Types of Domestic Violence Research Evidence www.personal.psu.edu/mpj 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 Types of Domestic Violence: Research

Are Women Really as Violent as Men? www.personal.psu.edu/mpj 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

www.personal.psu.edu/mpj 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 www.personal.psu.edu/mpj General Surveys Indicate That Women Are as Violent as Men 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% Different decades Different purposes—family violence, family demography Different ages and types of relationships Different countries Types of Domestic Violence: Research

But Agency Studies Indicate That Men Are the Primary Batterers www.personal.psu.edu/mpj But Agency Studies Indicate That Men Are the Primary Batterers Heterosexual intimate partner violence by gender Data Source Men Women Sweden, 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% Different decades Different agencies Different countries Assaults and homicides Types of Domestic Violence: Research

www.personal.psu.edu/mpj 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? www.personal.psu.edu/mpj 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

Situational Couple Violence www.personal.psu.edu/mpj Intimate Terrorism Violent Coercive Control Violent Resistance Resisting the Intimate Terrorist Situational Couple Violence Situationally-provoked Violence General control, not incident focused, but relationship focused. Coercive, not persuasion, not reward, but punishment focused Separation-instigated Violence No Prior History of Violence or Control Mutual Violent Control Two Intimate Terrorists Types of Domestic Violence: Research

Intimate Terrorism/Domestic Violence www.personal.psu.edu/mpj Intimate Terrorism/Domestic Violence Theory of coercive control (Dutton and Goodman) Threats, intimidation Attack the will to resist Deny resources needed to resist Monitoring Use violence when necessary Adapted from Pence & Paymar, 1993. Types of Domestic Violence: Research

Coercive Control Scale www.personal.psu.edu/mpj 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). Types of Domestic Violence: Research

Violent Coercive Control 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

Resisting the Intimate Terrorist 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

Situational couple violence www.personal.psu.edu/mpj Gender Symmetry/Asymmetry by 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 Cluster analysis, 1999 NCFR paper Types of Domestic Violence: Research

The Biases of Major Sampling Plans (Violent men: Pittsburgh) www.personal.psu.edu/mpj The Biases of Major Sampling Plans (Violent men: Pittsburgh) General Sample (n = 37) Court Sample (n = 34) Shelter (n = 50) Intimate terrorism 14% 68% 78% Violent resistance 0% 2% Situational couple violence 86% 29% 18% 2000s Britain: IT by sample type: General = 13%, Shelter = 88%. Frieze’s Pittsburgh data 1999 Cluster data recomputed to separate court and shelter Graham-Kevan & Archer 2003 cluster calculated from Table 8 Types of Domestic Violence: Research

Are Women Really as Violent as Men? www.personal.psu.edu/mpj 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

Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc . www.personal.psu.edu/mpj Pittsburgh data Mixed sample Intimate Terrorism 76% severe 75% escalated 1/25 couples 29% mutual General Motive: To control the relationship Situational Couple Violence 28% severe Point out that these findings confirm comparisons of survey and agency results generally. Comment on imprecision of numbers, robustness of patterns. But also variable, note percent non-typical cases All of this is based on the cluster analysis, not a cutoff. NCFR paper, 1999. Severe = severe no trauma, severe some trauma, permanent injury. Mutual means that the husband’s frequency was less than the wife’s frequency plus five. 28% escalated 1/8 couples 69% mutual Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc . Types of Domestic Violence: Research

Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc www.personal.psu.edu/mpj British data Mixed sample Intimate Terrorism 43% severe 78% escalated 15% mutual General Motive: To control the relationship Situational Couple Violence 13% severe Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003. All of this is based on a cluster analysis, not a cutoff. It includes both men and women. Severe = requires medical attention. Mutual means that the husband’s frequency was less than the wife’s frequency plus five. 20% escalated 87% mutual Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc Types of Domestic Violence: Research

Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc www.personal.psu.edu/mpj Canadian GSS 2004 Previous/current partner Intimate Terrorism 57% frequent violence 60% feared for life General Motive: To control the relationship Situational Couple Violence Ansara, D. L., & Hindin, M. J. 2010). Exploring gender differences in the patterns of intimate partner violence in Canada: A latent class approach. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 64, 849-854. Latent class analysis: IT combines two classes (physical aggression plus control plus verbal abuse, severe violence plus control plus verbal abuse); SCV is physical aggression only Frequent = more than 5 incidents 8% frequent violence 9% feared for life Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc Types of Domestic Violence: Research

