SELECTED WORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Johnson, Michael P. (in press). Differentiating among types of domestic violence: Implications for healthy marriages. In H. Elizabeth Peters and Claire Kamp Dush (Eds.), Marriage and Families: Complexities and Perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press.
Menon, Niveditha & Michael P. Johnson. (2007). Patriarchy and paternalism in intimate partner violence: A study of domestic violence in rural India. In Kamal K. Misra and Janet Huber Lowry (Eds.), Recent Studies on Indian Women: Empirical Work of Social Scientists (171-195). Jaipur, India: Rawat Publications.
Johnson, Michael P.
(2006). Conflict and control: Gender, symmetry, and asymmetry in domestic
violence. Violence Against Women 12 (November), 1003-1018.
Four types of individual partner violence
are identified on the basis of the dyadic control context of the violence. In
intimate terrorism the individual is violent and controlling; the partner is
not. In violent resistance the individual is violent but not controlling;
the partner is the violent and controlling one. In situational couple
violence, although the individual is violent, neither the individual nor the
partner is violent and controlling. In mutual violent control both the
individual and the partner are violent and controlling. Evidence is
presented that situational couple violence dominates the violence identified in
general surveys, while intimate terrorism and violent resistance dominate the
violence in agency samples, and that this is the source of differences across
studies with respect to the gender symmetry of partner violence. An
argument is made that if we want to understand partner violence, to intervene
effectively in individual cases, or to make useful policy recommendations, we
must make these distinctions in our research.
Johnson, Michael P. (2005). Apples and oranges in child custody disputes: Intimate terrorism vs. situational couple violence. Journal of Child Custody, 2 (4), 43-52. Also: A brief reply to Dutton. Journal of Child Custody, 2 (4), 65-67.
In
response to Dutton's (this issue) critique of feminist theories of domestic
violence, the author of this article makes three points relevant to the debate
about the gender asymmetry of intimate partner violence. First, there are three
major types of intimate partner violence, only one of which (intimate
terrorism) is the kind of violence that we all think of when we hear the term
“domestic violence.” Second, both major types of sampling designs
in domestic violence research are seriously biased, and those biases account
for the fact that both sides of this debate have been able to marshal
ostensibly contradictory empirical evidence for their position. Third, intimate
terrorism (also know as domestic violence, spouse abuse, wife-beating, etc.)
is, indeed, primarily male-perpetrated and, in the case of heterosexual
relationships, probably best understood through some version of a feminist
theory of domestic violence. The author then discusses the implications of
these points for assessment of risk in child custody deliberations.
I make four major points in my
response to the Fergusson, Horwood, and Ridder article, points that are equally
relevant to other articles like it that continue to appear in our journals and
in the general media suggesting that women are as violent as men in intimate
relationships. First, there are three major types of intimate partner violence,
only one of which is the kind of violence that we all think of when we hear the
term ‘‘domestic violence.’’ Second, that type of
intimate partner violence is, indeed, primarily male perpetrated and is most
definitely a gender issue. Third, Fergusson, Horwood, and Ridder’s
article is not about that type of violence. In fact, it is hardly about
violence at all. Fourth, serious errors of fact, theory, and intervention
inevitably follow from the failure to acknowledge the major differences among
the three types of intimate partner violence.
Data from the National Violence Against Women Survey
show that the two major forms of husband violence toward their wives (intimate
terrorism and situational couple violence) have different effects on their
victims. Victims of intimate terrorism are attacked more frequently and
experience violence that is less likely to stop. They are more likely to be
injured, to exhibit more of the symptoms of posttraumatic stress syndrome, to
use painkillers (perhaps also tranquilizers), and to miss work. They have left
their husbands more often, and when they do leave, they are more likely to
acquire their own residence. If we want to understand the true impact of wife
abuse from survey data (rather than from agency data), we must make
distinctions among types of violence so that the data used to describe
battering are not diluted by data regarding other types of partner violence.
The current study used a random
sample of 563 low-income women to test Johnson’s (1995) theory that there
are two major forms of male-partner violence, situational couple violence and
intimate terrorism, which are distinguished in terms of their embeddedness in a
general pattern of control. The study examined the associations between type of
violence experienced and respondents’ physical health, psychological
distress, and economic well-being. Analyses revealed three distinct patterns of
partner violence: intimate terrorism, control/no threat, and situational couple
violence. Compared to victims of control/no threat and situational couple
violence, victims of intimate terrorism reported more injuries from physical
violence and more work/activity time lost because of injuries. Compared to
women who experienced no violence in the previous year, victims of intimate
terrorism reported a greater likelihood of visiting a doctor, poorer health,
more psychological distress, and a greater likelihood of receiving government
assistance
Johnson, Michael P. (2004). Review of Restorative Justice and Family Violence, edited by Heather Strang and John Braithwaite. Contemporary Sociology, 33 (PART 1), 96-97.
