Extending Johnson’s Typology: Additional Manifestations of Dating Violence and Coercive Control

In this study, we explored patterns of violence and coercive control in young adult dating relationships by testing and extending Johnson’s typology of intimate partner violence. Young adults ( N = 398) between 18 and 27 years old completed an online survey about experiences of violence and coercive control in current and past dating relationships. Using cluster analysis, we classified relationships as no/low coercive control and high coercive control. We then categorized relationship types according to Johnson’s typology using the coercive control clusters and the absence/presence of violence. In total, 35% of relationships were abusive (i.e., violent and/or high coercive control), with 24% of all reported relationships including violence with and without high coercive control, and 11% including nonviolent coercive control. Among violent relationships, situational couple violence was more common than other types of dating violence, and two additional types of violence were found: (a) violence toward a nonviolent coercive controlling partner and (b) nonviolent coercive control toward an intimate terrorist, both of which are potentially types of resistance distinct from Johnson’s concept of violent resistance. Additionally, victims of intimate terrorism and victims of nonviolent coercive control were significantly more fearful of their partners than victims of situational couple violence, and victims of situational couple violence did not differ in their fear of partners compared to respondents in nonabusive relationships. These findings identify additional abusive relationship types and elucidate the importance of extending Johnson’s typology to more comprehensively capture the complex dynamics of coercive control and/or violence in young adult dating relationships.

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

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.

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

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.

Intimate Partner Violence: Gendered Discourses Within a Human Context

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.

Untangling the concept of coercive control: Theorizing domestic violent crime

The article assesses three approaches to domestic violence: two that use the concept of ‘coercive control’ and one that uses ‘domestic violent crime’. These are: Stark’s concept of coercive control; Johnson’s distinction between situational couple violence and intimate terrorism, in which coercive control is confined to the latter; and that of domestic violent crime, in which all physical violence is conceptualized as coercive and controlling. The article assesses these three approaches on seven issues. It offers original analysis of data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales concerning variations in repetition and seriousness in domestic violent crime. It links escalation in domestic violent crime to variations in the economic resources of the victim. It concludes that the concept of domestic violent crime is preferable to that of coercive control when seeking to explain variations in domestic violence.

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

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.

“Maybe She Was Provoked”

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.