Types of Domestic ViolenceResearch Evidence

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

Barnet & RusenSandefjord, NorwaySeptember 26, 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 (plus one or two) Gender differences and sampling biases

Dramatic Differences Among the Types Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation Health and relationship consequences Miscellaneous other major differences

Barnet & Rusen Risk of child abuse The role of alcohol in the violence

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%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%Norway, ill-treatment, 2009 77% 23%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

Reconciles the Contradiction There is more than one type of partner violence

The different types are differently gendered

Both major sampling plans are biased General survey studies are biased toward situationally-

provoked violence, which is perpetrated about equally by men and women.

Agency studies are biased toward coercive controlling violence, which is perpetrated almost entirely by men.

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 (plus one or two) Gender differences and sampling biases

Dramatic Differences Among the Types Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation Health and relationship consequences Miscellaneous other major differences

Barnet & Rusen Risk of child abuse The role of alcohol in the violence

Intimate TerrorismViolent Coercive Control

Violent ResistanceResisting the Intimate Terrorist

Situational Couple ViolenceSituationally-provoked Violence

Mutual Violent ControlTwo Intimate Terrorists

Separation-instigated ViolenceNo Prior History of Violence or Control

Intimate Terrorism/Domestic Violence

Adapted from Pence & Paymar, 1993.

Coercive Control ScaleThinking about your husband [yourself], would you say he [you]… 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?

*These are items from the 1995 National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). They were adapted from the Canadian Violence Against Women Survey (Holly Johnson, 1996).

Intimate TerrorismViolent Coercive Control

Pattern of violent coercive control Attempt to exert general control One basic pattern with variations

Specific control tactics vary from case to case, e.g., economic control, isolation, emotional abuse, intimidation, use of children

In heterosexual relationships, primarily but not exclusively men

Two major subtypes identified for men: Emotionally dependent; Antisocial

Refuse survey research

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

Refuse survey research

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

Participate in survey research

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 (plus one or two) Gender differences and sampling biases

Dramatic Differences Among the Types Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation Health and relationship consequences Miscellaneous other major differences

Barnet & Rusen Risk of child abuse The role of alcohol in the violence

76% severe75% escalated

29% mutual

28% severe

28% escalated69% mutual

1/25 couples

1/8 couples

Pittsburgh dataMixed sample

43% severe78% escalated

15% mutual

13% severe

20% escalated87% mutual

British dataMixed sample

57% frequent violence60% feared for life

8% frequent violence9% feared for life

Canadian GSS 2004Previous/current partner

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

Left more than once Pittsburgh 26% 74% p<.001

* Percent above the median for female victims of partner violence

Miscellaneous Major DifferencesStudies by Various Social Scientists

Different Locations and Sample TypesDifferent Measures

SCV IT Intergenerational “transmission”

d = +.11 d = +.35 Marriage

b = -.62 b = +.58 Gender traditionalism

d = -.14 d = +.80 Hostility toward women

mean = 57 mean = 79

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 (plus one or two) Gender differences and sampling biases

Dramatic Differences Among the Types Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation Health and relationship consequences Miscellaneous other major differences

Barnet & Rusen Risk of child abuse The role of alcohol in the violence

Risk of Child AbuseDifferent Dynamics for Different Types

Intimate Terrorism—controlManipulation or punishment of partnerControl of children

Situational Couple Violence—conflict escalationSubstance abuse

Source of conflictDynamics of escalation

Anger managementCouple communication

Risk of Child Abuse*Preliminary Evidence

Sample TypeMale PartnerChild Abuse

Giles-Sims, 1985 Shelter = “IT” 63%Mahoney et al., 2003 Shelter = “IT” 50%

O’Keefe, 1995 Shelter = “IT” 44%McCloskey, 2001 Shelter = “IT” 42%Jouriles et al., 2000 Shelter = “IT” 27%Slep & O’Leary, 2005 Community = “SCV” 11%

*Adapted from Jouriles et al., 2008

The Role of Alcohol in the ViolenceDifferent Dynamics for Different Types

Intimate Terrorism—controlNo effect on incidenceIncreased severity

Situational Couple Violence—conflict escalationSource of conflictDynamics of escalation

The Role of Alcohol in the ViolencePreliminary Evidence

Fals-Stewart and colleagues—multiple studiesDaily log data establish alcohol as a causeBCT enhances success on days of drinkingBCT ineffective for antisocial personality

Hines—male victims’ drinking affected situational couple violence, but not intimate terrorism

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 Shelter

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