Types of Domestic Violence Research Evidence

1. 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 Barnet & Rusen Sandefjord, Norway September 26, 2012 McKeesport, PA

2. 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

3. The Anti-feminist BacklashAttack Feminist ResearchDeny the Role of GenderAttack 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

4. General Surveys Indicate That Women Are as Violent as Men

5. But Agency Studies Indicate ThatMen Are the Primary Batterers

6. Differentiating Among Types of Intimate Partner ViolenceReconciles 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.

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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).

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Gender Symmetry/Asymmetryby Type of Violence(1970s Pittsburgh: Violent husbands and wives)

15. The Biases of Major Sampling Plans(Violent men: Pittsburgh)

16. 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

17. 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 28% escalated 1/8 couples 69% mutual Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc .

18. British data Mixed sample Intimate Terrorism 43% severe 78% escalated 15% mutual General Motive: To control the relationship Situational Couple Violence 13% severe 20% escalated 87% mutual Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc

19. Canadian GSS 2004 Previous/current partner Intimate Terrorism 57% frequent violence 60% feared for life General Motive: To control the relationship Situational Couple Violence 8% frequent violence 9% feared for life Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc

20. Health & Relationship Outcomes by Type of Male Violence(various studies)

21. Miscellaneous Major DifferencesStudies by Various Social ScientistsDifferent Locations and Sample TypesDifferent Measures SCVIT • Intergenerational “transmission” d = +.11 d = +.35 • Marriage b = -.62 b = +.58 • Gender traditionalism d = -.14 d = +.80 • Hostility toward women mean = 57 mean = 79

22. 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

23. Risk of Child AbuseDifferent 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

24. Risk of Child Abuse*Preliminary Evidence

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

26. The Role of Alcohol in the ViolencePreliminary 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

27. 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

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

29. 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.

30. 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.