Intimate Terrorism and Other Types of Domestic Violence

Michael P. Johnson, Ph.D.

Sociology, Women's Studies, and

African & African American Studies

Penn State

Photos from Donna Ferrato, Living with the Enemy. New York: Aperture, 1991

McKeesport, PA

Texas Tech October 14, 2008

The Continuing Gender Debate “It’s all men” vs. “Women do it just as much as men” A small theory that reconciles the contradiction

A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases Other differences

Implications for Research and Theory Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed Need for differentiated theory

Implications for Intervention Screening/triage Intervention with perpetrators Support for survivors Custody and access issues

Agency Studies “Prove” ThatMen Are the Primary Batterers

Heterosexual intimate partner violence

by genderData Source Men Women

Divorce Court, Cleveland, 1966 92% 8%

Family Court, Ontario, 1982 94% 6%

Police, Santa Barbara, CA, 1983 94% 6%

Emergency Rooms, U.K., 1988 83% 17%

U.S., FBI, 1996-2001 75% 25%

Spousal Homicide, Canada, 1995-2005 82% 18%

Heterosexual intimate partner violence

by genderData Source Men Women

NFVS,1975 51% 49%

NSFH, 1988 53% 47%

8th & 9th Grade, NC, 1994 35% 65%

U. Maine students, 1997 39% 61%

New Zealand, 2002 39% 61%

But General Surveys “Prove” That Women Are as Violent as Men

A Small Theorythat

Reconciles the Contradiction There is more than one type of partner violence The different types of partner violence are

differently gendered And both major sampling plans are biased

Agency studies are biased toward coercive controlling violence, perpetrated almost entirely by men

General survey studies are biased toward situationally-provoked violence, which women are as likely to perpetrate as are men

The Continuing Gender Debate “It’s all men” vs. “Women do it just as much as men” A small theory that reconciles the contradiction

A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases Other differences

Implications for Research and Theory Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed Need for differentiated theory

Implications for Intervention Screening/triage Intervention with perpetrators Support for survivors Custody and access issues

Intimate TerrorismViolent Coercive Control

Violent ResistanceResisting the Intimate Terrorist

Situational Couple ViolenceSituationally-provoked Violence

Mutual Violent ControlTwo Intimate Terrorists

Intimate TerrorismSubtypes: Emotionally dependent; Antisocial

Control Scale

Thinking about your current husband, would you say he… …is jealous or possessive? …tries to provoke arguments? …tries to limit your contact with family and friends? …insists on knowing who you are with at all times? …calls you names or puts you down in front of others? …makes you feel inadequate? …shouts or swears at you? …frightens you? …prevents you from knowing about or having access to

the family income even when you ask?NVAWS

Intimate TerrorismViolent Coercive Control

Violent ResistanceResisting the Intimate Terrorist

Situational Couple ViolenceSituationally-provoked Violence

Mutual Violent ControlTwo Intimate Terrorists

Gender Symmetry/Asymmetryby Type of Violence

(1970s Pittsburgh: Violent husbands and wives)

Husbands Wives N

Intimate terrorism 97% 3% 97

Violent resistance 4% 96% 77

Situational couple violence 56% 44% 146

2000s Britain: IT 87% male; VR 10% male, SCV 45% male

The Biases of Major Sampling Plans(Violent men: Pittsburgh & Britain)

GeneralSample

(n = 37, 73)

ShelterSample

(n = 50, 41)

Court Sample*(n = 34)

Intimate terrorism 14%, 12% 78%, 88% 68%Violent resistance 0%, 4% 2%, 0% 0%

Situational couple violence 86%, 75% 18%, 10% 29%

*Pittsburgh only

76% severe

75% escalated29% mutual

28% severe

28% escalated69% mutual

1/25 couples

1/8 couples

Pittsburgh data

43% severe

78% escalated15% mutual

13% severe

20% escalated87% mutual

British data

Women’s Health Outcomes by Type of Male Violence

SCV IT

Any Injury Pittsburgh 56% 94% ***

NVAWS 13% 32% ***

Severe injury Pittsburgh 28% 76% ***

NVAWS 2% 5% *

General health Chicago Good to Very Good

Fair to Good *

Post-traumatic stress+ NVAWS 37% 79% ***

Depression++ NVAWS 65% 75% ns

+ Percent above the median for female victims of partner violence++Percent above the median for the general sample of married women

