Types of Domestic Violence Research Evidence

Types of Domestic Violence Research 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 Barnet & Rusen Sandefjord, Norway September 26, 2012 McKeesport, PA

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 Backlash Attack Feminist Research Deny 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

General Surveys Indicate That Women Are as Violent as Men Heterosexual intimate partner violence by gender Data Source Men Women Canada, GSS, 2004 Norway, Statistics Norway, 2003 Sweden, university students, c. 2001 U.S., NSFH, 1988 U.S., NFVS, 1975 the beginning 54% 55% 52% 53% 51% 46% 45% 48% 47% 49%

But Agency Studies Indicate That Men Are the Primary Batterers Heterosexual intimate partner violence by gender Data Source Sweden, partner assault, 2010 Norway, ill-treatment, 2009 Canada, spousal homicide, 1995-2005 U.S., FBI, partner assault,1996-2001 U.K., emergency rooms, 1988 Ontario, family court, 1982 Men 80% 77% 82% 75% 83% 94% Women 20% 23% 18% 25% 17% 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 Terrorism Violent Coercive Control Violent Resistance Resisting the Intimate Terrorist Situational Couple Violence Situationally-provoked Violence Separation-instigated Violence No Prior History of Violence or Control Mutual Violent Control Two Intimate Terrorists

Intimate Terrorism/Domestic Violence Adapted from Pence & Paymar, 1993.

Coercive Control Scale Thinking 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 Terrorism Violent 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 Resistance Resisting the Intimate Terrorist Many victims respond with violence Not necessarily self-defense In heterosexual relationships, most violent resistors desist and turn to other tactics, either to mitigate the violence or to escape Refuse survey research

Situational Couple Violence Situationally-provoked Violence Conflicts turn to arguments that escalate Both men and women do this Men s violence more likely to injure and frighten Huge 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/Asymmetry by Type of Violence (1970s Pittsburgh: Violent husbands and wives) Husbands 97% Wives 3% N 97 Intimate terrorism Violent resistance 4% 77 96% Situational couple violence 146 56% 44% 2000s Britain: IT 87% male; VR 10% male; SCV 45% male

The Biases of Major Sampling Plans (Violent men: Pittsburgh) General Sample (n = 37) Shelter Sample (n = 50) Court Sample (n = 34) Intimate terrorism 14% 68% 78% Violent resistance 0% 0% 2% Situational couple violence 29% 18% 86% 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

ma at te e T Te er rr ro or ri is sm 75% escalated 29% mutual I In nt ti im Pittsburgh data Mixed sample 76% severe m 1/25 couples General Motive: To control the relationship S Si it tu ua at ti io on na al l C Co ou up pl le e V Vi io ol le en nc ce e 28% escalated 69% mutual 28% severe 1/8 couples Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc .

ma at te e T Te er rr ro or ri is sm 78% escalated 15% mutual I In nt ti im British data Mixed sample 43% severe m General Motive: To control the relationship S Si it tu ua at ti io on na al l C Co ou up pl le e V Vi io ol le en nc ce e 20% escalated 87% mutual Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc 13% severe

ma at te e T Te er rr ro or ri is sm 60% feared for life I In nt ti im Canadian GSS 2004 Previous/current partner m 57% frequent violence General Motive: To control the relationship S Si it tu ua at ti io on na al l C Co ou up pl le e V Vi io ol le en nc ce e 9% feared for life 8% frequent violence Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc

Health & Relationship Outcomes by Type of Male Violence (various studies) SCV 25% IT p<.001 Injury, latest incident U.S., NVAW 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% * Percent above the median for female victims of partner violence

Miscellaneous Major Differences Studies by Various Social Scientists Different Locations and Sample Types Different Measures Intergenerational transmission d = +.11 Marriage b = -.62 Gender traditionalism d = -.14 Hostility toward women mean = 57 mean = 79 SCV IT d = +.35 b = +.58 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 (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 Abuse Different Dynamics for Different Types Intimate Terrorism control Manipulation or punishment of partner Control of children Situational Couple Violence conflict escalation Substance abuse Source of conflict Dynamics of escalation Anger management Couple communication

Risk of Child Abuse* Preliminary Evidence Male Partner Child Abuse Sample Type Giles-Sims, 1985 Mahoney et al., 2003 63% 50% Shelter = IT Shelter = IT 44% 42% 27% 11% O Keefe, 1995 McCloskey, 2001 Jouriles et al., 2000 Slep & O Leary, 2005 Shelter = IT Shelter = IT Shelter = IT Community = SCV *Adapted from Jouriles et al., 2008

The Role of Alcohol in the Violence Different Dynamics for Different Types Intimate Terrorism control No effect on incidence Increased severity Situational Couple Violence conflict escalation Source of conflict Dynamics of escalation

The Role of Alcohol in the Violence Preliminary Evidence Fals-Stewart and colleagues multiple studies Daily log data establish alcohol as a cause BCT enhances success on days of drinking BCT ineffective for antisocial personality Hines male victims drinking affected situational couple violence, but not intimate terrorism

Different types of partner violence have Different causes Different developmental trajectories Different effects Different implications for policy and practice We make big mistakes if we don t make big distinctions. www.personal.psu.edu/mpj

Support Your Local Womens Shelter Safety Support Information Advocacy Photos from Donna Ferrato, Living with the Enemy. New York: Aperture, 1991 Philadelphia, PA shelter

A Few Useful Referencesresearch 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 Referencesinterventions 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.