Sex, Gender, and Relationship Type in the Relational Uncertainty of Victims of Partner Violence

Partner Abuse ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica J. Eckstein
Keyword(s):  
Romantic Relationships ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Relational Uncertainty ◽  
Relationship Type ◽  
Practical Applications ◽  
Intimate Terrorism ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Situational Couple Violence ◽  
And Gender

Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects victims in ways beyond initial abuse experiences. This study examines one of these victim experiences, that of relational uncertainty. Former IPV (N = 345, n = 106 males, 239 females) victims completed surveys based on their former heterosexual romantic relationships. Results indicated that male and female relational uncertainty experiences differed and corresponded with type of IPV relationship (i.e., situational couple violence [SCV] or intimate terrorism [IT]) and gender (i.e., masculinity) affiliation. Results are discussed in terms of how they both reinforce and challenge current theorizing about IPV and relational uncertainty. Both scholarly implications and practical applications to victims are presented.

An Empirical Test of Johnson's Typology of Intimate Partner Violence in Two Samples of Men

Partner Abuse ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-198
Author(s):  
Denise A. Hines ◽  
Emily M. Douglas
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Empirical Test ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Male Victims ◽  
Intimate Terrorism ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Two Samples ◽  
Situational Couple Violence

Johnson's typology of intimate partner violence (IPV) postulates four types: intimate terrorism (IT), situational couple violence (SCV), violent resistance (VR), and mutual violent control (MVC). Johnson asserts that IT (i.e., severe violence is part of the perpetrator's use of coercive control and power) is primarily perpetrated by men and can be solely explained by patriarchal theory and MVC is rare. These assertions are based on results from samples that included data only on women and victimization. This study tests Johnson's typology using a population-based sample of men and a sample of male IPV victims. Results showed that women were the primary perpetrators of IT, while men primarily used VR. SCV was more common in the population-based sample than in the male victims sample. MVC was just as common as IT in the population-based sample, while IT was more common than MVC in the male victims sample. We compare our results with Johnson's and discuss issues of sampling biases and the need for more complex underlying theories.

scholarly journals Investigating Violence and Control Dyadically in a Help-Seeking Sample from Mozambique

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Graham-Kevan ◽  
Antonio Eugenio Zacarias ◽  
Joaquim J. F. Soares
Keyword(s):  
Childhood Abuse ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Help Seeking ◽  
Healthcare Service ◽  
Intimate Violence ◽  
Intimate Terrorism ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Situational Couple Violence ◽  
And Control ◽  
Controlling Behaviors

A sample of 1442 women attending a Forensic Healthcare Service provided information on their own and their partners' use of controlling behaviors, partner violence, and sexual abuse, as well as their own experiences of childhood abuse. Using Johnson's typology, the relationships were categorized as Nonviolent, Intimate Terrorism, or Situational Couple Violence. Findings suggest that help-seeking women’s experiences of intimate violence may be diverse, with their roles ranging from victim to perpetrator.

Perpetrator Risk Markers for Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence: A Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 922-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather A. Love ◽  
Chelsea M. Spencer ◽  
Scott A. May ◽  
Marcos Mendez ◽  
Sandra M. Stith
Keyword(s):  
Partner Violence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Sample Type ◽  
Risk Markers ◽  
Female Victims ◽  
Control Power ◽  
Intimate Terrorism ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Situational Couple Violence

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.

scholarly journals The Differential Effects of Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence

2005 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 322-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Johnson ◽  
Janel M. Leone
Keyword(s):  
Posttraumatic Stress ◽  
Survey Data ◽  
Violence Against Women ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Wife Abuse ◽  
Posttraumatic Stress Syndrome ◽  
Intimate Terrorism ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Situational Couple Violence ◽  
Husband 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.

Intimate Partner Violence: Gendered Discourses Within a Human Context

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-169
Author(s):  
Sarah Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Cultural Discourses ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
High Incidence ◽  
Femininity And Masculinity ◽  
The Media ◽  
Situational Couple Violence ◽  
Male Perpetration

Dominant cultural discourses of femininity and masculinity may intersect to perpetuate the high incidence of intimate partner violence, thereby framing the phenomena as a human issue. Our understanding of female and male perpetration of violence is thwarted by several complications, thereby convoluting understandings of bi-directional violence perpetration. Situational couple violence also provides evidence that IPV is a shared human issue. Dominant cultural discourses related to masculinity and femininity uncovered through the media, the justice system, and types of service provision show intersections that perpetuate IPV experiences. Recommendations to better support both offenders and victims drawn from the examination of discourses are suggested.

Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence: Classification Variability Across Five Methods to Distinguish Johnson’s Violent Relationship Types

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 955-976 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica J. Eckstein
Keyword(s):  
Partner Violence ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Control Variable ◽  
Research Perspectives ◽  
Intimate Terrorism ◽  
Relationship Types ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Situational Couple Violence ◽  
Violent Relationship

Johnson’s (1995, 2008) theory of violent relationship types represents an opportunity to resolve debates surrounding intimate partner violence (IPV) prevalence and to adapt policy and treatment options for victims accordingly. However, the use of quantitative methods to distinguish between situational couple violence (SCV) and intimate terrorism (IT) remains in its initial stages of discovery. This study included a 2-phase (N = 840; via targeted community and agency sampling) online survey design comparing the utility and grouping variability across 5 methods of IT/SCV classification: victimization-variables and coercive-control-variable hierarchical clustering, vignette-choice, cutoff scoring, and expert coding. Findings are discussed in terms of contributions to differing IPV-research perspectives, researchers’ understanding of existing classification methods, and practitioners’ awareness of victims’ voices in quantitative research.

Intimate Partner Violence Among Married Male U.S. Army Soldiers: Ethnicity as a Factor in Self-Reported Perpetration and Victimization

2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 607-622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leora N. Rosen ◽  
Angela Moore Parmley ◽  
Kathryn H. Knudson ◽  
Peggy Fancher
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Analysis Of Covariance ◽  
Intimate Terrorism ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Common Couple Violence ◽  
Army Soldiers ◽  
Married Male

Correlates of self-reported intimate partner violence (IPV) were examined among 488 married male U.S. Army soldiers. Study results were examined within the framework of Johnson’s (1995) typology, which proposes that there are two main types of IPV, common couple violence and intimate terrorism. We predicted that poor marital adjustment would be associated with minor violence, hypothesized to be indicative of common couple violence. We also predicted that psychological and behavioral characteristics associated with perpetrators of IPV would be more strongly correlated with severe inflicted aggression—a pattern hypothesized to be indicative of intimate terrorism. The results, based on a multivariate analysis of covariance, generally supported our hypotheses. Furthermore, the higher levels of IPV reported by Black respondents in this study were associated with the pattern hypothesized to be characteristic of common couple violence.

“Maybe She Was Provoked”

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Scarduzio ◽  
Kellie E. Carlyle ◽  
Kate Lockwood Harris ◽  
Matthew W. Savage
Keyword(s):  
Gender Stereotypes ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Gender Symmetry ◽  
News Stories ◽  
Intimate Terrorism ◽  
Power And Control ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Situational Couple Violence ◽  
And Control

The current study is concerned with the different types of gender stereotypes that participants may draw upon when exposed to news stories about intimate partner violence (IPV). We qualitatively analyzed open-ended responses examining four types of gender stereotypes—aggression, emotional, power and control, and acceptability of violence. We offer theoretical implications that extend past research on intimate terrorism and situational couple violence, the gender symmetry debate, and how stereotypes are formed. We also discuss practical implications for journalists who write stories about IPV and individuals who provide services to victims and perpetrators.

Barriers to Help Seeking for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 585-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna M. Calton ◽  
Lauren Bennett Cattaneo ◽  
Kris T. Gebhard
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Romantic Relationships ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Help Seeking ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
And Gender

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive and devastating social problem that is estimated to occur in one of every four opposite-sex relationships and at least one of every five same-sex romantic relationships. These estimates may not represent violence against those who identify as transgender or genderqueer, and very little comprehensive research has been conducted on IPV within these populations. One statewide study on IPV found rates of IPV were as high as one of every two transgender individuals. In order to cope with the effects of abuse or leave an abusive partner, many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and genderqueer (LGBTQ) IPV survivors seek support from others. However, LGBTQ IPV survivors may experience unique difficulties related to their sexual orientation and gender identity when seeking assistance. This article reviews the literature on LGBTQ IPV and suggests three major barriers to help-seeking exist for LGBTQ IPV survivors: a limited understanding of the problem of LGBTQ IPV, stigma, and systemic inequities. The significance and consequences of each barrier are discussed, and suggestions for future research, policy, and practice are provided.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document