SELECTED
WORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Book
Johnson,
Michael P. (2008). A Typology of
Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational
Couple Violence. Boston:
Northeastern University Press. Domestic violence, a serious and
far-reaching social problem, has generated two key debates among researchers.
The first debate is about gender and domestic violence. Some scholars argue
that domestic violence is primarily male-perpetrated, others that women are as
violent as men in intimate relationships. Johnson's response to this
debate--and the central theme of this book--is that there is more than one type
of intimate partner violence. Some studies address the type of violence that is
perpetrated primarily by men, while others are getting at the kind of violence
that women are involved in as well. Because there has been no theoretical
framework delineating types of domestic violence, researchers have easily
misread one another's studies. The second major debate involves how many women
are abused each year by their partners. Estimates range from two to six
million. Johnson's response once again comes from this book's central theme. If
there is more than one type of intimate partner violence, then the numbers
depend on what type you're talking about. Johnson argues that domestic violence
is not a unitary phenomenon. Instead, he delineates three major, dramatically
different, forms of partner violence: intimate terrorism, violent resistance,
and situational couple violence. He roots the conceptual distinctions among the
forms of violence in an analysis of the role of power and control in
relationship violence and shows that the failure to make these basic
distinctions among types of partner violence has produced a research literature
that is plagued by both overgeneralizations and ostensibly contradictory
findings. This volume begins the work of theorizing forms of domestic violence,
a crucial first step to a better understanding of these phenomena among
scholars, social scientists, policy makers, and service providers.
YouTube
Types of domestic violence: Research evidence. Presented at Third Nordic Conference on Barnet og Rusen. Sandefjord, Norway. September 2012. (about an hour) Crossman,
Kimberly, Jennifer Hardesty, Megan Haselschwerdt, Marcela Raffaelli, Brian
Gabriel Ogolsky, and Michael P. Johnson. (In press). Toward a Standard Approach to
Operationalizing Coercive Control and Classifying Violence Types. Journal of
Marriage and Family. Coercive control is central
to distinguishing between Johnson’s (2008) two main types of intimate partner
violence: coercive controlling violence and situational couple violence.
Approaches to assessing coercive control, however, have been inconsistent.
Using data from two projects involving divorcing mothers (N = 190), we compare common analytic
strategies for operationalizing coercive control and classifying types of violence.
Results establish advantages to measuring coercive control in terms of
frequency versus number of tactics, demonstrate the importance of using both
hierarchical and k-means
clustering methods to identify patterns of coercive control and evaluate clustering
solutions, and offer a standard cutoff for classifying violence types in
general samples of separated women using the dominance-isolation subscale of
the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI; Tolman, 1992).
Finally, we demonstrate associations between types of violence and
theoretically-relevant variables, including frequency and severity of violence,
harassment and violence after separation, fear, and perceived threat.
Johnson, Michael P. (2014). Les types de violence familiale. Pp. 15-31 in Maryse Rinfret-Raynor, Élisabeth Lesieux, Marie-Marthe Cousineau, Sonia Gauthier, and Elizabeth Harper (Eds.), Violences Envers les Femmes: Réalités Complexes et Nouveaux Enjeux dans un Monde en Transformation. Québec: Presses Universitaires de l’Université du Québec. (Final draft in English without paging: Distinguishing among types of intimate partner violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Pp. 15-31 in Maryse Rinfret-Raynor, Élisabeth Lesieux, Marie-Marthe Cousineau, Sonia Gauthier, and Elizabeth Harper (Eds.), Violence Against Women: Complex Realities and New Issues in a Changing World. Québec: Presses Universitaires de l’Université du Québec.)
Johnson,
Michael P., Janel M. Leone, & Yili Xu. (2014) Intimate terrorism and
situational couple violence in general surveys: Ex-spouses required. Violence Against
Women 20 (February), 186-207. In this
paper we argue that past efforts to distinguish among types of intimate partner
violence in survey data have committed a critical error: using data on current
spouses to develop operationalizations of intimate terrorism and situational
couple violence. We use ex-spouse data from the National Violence Against Women
survey to develop new operationalizations. We then demonstrate that NVAW
current spouse data contain little intimate terrorism; we argue that this is
likely to be the case for all general surveys. In addition, the ex-spouse data
confirm past findings regarding a variety of differences between intimate
terrorism and situational couple violence, including those predicted by feminist
theories.
Hardesty, Jennifer
L., Megan L. Haselschwerdt, and Michael P. Johnson. (2012). Domestic violence
and child custody. In Kathryn
Kuehnle and Leslie Drozd (Eds.), Parenting Plan Evaluations: Applied
Research for the Family Court (pp. 442-475). New York: Oxford
University Press. The
purpose of this chapter is to review empirical research that will inform the
process of evaluating separating parents in the context of DV. We begin by introducing distinctions
among types of DV, distinctions that are important for understanding the
relevant research and for evaluating the implications of DV for custody
decisions. To help establish the
relevance of DV to child custody, we provide a summary of the effects of DV
exposure on children. Then we
review the research on parenting in the context of DV. This growing body of research provides
insight into post-separation relationship dynamics and parenting
characteristics of victims and abusers.
The chapter concludes with the options available for parenting plans
that prioritize both safety and the long-term adjustment of parents and
children affected by DV.
Johnson, Michael P.
(2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an
anti-feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 16
(July/August), 289-296. This article
presents a feminist perspective on domestic violence that is rooted in an
explication of the differences among three major types of intimate partner
violence (intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple
violence). Theory and research from this perspective is then reviewed to rebut
recent attacks on feminist scholarship and policy regarding intimate partner
violence.
Johnson,
Michael P. (February, 2010). Types of domestic violence: Implications for
policy.
Handouts for the second of two Powerpoint presentations for
the practitioners’ workshop sponsored by the New Directions Program of Catholic
Family Service Ottawa. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Johnson,
Michael P. (February, 2010). Types of domestic violence: Research evidence.
Handouts for the first of two Powerpoint presentations for
the practitioners’ workshop sponsored by the New Directions Program of Catholic
Family Service Ottawa. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Johnson, Michael
P. (2010). Langhinrichsen-Rohling’s Confirmation of the Feminist Analysis of
Intimate Partner Violence: Comment on “Controversies Involving Gender and
Intimate Partner Violence in the United States.” Sex Roles, 62 (3-4), 212-219. This article makes four major points in
response to Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling’s (2010) review of the intimate
partner violence literature. First, the evidence is clear that there is more
than one type of intimate partner violence. Second, the feminists are right.
Gender is central to the analysis of intimate partner violence, and the
coercive controlling violence that most people associate with the term
“domestic violence” is perpetrated primarily by men against their female
partners. Third, different types of intimate partner violence have different
causes, different developmental trajectories, and different consequences. They
require different models to understand them. Finally, we need more qualitative
research focused on the least understood types of intimate partner violence:
violent resistance and situational couple violence. [Correction
Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Sex Roles (2010) 62:220.]
In “Langhinrichsen-Rolling’s Confirmation of the Feminist Analysis of Intimate
Partner Violence: Comment on ‘Controversies Involving Gender and Intimate
Partner Violence in theUnited States’” (Volume 62, Numbers 3/4, February
2010,DOI: 10.1007/s11199-009-9697-2) Langhinrichsen-Rohling’s name was
erroneously misspelled in the title, the abstract, and the conclusion. The
correct spelling is Langhinrichsen-Rohling.
Johnson,
Michael P. (May, 2009). Where Do “Domestic Violence” Statistics Come From and
Why Do They Vary So Much? Paper presented at a workshop sponsored by the
Healthy Marriage Resource Center and the National Resource Center on Domestic
Violence: Towards a Common Understanding: Domestic Violence Typologies and
Implications for Healthy Marriage and Domestic Violence Programs. Warrenton,
Virginia. Available at the Healthy Marriage Resource Center Web site:
http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/docs/DomesticViolenceStatistics.pdf. Domestic violence advocates and family
violence researchers often appear to contradict each other when they describe
and report on the extent and nature
of intimate partner violence (IPV). Although the term “domestic violence” has a
very clear specific meaning to advocates working in the domestic violence
field, it is used in other ways in other contexts to cover many different types
of couple conflict. This paper helps to clarify some of the misunderstandings,
errors, and apparent contradictions that derive in part from these differences
in language use, in part from not understanding where the statistics come from
and what the strengths and limitations of the data are, and in part from
wrongly treating “domestic violence” as a single phenomenon.
Johnson,
Michael P., Janel M. Leone, and Yili Xu. (November, 2008). Gender, intimate
terrorism, and situational couple violence in general survey data: The gender
debate revisited--again. Poster presented at the National Council on Family Relations
annual meeting. Little Rock, AR. (Powerpoint) We use National
Violence Against Women Survey data to develop an operationalization of intimate
terrorism and situational couple violence. We argue that past efforts to
distinguish among types of intimate partner violence in general survey data
have committed a critical error in using cluster analysis with data on current
spouses. We develop a valid operationalization based on data regarding
ex-spouses. The data on ex-spouses confirm past findings regarding a variety of
differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence,
including the gender patterns predicted by feminist theories of intimate
partner violence. We then apply this new operationalization to the current
spouse data in the National Violence Against Women Survey to demonstrate that
general survey data on current relationships contain little or no intimate
terrorism. This finding has major implications for the use of such data to test
feminist theories of intimate partner violence. The new operationalization
avoids the vagaries of cluster analysis in investigations of the balance
of major types of intimate partner violence in different populations.
