Dyadic Concordance In Intimate Terrorism:
Implications For The Theoretical, Methodological, And
Empirical Adequacy of Johnson’s Typology
Murray A. Straus and Kristi Gozjolko
Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824 603-862-2594 murray.straus@unh.edu
Website: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2
• Presented at the annual meeting of the American Society Of Criminology, San
Francisco, 19 November 2014
• Other publications on this and related issues can be downloaded from
http//:www.pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2
• Current work was supported by the University of New Hampshire and previous work
by National Institute of Mental Health grant T32MH15161
Your are welcome to download these slides from
http://pubpages.unh.edu
.
1
Questions Addressed
1. What identifies an individual as “Intimate Terrorist” (IT) and what
has research found about Johnson’s assertion that IT’s are almost all
men?
2. What are Dyadic Concordance Types and what percent of couples are
in each of IT (Male-Only, Female-Only, and Both IT)?
3. What are the implications of the results for:
• Conceptualization and Measurement Of Intimate Terrorism
and Johnson’s typology
• Theories explaining partner violence (PV)
• Prevention and Treatment of partner violence
2
Intimate Terrorism, One Of Four Types
• Intimate Terrorism (IT) enacts violence to take general control over one’s partner
• Situational Couple Violence (SCV) is violence that arises in the context of specific
conflicts and does not involve coercive control
• Mutual Violent Control involves both partners engaging in Intimate Terrorist
violence
• Violent Resistance uses violence to resist IT
• Professional interest has been mainly on IT and SCV
These are the focus of this paper
Johnson, Michael P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence.
Violence against Women, 12(11), 1-16. )
3
Table 1. Gender Differences In Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence
Measure of
Perp Rate For
F/M%
Study
Sample
IT or
Men
Women
Coercive Control
SCV
[Frye, 2006
749 women,
Canada Viol Against
IT
34%
100%
#11416]
331 physically
Women Survey
SCV
66%
abused
No signf gender diff
[GrahamShelter 43.
Controlling Behaviours
IT
38%
6%
16%
Kevan, 2003 Male prisoners
Scale (DAIP)
SCV
53%
64%
121%
#9562]
97. Students
104 male, 239
female
[GrahamUniversity Staff Controlling Behaviours
IT
9%
13%
144%
Kevan, 2004 and Students
Scale (Duluth Domestic
SCV
74%
74%
100%
#10748]
N=1339
Abuse Intervention Proj)
[Johnson,
4,967 wives.
Psychological
IT
35%
Data for female sample
2005 #10691] 246 violent & Maltreatment Of
SCV
55%
not analyzed
4,721 nonWomen [Tolman, 1989
violent husbs #1420]
[Laroche,
Canada Genal
Controlling Behaviours
IT
19%
26%
137%
2005 #8553] Social Survey
Scale (Canada GSS)
SCV
81%
74%
91%
[Prospero,
Students
Controlling Behaviours
IT
7%
100%
2006 #10746] Male=248
[Graham-Kevan, 2003
SCV
68%
Female=361
#9562]
No signf gender diff
4
Summary Of Results Of Six Studies
•
•
•
•
Only one found a higher percent of men IT than women
Two found no difference, and reported only percent for combined sample
Two found a larger percent of women than men IT
One did not analyze the data for women
 Overall: These six studies suggest that IT by women occurs as often as by men.
