Johnson developed a typology of intimate partner violence (IPV) which includes two different categories of violence: situational couple violence (SCV) and intimate terrorism (IT). Johnson proposed that IT is more likely to be found in clinical samples (e.g., batterer intervention programs or domestic violence shelters) compared to nonclinical (general population) samples. This meta-analysis ( n = 149 studies; k = 216 effect sizes) examines differences in the strengths of IPV risk markers in clinical and nonclinical samples of male perpetrators and female victims. All variables (communication and conflict resolution, demand–withdraw patterns, relationship dissatisfaction, controlling behaviors, jealousy, patriarchal beliefs, power in the relationship, and stalking) were expected to be significantly related to IPV for both clinical and nonclinical populations. However, specific variables indicative of IT (control, jealousy, patriarchal beliefs, power, and stalking) were expected to be more strongly associated with clinical samples compared to nonclinical samples. As expected, most variables were significant for clinical and nonclinical populations, and IT risk markers (control, power, jealousy, and patriarchal beliefs) were significantly stronger risk markers for IPV in clinical samples. These results indicate that Johnson’s typology may be conceptualized as representing a continuum of violence, with IT being more severe due to the controlling nature of the violence. Sample type needs to be considered when research about IPV is disseminated, as different degrees of IPV (IT vs. SCV) may be present depending on sample type. Implications from this study include the need to differentiate the level of violence and to tailor intervention for IPV appropriately.
Influence of intimate terrorism, situational couple violence, and mutual violent control on male victims.