Johnson, Michael P. (2003). Review of Home Truths about Domestic Violence: Feminist Influences on Policy and Practice, edited by J. Hanmer & C. Itzin. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20 (2), 263.
Leone, Janel M., Michael P. Johnson and Catherine L. Cohan. (2003, November). Help-seeking among women in violent relationships: Factors associated with formal and informal help utilization.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations. Vancouver, British Columbia.
Johnson, Michael P., Valerie
Conklin, and Nividetha Menon. (2002, November). The effects of different types of domestic violence on women: Intimate
terrorism vs. situational couple violence.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on
Family Relations. Houston, Texas.
Johnson, Michael P. (2001). Review of The Violences of Men, by Jeff Hearn. Contemporary Sociology, 30 (#1), 26-27.
Leone, Janel M., Michael P. Johnson, Catherine M. Cohan, and Susan Lloyd. (2001). Consequences of different types of domestic violence for low-income, ethnic women: A control-based typology of male-partner violence. Paper presented at the International Network on Personal Relationships, Prescott, Arizona. July.
Johnson, Michael P. (November, 2000). Conflict and control: Symmetry
and asymmetry in domestic violence. Invited keynote address: National Institute
of Justice Gender Symmetry Workshop,
Johnson,
Michael P. and Kathleen J. Ferraro.
(2000). Research on domestic
violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions.
Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 62 (November): 948-963. (Adobe)
Reviews family literature on domestic violence and suggests that 2 broad themes
of the 1990s provide the most promising directions for the future. The 1st is
the importance of distinctions among types or contexts of violence. Some
distinctions are central to the theoretical and practical understanding of the
nature of partner violence, others provide contexts for developing more
sensitive and comprehensive theories, and others may simply force questioning
the tendency to generalize carelessly from one context to another. Second,
issues of control, although most visible in the feminist literature that
focuses on men using violence to control "their women," also arise in
other contexts, calling for more general analyses of the interplay of violence
power, and control in relationships. In addition to these 2 general themes, the
review covers literature on coping with violence, the effects on victims and
their children, and the social effects of partner violence.
Klein, Renate and Michael P. Johnson. (2000). Conflict in family relationships. In Robert M. Milardo and Steve Duck (Eds.), Families as Relationships (pp. 79-97). New York: Wiley.
Johnson, Michael P. and Janel M. Leone. (2000). The differential effects of patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Personal Relationships, Brisbane, Australia. June.
One of the most long-standing and acrimonious
debates in the history of the sociology of the family concerns the alleged
gender-symmetry of domestic violence. Using data from a late 1970s
survey, this paper demonstrates that the violence that most people associate
with the term “domestic violence,” i.e., recurrent, escalating, violent
control of one’s partner, is decidedly male. This conclusion is
reached through the operationalization of a typology of partner violence that
is based in the connections of individual violence with a general pattern of
power and control, and that distinguishes among four types of partner violence:
patriarchal terrorism, common couple violence, violent resistance, and mutual
violent control. Patriarchal terrorism, the type of violence that is
referenced by the term “domestic violence” in everyday speech and
in the media, is almost exclusively male. The most general implication of
the results is that if we want to understand the nature of violence that takes
place between domestic partners, we cannot continue to treat intimate violence
as a unitary phenomenon. When we fail to make important distinctions
among types of violence, we get the sort of conflicting, confusing evidence
that has plagued the debate regarding the gender asymmetry of domestic
violence.
Johnson, Michael P. (1996). Violence against women in the family: The United States and Vietnam . Pp. 287-296 in Kathleen Barry (ed.), Vietnam 's Women in Transition. New York : St. Martin ’s Press.
Johnson, Michael
P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple
violence: Two forms of violence against women in U.S. families. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 57 (May): 283-294. (Adobe) Argues that there are 2 distinct forms of couple
violence taking place within families in the United States and other Western
countries: patriarchal terrorism, and common couple violence. A review of
evidence from large-sample survey research (e.g., S. K. Steinmetz, 1978), and
from qualitative and quantitative data gathered from women's shelters suggests
that some families suffer from occasional outbursts of violence from either
husbands or wives (common couple violence), while other families (e.g., D. A. Gaquin, 1978) are terrorized by systematic male violence
(patriarchal terrorism). It is argued that the distinction between common
couple violence and patriarchal terrorism is important because it has
implications for the implementation of public policy, the development of
educational programs and intervention strategies, and the development of theories
of interpersonal violence.
Johnson, Michael P. (1995). Violence against women in the family in Vietnam and the United States. In Bui Thi Kim Quy (ed.), The Family and the Status of Women. Ho Chi Minh City : Institute for Social Research. (In Vietnamese).