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.

    

Johnson, Michael P. (2008).  A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence.  Boston: Northeastern University Press.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

“A ‘general’ theory of intimate partner violence: A working paper.” Presented at the Theory Construction and Research Methodology Pre-Conference Workshop, National Council on Family Relations annual meeting. Minneapolis, Minnesota. November 2006.

 

Johnson, Michael P. (2006).  Gendered communication and intimate partner violence.  In Bonnie J. Dow & Julia T. Wood (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Gender and Communication (pp. 71-87. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

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.

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.

 

Johnson, Michael P. (2005). Domestic violence: It’s not about gender—or is it? Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 (December): 1126–1130. (Adobe)

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.

 

Also see: Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2005). Male versus female intimate partner violence: Putting controversial findings into context. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1120-1125. Adobe).

Johnson, Michael P. and Janel M. Leone. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26 (3), 322-349. (Adobe)

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.

 

Johnson, Michael P. & Alison Cares. (2004, November). Effects and non-effects of childhood experiences of family violence on adult partner violence. Presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations.  Orlando, Florida.

 

Leone, Janel M., Johnson, Michael P., & Cohan, Catherine M. (2004, November). Women’s perceived social support and help-seeking: An examination of two types of violent relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations. Orlando, Florida.

 

Johnson, Michael P.  (2004).  Review of Aysan Sev'er, Fleeing the House of Horrors: Women Who Have Left Abusive Partners. Canadian Journal of Sociology Online, (May – June). http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/cjscopy/reviews/fleeing.html

 

Leone, Janel M., Johnson, Michael P., Cohan, Catherine M., & Lloyd, Susan. (2004). Consequences of male partner violence for low-income minority women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66 (May), 471-489 (Adobe).

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).  Conflict and control: Symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence.  In Alan Booth, Ann C. Crouter and Mari Clements (Eds.), Couples in Conflict (pp. 95-104).  Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum. (Adobe) 

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, Arlington, VA.

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.

Johnson, Michael P.  (1999, November).  Two types of violence against women in the family: Identifying patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations. Irvine, California.

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).