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 Photos from Donna Ferrato, Living with the Enemy. New York: Aperture, 1991 Catholic Family Services of Peel Dufferin June 3, 2010 McKeesport, PA Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

The Continuing Gender Debate
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 consequences Relationship consequences Miscellaneous other major differences Preview of Policy Implications Screening, Primary prevention/education, Intervention with perpetrators, Intervention for survivors, Law enforcement issues, Custody and access issues

The Anti-feminist Backlash
The Men’s Project. February Submission to Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General …the Ontario Government may be in violation of their obligations… [because] the existing network of shelters for victims of family violence exclude men…. Pittsburgh Post Gazette July 26, 2009 Feminist ideologues ignore research that shows domestic violence is just as often started by women as by men Globe and Mail July 27, 2002 (Web site) Men as likely to suffer spousal abuse, Statscan says.

General Surveys Indicate That Women Are as Violent as Men
Heterosexual intimate partner violence by gender Data Source Men Women U.S., NFVS, 1975—the beginning 51% 49% U.S., NSFH, 1988 53% 47% North Carolina, 8th & 9th Grade, 1994 35% 65% U. of Maine, students, 1997 39% 61% New Zealand, young adults, 2002 Canada, GSS, 2004 54% 46% Different decades Different purposes—family violence, family demography Different ages and types of relationships Different countries Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

But Agency Studies Indicate That Men Are the Batterers
Heterosexual intimate partner violence by gender Data Source Men Women Cleveland, Divorce Court, 1966 92% 8% Ontario, Family Court, 1982 94% 6% Santa Barbara, CA, Police, 1983 U.K., Emergency Rooms, 1988 83% 17% U.S., FBI, 75% 25% Canada, Spousal Homicide, 82% 18% Different decades Different agencies Different countries Assaults and homicides Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

A Small Theory that 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 women are as likely to perpetrate as are men Agency studies are biased toward coercive controlling violence, perpetrated almost entirely by men

Situational Couple Violence
Intimate Terrorism 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 History of Violence or Control Mutual Violent Control Two Intimate Terrorists Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence/Intimate Terrorism
Theory of coercive control (Dutton and Goodman) Threats, intimidation Attack the will to resist Deny resources needed to resist Monitoring Use violence when necessary Two major subtypes: (a) Emotionally dependent; (b) Antisocial Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

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). Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Situational couple violence
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 Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

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% *The pattern is essentially the same for the British research. Frieze’s Pittsburgh data 1999 Cluster data recomputed to separate court and shelter Graham-Kevan & Archer 2003 cluster calculated from Table 8 Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc .
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 . Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc
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 Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Canadian GSS 1999 Previous partner Intimate Terrorism 41% frequent violence 56% feared for life General Motive: To control the relationship Situational Couple Violence Laroche, D. (2005). Aspects of the context and consequences of domestic violence: Situational couple violence and intimate terrorism in Canada in Retrieved July 22, 2009, from Really low bar for IT, based on Johnson & Leone Frequent = more than 10 incidents 8% frequent violence 17% feared for life Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

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. (in press). Exploring gender differences in the patterns of intimate partner violence in Canada: A latent class approach. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 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 Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Women’s Health Outcomes by Type of Male Violence
SCV IT Any Injury Pittsburgh 56% 94% *** U.S., NVAW 13% 32% Severe injury 28% 76% 2% 5% * General health Chicago Good to Very Good Fair to Good Post-traumatic stress+ 37% 79% + Percent above the median for female victims of partner violence *.05 **.01 ***.001 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 NVAW injury data are for the most recent incident Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Relationship Outcomes by Type of Male Violence
Situational Couple Violence Intimate Terrorism Low marital happiness Pittsburgh 13% 50% *** Left more than once 26% 74% U.S., NVAW 7% 29% Rarely a good time 3% 20% Sex often unpleasant 9% 23% ***.001 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 Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Need to Re-assess Everything Various studies by Various Social Scientists
Intergenerational “transmission” SCV d = .11; IT d = .35 SCV odds ratio = 2.40; IT odds ratio = 7.51 Marriage SCV b = -.62; IT b = .58 Gender traditionalism or hostility toward women Traditionalism: SCV d = -.14; IT d = .80 Hostility: non-viol., SCV, IT, IT = 154, 153, 135, 131 Gender, frequency, severity, escalation, mutuality, impact on victim, impact on children, etc. Stith et al. Johnson & Cares Johnson, 2008 Macmillan & Gartner Sugarman Holtzworth-Munroe Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Preview of Policy Implications
Screening Primary prevention/education Intervention with perpetrators Intervention for survivors Law enforcement Custody and access issues

We make big mistakes if we don’t make big distinctions.
Different types of partner violence have… Different causes Different developmental trajectories Different effects Different successful intervention strategies We make big mistakes if we don’t make big distinctions.