More studies being added to table. Pattern seems to be the same
 Related problem: Johnson’s four types do not include a separate category for
female terrorists
• Dyadic Concordance Types (discussed next) provide that
5
Dyadic Concordance Types (DCTs)
A Method of Identifying A Crucial Characteristic Of Couples
 Can Increase Understanding Of Intimate Terrorism And All Other Relationship
Problems
 DCTs classify couples into three categories
~Male-Only, ~Female-Only ~Both engaged in the behavior of
interest, such as assault or IT
 DCTs go beyond comparing men and women:
• Provide a couple-level measure that is also gender-specific
DCTs are easy to determine if there is “dyadic data” on the behavior of interest,
i.e., behavior measured for both partners
• If IT is measured for both:
oCross-classify the IT measure for each partner
oResulting four cells identify the three DCTs & reference Neither
 Examples of DCTs for couple concordance in assault (not IT) next slides
6
Dyadic Concordance In Assault Perpetration
U.S. National Comorbidity Study (N=8,098)
70
Male Respondents
Couple
Prevalence
According to
Men 21%
Women 23%
63
Female Respondents
60
54
50
40
%
30
26
22
23
20
12
10
0
Male-Only FemaleOnly
BothAssault
Male-Only FemaleOnly
BothAssault
Dyadic Concordance Type
Kessler, R. C., Molnar, B. E., Feurer, I. D., & Appelbaum, M. (2001). Patterns and mental health predictors of domestic violence in the
United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey. International Journal Of Law And Psychiatry, 24(4-5), 487-508.
7
Figure 1. Concordance In Assault Perpetration
By 3,642 Men And Women In The World Mental Health Study
Couple
Prevalence
according to:
Males: 22%
Females 22%
50
Male Respondents
45
40
42
39
50
35
35
% 30
30
25
25
20
43
45
40
19
Female Respondents
36
21
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
Dyadic Concordance Type
Miller, E., Breslau, J., Petukhova, M., Fayyad, J., Green, J. G., Kola, L., Kessler, R. C. (2011). Premarital mental disorders
and physical violence in marriage: cross-national study of married couples. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 199(4), 3308
337. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.084061
48 Studies Found Similar Distribution of DCTs,
Especially That Both Assaulted Was Predominant
Dyadic Concordance Type
 Above suggests hypothesis that Both might also be typical of
Intimate Terrorism
Adapted from Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M. L. (2012). Rates of Bidirectional Versus
Unidirectional Intimate Partner Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive
Review. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 199-230. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.199
9
DATA FROM THE
INTERNATIONAL DATING
VIOLENCE STUDY
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID.htm




14,252 Students At 68 Universities
In 32 Nations
All Major World Regions
Convenience Samples
Questionnaire Completed In Class
 Analyses Control For And/Or Examine
Interactions With:
* Gender and Age
* Score on Social Desirability
Response set scale
* Other controls as needed
 VALIDITY OF THE DATA
• Concurrent validity: correlated with
recognized international statistics
• Construct Validity: Shown in many
published papers
10
Measures
 Partner violence: Revised Conflict Tactics Physical Assault Scale: Any perpetration
 High Coercive Control: Cases at 90th percentile of Psychological Aggression scale
of the Conflict Tactics Scales
• Based on frequent statement that psychological aggression is a key element in
coercive control
• For this sample: Correlation with Hamby Dominance Scale: ?
 Intimate Terrorism: Assaulted and high coercive control
 Dyadic Concordance Types of Intimate Terrorist
• Cross classification of partner measures of Intimate Terrorist results in
• Four cells ~Male-Only, ~Female-Only, ~Both IT, Reference category Neither
11
Table 3. Gender Differences In Dominance, Assault, and
Intimate Terrorist
Gender of
Student
Men
Women
Chi
Sqr
p=>
Any assault
24%
31%
.001
High coercive control
8%
11%
.001
Situational Couple Violence (assaulted, not high coercive
control
19%
22%%
.001
Intimate Terrorist (assaulted and high coercive control)
5%
9%
.001
Variable
12
Dyadic Concordance In Intimate Terrorism
Dating Relationships Of University Students in 32 Nations
 Intimate Terrorist
60
Prevalence
•Men
8%
% of the 50
•Women 10%
10% of
•Couples 10%
Gender Of Participant:
• Stats by gender used data
provided by participants of
that gender
• Stats in chart based on
combined sample because
no significant difference
between estimates of MaleOnly, Female-Only, Both
using data from men and
women.
