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
Texas Tech
October 14, 2008
McKeesport, PA
 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
 The three major types
 Gender differences and sampling biases
 Other differences
Violence
 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” That
Men Are the Primary Batterers
Heterosexual intimate partner violence
by gender
Data Source
Men
Women
Divorce Court, Cleveland, 1966
Family Court, Ontario, 1982
92%
94%
8%
6%
Police, Santa Barbara, CA, 1983
94%
6%
Emergency Rooms, U.K., 1988
83%
17%
U.S., FBI, 1996-2001
Spousal Homicide, Canada, 1995-2005
75%
82%
25%
18%
But General Surveys “Prove” That
Women Are as Violent as Men
Heterosexual intimate partner violence
by gender
Data Source
Men
Women
NFVS,1975
NSFH, 1988
51%
53%
49%
47%
8th & 9th Grade, NC, 1994
35%
65%
U. Maine students, 1997
New Zealand, 2002
39%
39%
61%
61%
A Small Theory
that
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
 The three major types
 Gender differences and sampling biases
 Other differences
Violence
 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 Terrorism
Violent Coercive Control
Violent Resistance
Resisting the Intimate Terrorist
Situational Couple Violence
Situationally-provoked Violence
Mutual Violent Control
Two Intimate Terrorists
Intimate Terrorism
Subtypes: 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 Terrorism
Violent Coercive Control
Violent Resistance
Resisting the Intimate Terrorist
Situational Couple Violence
Situationally-provoked Violence
Mutual Violent Control
Two Intimate Terrorists
Gender Symmetry/Asymmetry
by Type of Violence
(1970s Pittsburgh: Violent husbands and wives)
Husbands
Intimate terrorism
97%
Wives
3%
N
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)
General
Sample
(n = 37, 73)
Shelter
Sample
(n = 50, 41)
Court
Sample*
(n = 34)
Intimate terrorism
14%, 12%
78%, 88%
68%
Violent resistance
0%, 4%
2%, 0%
0%
18%, 10%
29%
Situational couple violence 86%, 75%
*Pittsburgh only
Pittsburgh data
76% severe
75% escalated
29% mutual
1/25
couples
28% severe
28% escalated
69% mutual
1/8
couples
British data
43% severe
78% escalated
15% mutual
13% severe
20% escalated
87% mutual
Women’s Health Outcomes
by Type of Male Violence
Pittsburgh
SCV
56%
IT
94%
***
NVAWS
13%
32%
***
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
Any Injury
Severe injury
+ 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
Intimate
Violence Terrorism
Low marital happiness Pittsburgh
13%
50%
***
Left more than once
Rarely a good time
Sex often unpleasant
*.05 **.01 ***.001
Pittsburgh
26%
74%
***
NVAWS
7%
29%
***
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh
3%
9%
20%
23%
***
***
 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
 The three major types
 Gender differences and sampling biases
 Other differences
Violence
 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
 SCV: odds ratio = 2.40
IT: d = .35
IT: odds ratio = 7.51
 Marriage (Macmillan & Gartner)
 SCV:
b = -.62
 Gender
 SCV:
IT: b = .58
traditionalism (Sugarman & Frankel)
d = -.14
 Hostility
toward women (Holtzworth-Munroe et al.)
 Non-viol,
 Gender,
IT: d = .80
SCV = 154, 153
IT, IT = 135, 131
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
 Family
couple violence
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
 The three major types
 Gender differences and sampling biases
 Other differences
Violence
 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
Outcomes of Duluth-type
Batterer Intervention Program
(Thirteen Months Post-adjudication)
SCV
Dependent
IT
Antisocial
IT
Completed
Program
77%
38%
9%
Re-arrest
18%
38%
46%
Repeat
Violence
55%
62%
88%
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 Perpetrators
Hold 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
 Source
couple violence
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
 Source
couple violence
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
Different types of partner violence have…
 Different
causes
 Different developmental trajectories
 Different effects
 Different successful intervention strategies
We make big mistakes if we don’t
make big distinctions.
Support Your Local Women’s Shelter
Safety
Support
Information
Advocacy
Philadelphia, PA