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 Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Screening/Triage Different models for different clients
To screen we need information on control and violence for both members Safety first! Initially assume the worst (intimate terrorism) If SCV seems likely, try individual application of other approaches If SCV and safety become clear, move to couple approaches with protections in place

Primary Prevention/Education You’re the experts
Intimate terrorism Equality and respect Violent resistance Dangers of violent resistance Safety planning Entrapment/escape issues Situational couple violence Sources of conflict Anger management tactics Communication Substance abuse

Intervention with Perpetrators Hold them all accountable in the criminal justice system to provide an essential motivation for change Intimate terrorism Control-focused education Perhaps different tactics for sub-types Violent resistance Alternatives to violence/Safety planning Neutralize entrapment Situational couple violence Sources of conflict Anger management Communication counseling Substance abuse rehab

Intervention with Perpetrators
Outcomes of Duluth-type Batterer Intervention Program (Thirteen Months Post-adjudication) SCV Dependent IT Antisocial IT Completed Program 77% 38% 9% Re-arrest 18% 46% Repeat Violence 55% 62% 88% Eckhardt et al. in press Duluth program Eckhardt et al., 2008 Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Differential Success of Intervention Strategies by IT Sub-type (Percent non-violent two years after completing treatment) Dependent Antisocial Feminist cognitive-behavioral 48% 65% Process-psychodynamic 67% 49% Adapted from Saunders (1996) Present some data on differential effectiveness from Kelly & Johnson Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Intervention for Survivors
Intimate terrorism Long-term support Alternatives to violent resistance Empowerment to leave Transitional support Situational couple violence Source of conflict Anger management Communication counseling Substance abuse rehab

Custody and Access Issues
Separation-instigated violence Manipulative accusations Resources for thorough evaluation Custody/access options Joint custody/Co-parenting Parallel parenting, minimal couple contact Supervised exchanges Supervised access No contact

Data on self and husband, reported by wives
Pittsburgh, 1978 (Frieze) Married women from shelters and courts, matched with married women living on the same block (n=272) 86% White; 14% Black Data on self and husband, reported by wives Incident data on most violent incident United States, (NVAW, Tjaden & Thoennes) National random sample; subsample=4967 married women 83% White; 10% Black; 8% Hispanic (all races) Data on current husbands, reported by wife Incident data on most recent incident Chicago, 1995 (Lloyd) Random sample of women in a poor neighborhood (n=596) 5% White; 54% Black; 41% Hispanic Data on male partners, reported by female partner No incident data 1. NVAW “Thinking about your current husband, would you say he is jealous or possessive?” 2. “…tries to limit your contact with family and friends?” 3. “…insists on knowing who you are with at all times?” 4. “…calls you names or puts you down in front of others?” 5. “…makes you feel inadequate?” 6. “…shouts or swears at you?” 7. “…prevents you from knowing about or having access to the family income even when you ask?” Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Pittsburgh Control Scale (High>2.74; 40%m; 10%w)
When you and your husband go places together, who decides where you will go? If you disagree [about people you like], which people do the two of you spend more time with? Does your husband know where you are when you are not together? Are there places you might like to go but don’t because you feel your husband wouldn’t want you to? How often does this happen? Do you generally do what your husband asks you to do? Who decides how the family money will be spent in terms of major expenses? [How often} does he try to get what he wants by doing any of the following?…emotionally withdraws? …restricts your freedom? …stops having sex with you? …threatens to leave you? Has your husband ever pressured you to have sexual relations?

Pittsburgh: Other Items
“Has your husband ever gotten angry and threatened to use physical force with you?” followed by the item that is actually used: Has he ever actually slapped or pushed you or used other physical force with you? Can you estimate how many times, in total, he was violent with you? Did he become more violent over time? How badly were you hurt [the time your husband was most violent with you]? Frieze codes: severe, severe superficial, severe trauma, and extreme permanent. Were you afraid he would be violent again? Already “very frightened” at the first violent incident. How would you rate the happiness of your marriage on a scale from 1-Not at all to 10-Very happy? Low=1-4, 32% Is sex ever unpleasant for you? Do you and your husband have a good time when you go out together?