*.05 **.01 ***.001

Relationship Outcomes by Type of Male Violence

Situational

Couple

Violence

Intimate

Terrorism

Low marital happiness Pittsburgh 13% 50% ***

Left more than once Pittsburgh 26% 74% ***

NVAWS 7% 29% ***

Rarely a good time Pittsburgh 3% 20% ***

Sex often unpleasant Pittsburgh 9% 23% ***

*.05 **.01 ***.001

The Continuing Gender Debate ““It’s all men” vs. “Women do it just as much as men” A small theory that reconciles the contradiction

A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases Other differences

Implications for Research and Theory Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed Need for differentiated theory

Implications for Intervention Screening/triage Intervention with perpetrators Support for survivors Custody and access issues

We Need to Re-assess Everything Intergenerational “transmission” (Stith et al.; Johnson & Cares)

SCV: d = .11 IT: d = .35 SCV: odds ratio = 2.40 IT: odds ratio = 7.51

Marriage (Macmillan & Gartner)

SCV: b = -.62 IT: b = .58 Gender traditionalism (Sugarman & Frankel)

SCV: d = -.14 IT: d = .80 Hostility toward women (Holtzworth-Munroe et al.)

Non-viol, SCV = 154, 153 IT, IT = 135, 131

Gender, frequency, severity, escalation, mutuality, impact on victim, impact on children, etc.

Need for Differentiated Theory Intimate terrorism

Coercive control theory Gender theory Theories of paternalism

Violent Resistance Coping Entrapment

Situational couple violence Family conflict theory Communication Anger management Substance abuse

The Continuing Gender Debate “It’s all men” vs. “Women do it just as much as men” A small theory that reconciles the contradiction

A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence The three major types Gender differences and sampling biases Other differences

Implications for Research and Theory Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed Need for differentiated theory

Implications for Intervention Screening/triage Intervention with perpetrators Support for survivors Custody and access issues

Screening/Triage Different models appropriate for different

clients To screen we need information on both

control and violence for both partners Safety first!

Safety planning—as if you were dealing with intimate terrorism

If SCV seems likely, try individual application of other approaches

If SCV and safety become clear, move to couple approaches with protections in place

Intervention with Perpetrators

SCVDependent

ITAntisocial

IT

Completed Program

77% 38% 9%

Re-arrest 18% 38% 46%

Repeat Violence

55% 62% 88%

Outcomes of Duluth-type Batterer Intervention Program

(Thirteen Months Post-adjudication)

Eckhardt et al. 2008

Success of Different Intervention Strategies by IT Sub-type

(Percent non-violent two years after completing treatment)

Dependent Antisocial

Feminist cognitive-behavioral 48% 65%

Process-psychodynamic 67% 49%

Adapted from Saunders (1996)

Intervention with PerpetratorsHold them all accountable in the criminal justice system

to provide an essential motivation for change Intimate terrorism

Control-focused education Perhaps different tactics for sub-types

Violent resistance (Support for survivors) Alternatives to violence Neutralize the entrapment

Situational couple violence Source of conflict Anger management Communication counseling Substance abuse rehab

Support for Survivors Intimate terrorism

Safety planning Long-term support Alternatives to violent resistance Empowerment to leave Transitional support

Situational couple violence Source of conflict Anger management Communication counseling Substance abuse rehab

Custody and Access Issues

Separation instigated violence Manipulative accusations Resources for thorough evaluation Custody/access options

No contact Supervised access Supervised exchanges Parallel parenting, minimal couple contact Joint custody/Co-parenting

We make big mistakes if we don’t make big distinctions.

Different types of partner violence have…

Different causes Different developmental trajectories Different effects Different successful intervention strategies

Support Your Local Women’s Shelter

Safety Support Information Advocacy

Philadelphia, PA