Kelly,
Joan B. and Michael P. Johnson. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate
partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court
Review 46 (3),
476-499. A growing body
of empirical research has demonstrated that intimate partner violence is not a
unitary phenomenon and that types of domestic violence can be differentiated
with respect to partner dynamics, context, and consequences. Four patterns of
violence are described: Coercive Controlling Violence, Violent Resistance,
Situational Couple Violence, and Separation-Instigated Violence. The
controversial matter of gender symmetry and asymmetry in intimate partner
violence is discussed in terms of sampling differences and methodological limitations.
Implications of differentiation among types of domestic violence include the
need for improved screening measures and procedures in civil, family, and
criminal court and the possibility of better decision making, appropriate
sanctions, and more effective treatment programs tailored to the
characteristics of different types of partner violence. In family court,
reliable differentiation should provide the basis for determining what
safeguards are necessary and what types of parenting plans are appropriate to
ensure healthy outcomes for children and parent-child relationships.
Leone,
Janel M., Michael P. Johnson, and Catherine M. Cohan. (2007). Victim
help-seeking: Differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple
violence. Family
Relations 56 (5), 427-439. Research
indicates that two major forms of partner violence exist, intimate terrorism
(IT) and situational couple violence (SCV). The current study (N = 389) used a
subgroup of women who responded to the Chicago Women's Health Risk Study to
examine whether type of violence experienced is differentially related to
formal (e.g., police, medical agencies, counseling) and informal (e.g., family,
friends/neighbors) help seeking. IT victims were more likely to seek each type
of formal help but were equally or less likely to seek informal help. Findings
can inform both family violence research and the development and implementation
of social service programs.
Johnson,
Michael P. (2007). Domestic violence: The intersection of gender and control.
In Laura L. O’Toole, Jessica R. Schiffman, & Margie Kiter Edwards (Eds.), Gender Violence:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2nd edition (pp. 257-268). New York: New
York University Press. Reprinted in Andrew J. Cherlin (Ed.), Public & Private Families, A Reader 5/e,
New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006. The
first section of this chapter will demonstrate how attention to distinctions
among types of intimate partner violence makes sense of ostensibly
contradictory data regarding men's and women's violence in intimate
relationships. The second section describes the basic structure of the types of
intimate partner violence that most people associate with the term domestic
violence, violence that is associated with coercive control, that is, one
partner's attempt to take general control over the other. The third section
presents a theory of domestic violence that is focused on the relationship
between gender and coercive control. The fourth section addresses the role of
gender in the type of intimate partner violence that does not involve an
attempt to take general control over one's partner. The final section of the
chapter deals with some of the intervention and policy implications of what we
know about these types of intimate partner violence and their relationship to
gender.
Johnson,
Michael P. (2006). A Sociologist’s Perspective on Domestic Violence: A
Conversation with Michael Johnson, Ph.D. Interview by Theodora Ooms, CLASP. Available at
the Healthy Marriage Resource Center Web site:
http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/docs/ASociologistsPerspective.pdf.
Johnson,
Michael P. (2006). Violence and
abuse in personal relationships: Conflict, terror, and resistance in intimate
partnerships. In Anita Vangelisti
& Daniel Perlman (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 557-576.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This chapter focuses on intimate
partner violence (IPV). I believe the two core lessons to be learned from work
on IPV are simple, profound, and broadly applicable to violence in all types of
personal relationships. First, one cannot understand violence in personal
relationships without understanding its role in the relationship itself.
Second, and more substantively, there are three quite different types of intimate
partner violence, identified by their role in the control context of the
relationship in which they are embedded. One type involves a violent attempt to
take complete control or at least generally dominate the relationship (intimate
terrorism), another involves violent resistance to such a control attempt
(violent resistance), and the third is violence that is a product of particular
conflicts or tensions within the relationship (situational couple violence). As
this chapter shows, the nature of the control context is a major theme in the
IPV literature, and although it has as yet received little attention in
research on other types of personal relationships, there are hints of it in the
parent-child literature.
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.
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.
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.
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.