Chicago Items Control Items: In the past 12 months, when you’ve had an argument, how often did your husband/boyfriend… …say something to spite you? ...insult you, swear at you, or call you out of your name? ...accuse you of being with another man? ...try to control your every move? ...withhold money, make you ask for money or take yours? …threaten you with a knife or gun? ...threaten to kill you? ...threaten to hurt your family or friends?

Specific Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc.
Pittsburgh-cutoff Intimate Terrorism 67% severe 72% escalated 1/25 couples 37% mutual General Motive: To control the relationship Situational Couple Violence 29% severe Johnson, 2008 This is all based on the cutoff, not the cluster analysis. Severe = severe superficial, severe trauma, permanent injury. Mutual means husband frequency < wife’s frequency plus six. 29% escalated 1/8 couples 74% mutual Specific Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc. Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

NVAWS Control Scale (High = 3 or more)
“Thinking about your current husband, would you say he is jealous or possessive?” “…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?” “…prevents you from knowing about or having access to the family income even when you ask?” “…insists on changing residences even when you don’t want or need to?” “…prevents you from working outside the home?”

Control Scale “Thinking about your current husband, would you say he is jealous or possessive?” “…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?” “…prevents you from knowing about or having access to the family income even when you ask?” Find data that are likely to have all the major types (general plus agency, general current plus previous) Measure general relationship control Identify high control violent group Look at the dyad NVAWS Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

The Great Gender Debate A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence
Distinguishing among types of partner violence resolves it A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases Other differences Implications for Research and Theory Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed Need a standard operationalization Tricky sampling problems Need for differentiated theory Implications for Intervention Screening/triage Intervention with perpetrators Intervention for survivors Custody and access issues

Table 2: Ex-Spouse Violence by Gender Violence Type Intimate Terrorism
Situational Couple Violence Non-violent (n) Ex-husband 22.0% 7.4% 70.5% (2413) Ex-wife 5.4% 3.9% 90.7% (2051)

Need a Standard Operationalization
Problems with cluster analysis Extremely sensitive to sample Not comparable across studies Need a standard operationalization NVAWS items Tolman: Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory Graham-Kevan & Archer: Controlling Behaviors Scale Dutton & Goodman: Coercive control

Need for Differentiated Theory
Intimate terrorism Coercive control theory Gender theory Theories of paternalism Violent Resistance Coping Entrapment Situational couple violence Family conflict theory Communication Anger management Substance abuse These are the theories that are ikely to be central. It doesn’t mean they’re the whole explanation. Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence
The three major types (plus one or two) Gender differences and sampling biases Some other basic differences We need to re-assess everything we thought we knew Implications for Intervention Screening/triage Primary prevention/education Intervention with perpetrators Intervention for survivors Custody and access issues

Sampling Problem: General Surveys Current Spouses-NVAWS
I was always a bit troubled by our NVAW data. Data from the August issue of Violence and Victims confirms my suspicions. But that article also analyses data from former spouses and lookee lookee. Felson & Outlaw, 2007 Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Sampling Solution: General Surveys Former Spouses-NVAWS
Strangely enough, those authors don’t see this as confirming the importance of gender in these matters, but the important point for me is that these patterns suggest that if we ask about former spouses in our general surveys, we will find enough intimate terrorism to allow us to study all of the major types of intimate partner violence. Unfortunately, the NVAW doesn’t ask about respondent violence—only partner violence. If questions were added about respondent violence and control, then those violent high control cases would also give us information about violent resistance. Felson & Outlaw, 2007 Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Spousal Violence Type by Gender
General Survey Data Intimate Terrorism Situational Couple Violence Non-violent (n) Husband 0.7% 3.9% 95.3% (4846) Wife 0.5% 1.7% 97.9% (5126) Ex-husband 22.0% 7.4% 70.5% (2413) Ex-wife 5.4% 90.7% (2051) Data from NVAWS, Johnson, Leone, & Xu, 2008

Types of Domestic Violence Research Evidence
The Continuing Gender Debate A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence Dramatic Differences Among the Types Preview of Policy Implications

Types of Domestic Violence Research Evidence

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Types of Domestic Violence Research Evidence"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Types of Domestic Violence Research Evidence

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Types of Domestic Violence Research Evidence"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback