific control tactics vary from case to case, involving different combinations of economic control, isolation, emotional abuse, intimidation, use of children, and other control tactics

In heterosexual relationships, perpetrated primarily but not exclusively by men

Generally rare, but common in agency settings

Intimate Terrorism/Domestic Violence

Adapted from Pence & Paymar, 1993.

Violent ResistanceResisting the Intimate Terrorist

Many victims respond with violenceNot necessarily self-defenseIn heterosexual relationships, most violent resistors desist and turn to other tactics, either to mitigate the violence or to escape

Generally rare, but common in agency settings

Situational Couple ViolenceSituationally-provoked Violence

Conflicts turn to arguments that escalateBoth men and women do this

Men’s violence more likely to injure and frightenHuge variability

40% only one incident, but can involve chronic and severe violence

Variable causes of chronic SCV include chronic conflict, substance abuse, anger issues, communication issues, and others

By far the most common type

Gender Symmetry/Asymmetryby Type of Violence

(1970s Pittsburgh: Violent husbands and wives)

Husbands Wives NIntimate 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)

GeneralSample(n = 37)

Court Sample(n = 34)

ShelterSample(n = 50)

Intimate terrorism 14% 68% 78%

Violent resistance 0% 0% 2%

Situational couple violence 86% 29% 18%

2000s Britain: IT by sample type: General = 13%, Shelter = 88%.

Are Women Really as Violent as Men? Anti-feminist politics and conflicting data Explaining the ostensible contradictions

A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases

Dramatic Differences Among the Types Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation A few health and relationship consequences Different risk factors for perpetration

Policy Implications

76% severe75% escalated

29% mutual

28% severe

28% escalated69% mutual

General2-4%

General12-18%

Johnson, 2006Mixed sample, marriedPittsburgh, 1970s

Shelter80-90%

Shelter10-20%

57% frequent violence60% feared for life

8% frequent violence9% feared for life

Ansara & Hindin, 2010Previous/current partnersCanadian GSS 2004

Health & Relationship Outcomes by Type of Male Violence

(various studies)

SCV ITInjury, latest incident U.S., NVAW 25% 49% p<.001

Severe injury, ever Pittsburgh 28% 76% p<.001

Post-traumatic stress* U.S., NVAW 37% 79% p<.001

Suicidal behavior Chicago, CWHRS 18% 37% p<.001

Low marital happiness Pittsburgh 13% 50% p<.001

* Percent above the median for female victims of partner violence

Different Risk FactorsStudies by Various Social Scientists

Different Locations and Sample TypesDifferent Measures

Intergenerational “transmission” SCV d = +.11 IT d = +.35

Marriage SCV b = -.62 IT b = +.58

Gender traditionalism SCV d = -.14 IT d = +.80

Are Women Really as Violent as Men? Anti-feminist politics and conflicting data Explaining the ostensible contradictions

A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases

Dramatic Differences Among the Types Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation A few health and relationship consequences Different risk factors for perpetration

Policy Implications

Primary Prevention/Education Intimate terrorism

Equality and respect Violent resistance

Intimate terrorism danger signs Safety planning Entrapment/escape issues

Situational couple violence Sources of conflict, e.g., poverty Anger management, communication,

substance abuse

Screening/Triage Different models for different clients To screen we need to assess coercive

control and violence for both partners Safety first!

Initially assume the worst (intimate terrorism) If SCV seems likely, try individual application

of other approaches If you are confidant that you are dealing with

SCV, and safety has been demonstrated over time, you can move to couple approaches with protections in place

Intervention with PerpetratorsHold them all accountable in the criminal justice system

to provide an essential motivation for change

Intimate terrorism Control-focused education

Violent resistance Alternatives to violence/Safety planning Neutralize entrapment

Situational couple violence Sources of conflict, e.g., poverty Anger management, communication,

substance abuse rehab

Intervention for Survivors Intimate terrorism

Long-term support Alternatives to violent resistance Empowerment to leave Transitional support

Situational couple violence Sources of conflict, e.g., poverty Anger management, communication,

substance abuse rehab

We make big mistakes if we don’t make big distinctions.

www.personal.psu.edu/mpj

Different types of partner violence have…

Different causes Different developmental trajectories Different effects Different implications for policy and practice

Support Your Local Women’s Refuge

Safety Support Information Advocacy

Philadelphia, PA shelter

Photos from Donna Ferrato, Living with the Enemy. New York: Aperture, 1991

Fals-Stewart, W., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Treating intimate partner violence among substance-abusing dyads: The effect of couples therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(3), 257-263.

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: A test of Johnson's predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(11), 1247-1270.

Johnson, M. P. (2008). Types of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Slep, A. M. S., Heyman, R. E., & Garrido, E. (2008). Child abuse in the context of domestic violence: Prevalence, explanations, and practice implications. Violence and Victims, 23(2), 221-235.

Leone, J. M. (2011). Suicidal behavior among low-income, African American female victims of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(13), 2568-2591.

A Few Useful References—research

Gondolf, E. W. (2008). Implementation of case management for batterer program participants. Violence Against Women, 14(2), 208-225.

Gondolf, E. W. (2012). The Future of Batterer Programs: Reassessing Evidence-Based Practice. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J. R., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2008). Custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence: Toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans. Family Court Review, 46(3), 500-522.

Mills, L. G. (2008). Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse. New York, NY: Basic Books.

O’Farrell, T.J. & Fals-Stewart, W. (2006). Behavioral Couples Therapy for Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. New York: Guilford Press. Materials also available free at www.addictionandfamily.org.

Pence, E. & Paymar ,M. (1993). Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model. New York: Springer.

Stith, S. M., McCollum, E. E., & Rosen, K. H. (2011). Couples Therapy for Domestic Violence: Finding Safe Solutions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

A Few Useful References—interventions