SELECTED WORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
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.
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.
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). 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.
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).