www.personal.psu.edu/mpj Health & Relationship Outcomes by Type of Male Violence (various studies) SCV IT Injury, latest incident U.S., NVAW 25% 49% p<.001 Severe injury, ever Pittsburgh 28% 76% Post-traumatic stress* 37% 79% Suicidal behavior Chicago, CWHRS 18% Low marital happiness 13% 50% Left more than once 26% 74% * Percent above the median for female victims of partner violence The combination of coercive control and violence produces particularly negative outcomes. We’ve even shown the effects controlling for level of violence. Pittsburgh injury data are for worst incident GSS data are for previous partner Types of Domestic Violence: Research

www.personal.psu.edu/mpj Miscellaneous Major Differences Studies by Various Social Scientists Different Locations and Sample Types Different 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 Stith et al. Johnson & Cares; Johnson, 2008 Macmillan & Gartner Sugarman Holtzworth-Munroe Types of Domestic Violence: Research

Are Women Really as Violent as Men? www.personal.psu.edu/mpj 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 www.personal.psu.edu/mpj Risk of Child Abuse* Preliminary Evidence Sample Type Male Partner Child Abuse Giles-Sims, 1985 Shelter = “IT” 63% Mahoney et al., 2003 50% O’Keefe, 1995 44% McCloskey, 2001 42% Jouriles et al., 2000 27% Slep & O’Leary, 2005 Community = “SCV” 11% *Adapted from Jouriles et al., 2008 Might want to use the “left more than once” data to comment on the problem of making these distinctions in a general sample such as the NVAW Types of Domestic Violence: Research

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… www.personal.psu.edu/mpj 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 Women’s Shelter www.personal.psu.edu/mpj Support Your Local Women’s Shelter Safety Support Information Advocacy Safety (shelter, safety plan): undermines his restriction of alternatives through violence Support (counselor, support groups, shelter ): undermines restriction of alternatives though psychological abuse, undermines social pressure by adding new voices, exposing the children to other families with similar problems Information (counselor, support groups): undermines restriction of alternatives through lack of information about services, models of women who’ve done it, termination procedures seem more manageable, undermines his threats to take the children Advocacy: OR DO YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON THE WHEEL?? Photos from Donna Ferrato, Living with the Enemy. New York: Aperture, 1991 Philadelphia, PA shelter Types of Domestic Violence: Research

A Few Useful References—research 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. Fals-Stewart, W., Klostermann, K., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Substance abuse and intimate partner violence. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions. (pp. 251-269 ). Washington, DC American Psychological Association. Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and Recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gondolf, E. W. (2007). Theoretical and research support for the Duluth Model: A reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 644-657. Gondolf, E. W. (2008). Implementation of case management for batterer program participants. [Peer Reviewed]. Violence Against Women, 14(2), 208-225. doi: 10.1177/1077801207312589 Mills, L. G. (2008). Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse. New York, NY: Basic Books. Stith, S. M., & McCollum, E. E. (2009). Couples treatment for psychological and physical aggression. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and Physical Aggression in Couples: Causes and Interventions (pp. 233-250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Stith, S. M., McCollum, e. E., Rosen, K. H., & Locke, L. D. (2002). Multicouple group therapy for domestic violence. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychotherapy: Integrative/eclectic (Vol. 4, pp. 499-520). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E., & Thomsen, C. J. (2004). Treating intimate partner violence within intact couple relationships: Outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy. Special Issue: Implications of Reseach with Diverse Families, 30(3), 305-318. A Few Useful References—research 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—interventions 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. Fals-Stewart, W., Klostermann, K., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Substance abuse and intimate partner violence. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions. (pp. 251-269 ). Washington, DC American Psychological Association. Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and Recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gondolf, E. W. (2007). Theoretical and research support for the Duluth Model: A reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 644-657. Gondolf, E. W. (2008). Implementation of case management for batterer program participants. [Peer Reviewed]. Violence Against Women, 14(2), 208-225. doi: 10.1177/1077801207312589 Mills, L. G. (2008). Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse. New York, NY: Basic Books. Stith, S. M., & McCollum, E. E. (2009). Couples treatment for psychological and physical aggression. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and Physical Aggression in Couples: Causes and Interventions (pp. 233-250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Stith, S. M., McCollum, e. E., Rosen, K. H., & Locke, L. D. (2002). Multicouple group therapy for domestic violence. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychotherapy: Integrative/eclectic (Vol. 4, pp. 499-520). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E., & Thomsen, C. J. (2004). Treating intimate partner violence within intact couple relationships: Outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy. Special Issue: Implications of Reseach with Diverse Families, 30(3), 305-318. A Few Useful References—interventions 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.