Johnson's domestic violence
typology: Implications for
intervention programmes
Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan CPsychol
University of Central Lancashire
ngraham-kevan@uclan.ac.uk
Overview
Pro-feminist research
Gender neutral approaches
Johnson
Study 1 & 2
Study 3
Conclusions
Sociopolitical / Pro-feminist
Approach
Patriarchal society: Male aggressiveness &
authority v female dependence &
subordination
Male control of women: Economic, isolation,
intimidation, threats, emotional & violence
Samples: Women’s refuge, criminal justice
system (police, courts), male batterers,
divorce files, historical records
Duluth BIP
“Battering is never.... provoked, hereditary, out
of control, accidental, or an isolated incident
with no further dynamics. Battering is not
caused by disease, diminished intellect,
alcoholism/addiction or intoxication, mental
illness or any external person or event.
Domestic violence is a means for men to
systematically dominate, control, devalue and
disempower women. Battering/violence is
greater than an individual act; it supports the
larger goal of the oppression of women. Men
batter because they can and it serves as a
means to an end.”
a variant of a “psychoeducational model” that
originated in Duluth, Minnesota and is called the
Duluth Model. The primary goal of this model is to
get male clients to acknowledge “male privilege”
and how they have used “power and control” to
dominate their wives. Many men coming to courtmandated therapy feel no sense of power and
control in any arena of their lives, including their
marriage (Dutton & Starzomski, 1994). Hence, not
only is a political model mapped onto intervention,
but the model commits the primary mistake of
therapy: to not acknowledge the client’s reality.
National Surveys
UK: BCS 1996 found victimisation
prevalence rates of 4.2% of women &
4.2% of men physically assaulted by
spouse/ex-spouse in past year
Canadian: Statistics Canada 2000: 4%
women & 4% men
US: NFVS 1975: 12% women & men;
1985 11% women & 12% men
Gender Neutral Perspectives
Family Conflict (e.g. Straus): Both men &
women. Domestic violence stems from
everyday frustrations and stresses of living
together
Non-selected samples
Psychopathology (e.g. Dutton): Both men &
women
Domestic violence stems for personality and
mental disorders
Clinical samples
Developmental: attachment, early life
experiences
Johnson 1995: Integration
Feminist
Men  Controlling aggression
Women  Non-controlling aggression
Family violence
Men & women  Non-controlling aggression
Johnson 1995
Patriarchal terrorists  Controlling aggression
Common couple violence  Non-controlling
aggression
Patriarchal [Intimate] Terrorism: “The
central motivating factor behind the
violence is a man’s desire to exercise
general control over “his” women”
Common Couple Violence: “This type of
violence is usually not part of a pattern
in which one partner is trying to exert
general control over his or her partner”
Empirical Support For
Johnson’s Typology
Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003a
43 shelter women, 113 students*, 108 male
prisoners* ~ NCVP & CVP. *All had used
partner aggression in past 12 months
Physical aggression, control, injuries & fear
DFA ~ 2 functions ‘victimisation’ &
‘perpetration’ with control having the most
discriminative ability
Correctly classified 75% of participants
Extending Johnson’s Typology
Dyadic typology ~ both partners behaviours
Classified upon controlling/non controlling
physical aggression, and unitary or mutual
aggression
From PTM to IT, CCV, VR, MVC
Johnson, 1999; Johnson & Leone, 2000;
Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003b
Limitations of previous studies
Biased sampling
Gender asymmetry
Graham-Kevan & Archer
(2005)
399 men & 951 women from UCLAN
Age 16-60yrs mean 25yrs, LOR mean
20 months
1/3 were staff ~ jobs mainly admin
Physical aggression, control, injuries,
escalation
IT, CCV, VR, MVC
Gender symmetry in typologies
Percentages of Relationship Type
by Gender of Perpetrator:
Perpetrator Reports
CCV
IT
MVC
VR
Men
74%
9%
2%
15%
Women
74%
13%
5%
8%
4%
3-7%
10%
13-23%
Total
Previous
74%
12%
44-59% 22-29%
Statistical Comparisons
Significant differences between CCV &
IT:
Self-reports: Minor Physical
Aggression, Partner Injuries, Relative
Physical Aggression Rates
Partner Reports: Minor & Severe
Physical Aggression, Partner Injuries,
Relative Physical Aggression Rates,
Escalation
Interventions
Much research that has been used to develop
interventions has been based on studies
where sampling was systematically biased,
e.g. women’s shelters, BIP.
“Effective intervention… requires a thorough
assessment, as well as an awareness of the
full spectrum of research…,including such
neglected areas as mutual abuse and the
characteristics of male victims” (p.11, Hamel,
2005)
Hamel (2005)
Johns Perpetrator
on characteristics
IT Unilateral
Severe
Battering
MVC Mutual Severe
Battering
Treatment
Mandatory same-sex BIP &
individual psychotherapy for
DV and PD
As above for both partners &
couples counselling after
both acquired anger
management/conflict skills
CCV Mutual Common Unilateral: Batter or anger
Battering
Mutual: Batter or anger &
couples
Comparisons to Previous Work
Graham-Kevan & Archer (2003a) Refuge
group mean partner control scores 2.7 s.d.
from sample mean
Johnson & Leone (in press) ‘High control
group’ (partner reports) mean scores at least
2 s.d. from sample mean.
Present sample ‘High control group’ 2.2 s.d.
higher than sample mean
Women Perpetrators? Why
Should We Care?
“In addition, male victims have unique experiences
in that their female abusers are able to use a system
that is designed to aide female victims of domestic
violence. Thus, some female perpetrators of IPV
manipulate their husbands because they know that
the system is designed without the abused male’s
experiences in mind, and that more often than not,
people will not believe or take seriously these men’
s victimization.” (p.23 Hines et al 2005)
Women Perpetrators? Why
Should We Care?
Witnessed parental violence
DV by
High
Neither
Depres Drunk
sion
20.0
1.92
2.47
DV
men
10.5
DV
women
11.4
Father
31.0
4.88
7.00
18.3
21.7
Mother 33.6
2.49
12.66 23.0
21.4
Both
2.64
3.22
22.4
32.9
NFVS (Straus et al. 1990)
22.2
Women Perpetrators? Why
Should We Care?
Women Perpetrators
A minority of probation areas in UK have
strategies, action plans or practice guidelines
to ensue women had equal access to
community sentences
A minority of areas provided women-only
group work
Needs of women [offenders] not a priority
when developing local partnership
arrangements (HM Probation Report, 1996)
Conclusions
Evidence of typologies
Evidence of substantial gender
symmetry
Treatment implications
Future directions