Johnson's domestic violence typology: Implications for intervention programmes

1. Johnson's domestic violence typology: Implications for intervention programmes Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan CPsychol University of Central Lancashire ngraham-kevan@uclan.ac.uk

2. Overview • Pro-feminist research • Gender neutral approaches • Johnson • Study 1 & 2 • Study 3 • Conclusions

3. Sociopolitical / Pro-feminist Approach • Patriarchal society: Male aggressiveness & authority v female dependence & subordination • Male control of women: Economic, isolation, intimidation, threats, emotional & violence • Samples: Women’s refuge, criminal justice system (police, courts), male batterers, divorce files, historical records

4. Duluth BIP “Battering is never.... provoked, hereditary, out of control, accidental, or an isolated incident with no further dynamics. Battering is not caused by disease, diminished intellect, alcoholism/addiction or intoxication, mental illness or any external person or event. Domestic violence is a means for men to systematically dominate, control, devalue and disempower women. Battering/violence is greater than an individual act; it supports the larger goal of the oppression of women. Men batter because they can and it serves as a means to an end.”

5. a variant of a “psychoeducational model” that originated in Duluth, Minnesota and is called the Duluth Model. The primary goal of this model is to get male clients to acknowledge “male privilege” and how they have used “power and control” to dominate their wives. Many men coming to court-mandated therapy feel no sense of power and control in any arena of their lives, including their marriage (Dutton & Starzomski, 1994). Hence, not only is a political model mapped onto intervention, but the model commits the primary mistake of therapy: to not acknowledge the client’s reality.

6. National Surveys • UK: BCS 1996 found victimisation prevalence rates of 4.2% of women & 4.2% of men physically assaulted by spouse/ex-spouse in past year • Canadian: Statistics Canada 2000: 4% women & 4% men • US: NFVS 1975: 12% women & men; 1985 11% women & 12% men

7. Gender Neutral Perspectives • Family Conflict (e.g. Straus): Both men & women. Domestic violence stems from everyday frustrations and stresses of living together Non-selected samples • Psychopathology (e.g. Dutton): Both men & women Domestic violence stems for personality and mental disorders Clinical samples • Developmental: attachment, early life experiences

8. Johnson 1995: Integration Feminist • Men  Controlling aggression • Women  Non-controlling aggression Family violence • Men & women  Non-controlling aggression Johnson 1995 • Patriarchal terrorists  Controlling aggression • Common couple violence  Non-controlling aggression

9. Patriarchal [Intimate] Terrorism: “The central motivating factor behind the violence is a man’s desire to exercise general control over “his” women”

10. Common Couple Violence: “This type of violence is usually not part of a pattern in which one partner is trying to exert general control over his or her partner”

11. Empirical Support For Johnson’s Typology • Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003a • 43 shelter women, 113 students*, 108 male prisoners* ~ NCVP & CVP. *All had used partner aggression in past 12 months • Physical aggression, control, injuries & fear • DFA ~ 2 functions ‘victimisation’ & ‘perpetration’ with control having the most discriminative ability • Correctly classified 75% of participants

12. Extending Johnson’s Typology • Dyadic typology ~ both partners behaviours • Classified upon controlling/non controlling physical aggression, and unitary or mutual aggression • From PTM to IT, CCV, VR, MVC • Johnson, 1999; Johnson & Leone, 2000; Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003b • Limitations of previous studies Biased sampling Gender asymmetry

13. Graham-Kevan & Archer (2005) • 399 men & 951 women from UCLAN • Age 16-60yrs mean 25yrs, LOR mean 20 months • 1/3 were staff ~ jobs mainly admin • Physical aggression, control, injuries, escalation • IT, CCV, VR, MVC • Gender symmetry in typologies

14. Percentages of Relationship Type by Gender of Perpetrator: Perpetrator Reports

15. Statistical Comparisons • Significant differences between CCV & IT: Self-reports: Minor Physical Aggression, Partner Injuries, Relative Physical Aggression Rates Partner Reports: Minor & Severe Physical Aggression, Partner Injuries, Relative Physical Aggression Rates, Escalation

18. Interventions • Much research that has been used to develop interventions has been based on studies where sampling was systematically biased, e.g. women’s shelters, BIP. • “Effective intervention… requires a thorough assessment, as well as an awareness of the full spectrum of research…,including such neglected areas as mutual abuse and the characteristics of male victims” (p.11, Hamel, 2005)

19. Hamel (2005)

20. Comparisons to Previous Work • Graham-Kevan & Archer (2003a) Refuge group mean partner control scores 2.7 s.d. from sample mean • Johnson & Leone (in press) ‘High control group’ (partner reports) mean scores at least 2 s.d. from sample mean. • Present sample ‘High control group’ 2.2 s.d. higher than sample mean

21. Women Perpetrators? Why Should We Care? “In addition, male victims have unique experiences in that their female abusers are able to use a system that is designed to aide female victims of domestic violence. Thus, some female perpetrators of IPV manipulate their husbands because they know that the system is designed without the abused male’s experiences in mind, and that more often than not, people will not believe or take seriously these men’ s victimization.” (p.23 Hines et al 2005)

22. Women Perpetrators? Why Should We Care? Witnessed parental violence NFVS (Straus et al. 1990)

23. Women Perpetrators? Why Should We Care? Women Perpetrators • A minority of probation areas in UK have strategies, action plans or practice guidelines to ensue women had equal access to community sentences • A minority of areas provided women-only group work • Needs of women [offenders] not a priority when developing local partnership arrangements (HM Probation Report, 1996)

24. Conclusions • Evidence of typologies • Evidence of substantial gender symmetry • Treatment implications • Future directions