Types of Domestic Violence Research Evidence and Implications 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 Women’s Refuge Conference 2012 Blenheim, New Zealand October 27, 2012

u Are Women Really as Violent as Men? u Anti-feminist politics and conflicting data u Explaining the ostensible contradictions u A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence u The three major types u Gender differences and sampling biases u Dramatic Differences Among the Types u Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation u A few health and relationship consequences u Different risk factors for perpetration u Policy Implications

The Anti-feminist Backlash Attack Feminist Research Deny the Role of Gender Attack Programs that Address Violence against Women u “The gender paradigm... biased social science.” Dutton et al., 2010 u “Men as likely to suffer spousal abuse, Statscan says.” Globe and Mail July 27, 2002 (Web site) u “…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 SourceMenWomen Canada, GSS, %46% Norway, Statistics Norway, %45% New Zealand, Dunedin, 2002, 25 year olds39%61% Sweden, university students, c %48% U.S., NSFH, %47% U.S., NFVS, 1975—the beginning51%49% General Surveys Indicate That Women Are as Violent as Men

But Agency Studies Indicate That Men Are the Primary Batterers Heterosexual intimate partner violence by gender Data SourceMenWomen Sweden, partner assault, %20% New Zealand protection orders, %9% New Zealand hospitals, IPV assaults, %9% Canada, spousal homicide, %18% U.S., FBI, partner assault, %25% U.K., emergency rooms, %17% Ontario, family court, %6%

Differentiating Among Types of Intimate Partner Violence Explains the Contradictions u There is more than one type of partner violence u One type is perpetrated mostly by men, another by both men and women u Agency studies are dominated by the male- perpetrated type, general surveys by the gender-symmetric type

u Are Women Really as Violent as Men? u Anti-feminist politics and conflicting data u Explaining the ostensible contradictions u A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence u The three major types u Gender differences and sampling biases u Dramatic Differences Among the Types u Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation u A few health and relationship consequences u Different risk factors for perpetration u Policy Implications

Intimate Terrorism Violent Coercive Control Violent Resistance Resisting the Intimate Terrorist Situational Couple Violence Situationally-provoked Violence

Intimate Terrorism Violent 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 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  Generally rare, but common in agency settings

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  By far the most common type

Gender Symmetry/Asymmetry by Type of Violence (1970s Pittsburgh: Violent husbands and wives) HusbandsWivesN Intimate terrorism 97% 3%97 Violent resistance4% 96% 77 Situational couple violence 56%44% s Britain: IT 87% male; VR 10% male; SCV 45% male

The Biases of Major Sampling Plans (Violent men: Pittsburgh) General Sample (n = 37) Court Sample (n = 34) Shelter Sample (n = 50) Intimate terrorism14% 68%78% Violent resistance0% 2% Situational couple violence 86% 29%18% 2000s Britain: IT by sample type: General = 13%, Shelter = 88%.

u Are Women Really as Violent as Men? u Anti-feminist politics and conflicting data u Explaining the ostensible contradictions u A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence u The three major types u Gender differences and sampling biases u Dramatic Differences Among the Types u Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation u A few health and relationship consequences u Different risk factors for perpetration u Policy Implications

76% severe 75% escalated 29% mutual 28% severe 28% escalated 69% mutual General 2-4% General 12-18% Johnson, 2006 Mixed sample, married Pittsburgh, 1970s Shelter 80-90% Shelter 10-20%

57% frequent violence 60% feared for life 8% frequent violence 9% feared for life Ansara & Hindin, 2010 Previous/current partners Canadian GSS 2004

Health & Relationship Outcomes by Type of Male Violence (various studies) SCVIT Injury, latest incidentU.S., NVAW25%49% p<.001 Severe injury, everPittsburgh28%76% p<.001 Post-traumatic stress * U.S., NVAW37%79% p<.001 Suicidal behaviorChicago, CWHRS18%37% p<.001 Low marital happinessPittsburgh13%50% p<.001 * Percent above the median for female victims of partner violence

Different Risk Factors Studies by Various Social Scientists Different Locations and Sample Types Different Measures u Intergenerational “transmission” u SCV d = +.11 IT d = +.35 u Marriage u SCV b = -.62 IT b = +.58 u Gender traditionalism u SCV d = -.14IT d = +.80

u Are Women Really as Violent as Men? u Anti-feminist politics and conflicting data u Explaining the ostensible contradictions u A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence u The three major types u Gender differences and sampling biases u Dramatic Differences Among the Types u Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation u A few health and relationship consequences u Different risk factors for perpetration u Policy Implications

Primary Prevention/Education u Intimate terrorism u Equality and respect u Violent resistance u Intimate terrorism danger signs u Safety planning u Entrapment/escape issues u Situational couple violence u Sources of conflict, e.g., poverty u Anger management, communication, substance abuse

Screening/Triage u Different models for different clients u To screen we need to assess coercive control and violence for both partners u Safety first! u Initially assume the worst (intimate terrorism) u If SCV seems likely, try individual application of other approaches u 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 Perpetrators Hold them all accountable in the criminal justice system to provide an essential motivation for change u Intimate terrorism u Control-focused education u Violent resistance u Alternatives to violence/Safety planning u Neutralize entrapment u Situational couple violence u Sources of conflict, e.g., poverty u Anger management, communication, substance abuse rehab

Intervention for Survivors u Intimate terrorism u Long-term support u Alternatives to violent resistance u Empowerment to leave u Transitional support u Situational couple violence u Sources of conflict, e.g., poverty u Anger management, communication, substance abuse rehab

We make big mistakes if we don’t make big distinctions. Different types of partner violence have… u Different causes u Different developmental trajectories u Different effects u Different implications for policy and practice

Support Your Local Women’s Refuge u Safety u Support u Information u 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), 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 ). 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), Gondolf, E. W. (2008). Implementation of case management for batterer program participants. [Peer Reviewed]. Violence Against Women, 14(2), doi: / 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 ). 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 ). 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), 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), 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), 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), 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), 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), 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 ). 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), Gondolf, E. W. (2008). Implementation of case management for batterer program participants. [Peer Reviewed]. Violence Against Women, 14(2), doi: / 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 ). 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 ). 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), Gondolf, E. W. (2008). Implementation of case management for batterer program participants. Violence Against Women, 14(2), 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), 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 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