Couples
With 40
Either
Or Both 30
Intimate
Terrorist
20
51
33
17
10
0
Male Only
Female Only
Both IT
Dyadic Concordance Types
Straus, Murray A., & Gozjolko, Kristi L. (2013). Dyadic Analysis Of “Intimate Terrorism” and the Theoretical,
Methodological, And Empirical Adequacy Of Johnson’s Typology. Paper presented at the American Society Of
Criminology, 19 November 2014, San Francisco.
13
Summary Of Results On The 3 Questions
1. What percent of partners are “Intimate Terrorists” as measured by Johnson’s
methods?
* 5% of men and 9% of women (as reported by each gender)
* More women than men are IT in this study and most other studies
2. What Is the level of Concordance Between partners in Intimate Terrorism?
* High: When there was IT in a relationship, in 51% of those couples both were IT
* Sole-perpetrators were: Male-Only 16%, Female-Only 33%
* Above percentages hold regardless of whether men or women provided the data
3. What are the implications? Next slides
14
Implications For Validity Of Widely Accepted Distinction
Between Intimate Terrorist And Situational Couple Violence
 One reason widely accepted: Seems to resolve 35 year controversy over gender
symmetry in perpetration and whether the predominant cause is “patriarchy”
 But does not because:
o Studies found symmetry in IT, not just in SCV
o Permits holding on to belief that PV is predominantly a male crime caused
by patriarchy because, according to Johnson (2006), IT is perpetrated
almost exclusively by men
15
Other Problems With Conceptualization and Measurement
Of Intimate Terrorism
 Insufficiently multidimensional because does not take into account dimensions such
as chronicity and severity of assault and injury
(Perhaps reflecting Johnson belief the crucial issue is coercion and that “…the
frequency and severity of the violence has no bearing whatsoever on whether the
violence is classified as IT” (Johnson, 008 p. 94).)
 Label “terrorist” implies chronic assaults, severe assaults, and injury, but not
measured to identify IT. Therefore
• low “sensitivity” i.e., ability to identify cases that fit the image
• Low “specificity” i.e., false positives
 Inadequate specification of coercion. Johnson argues that a key characteristic of IT is
generalized coercion not situational coercion to get the partner to do or to stop a
specific behavior (Johnson, 1995). The measures used by Johnson and others do not
adequately distinguishes generalized coercion from situational coercion.
 Although Johnson’s method of measuring IT can be applied to women
• The four types do not include a separate category for female terrorists
 Categorizes most cases as Common Couple Violence, which is implied to not be
serious problem
16
The Reality Behind The Miracle Cure
 Does not end the controversy because most studies that empirically compared men
and women find similar percentages of male and female IT
 Downplays the importance of SCV. But from a public health perspective, SCV is
extremely important because
• Affects many more couples
• Produces the most injuries, physical and psychological because it exposes the
most people to risk of injury
• Is a contagious disease and infects the next generation
 Diverts attention from the need to protect women by attending to violence by
reducing violence by women and their social and psychological problems
 Has not improved treatment. In current Batterer Intervention Programs, all
offenders get the same intervention
 Although Johnson typology identifies important variations in PV, it contuse the
controversy over whether the most important cause is “patriarchy” because the
typology assumes that only men are terrorists
17
THEORETICAL IMPLICATION
Revise theories of PV to recognizes that dyadic nature of PV, including:
• About the same percent of women as men physically assault a partner
• Most cases are bi-directional and involve an escalation pattern and a relationship
problem, not just a male problem
• 17 studies found only a small percent of acts in self-defense, and no study found
a higher percent than men (Straus, 2012)
IMPLICATIONS FOR PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
Prevention programs: Replace programs directed to men and boys with programs
explicitly addressed explicitly to both genders
Treatment of partner violence: Replace the assumption that it is violent men who
need treatment with:
• Initial screening to determine whether it is unilateral or mutual,
• Base treatment on that evidence, not male-only perpetrator assumption
• Provide treatment for both where both perpetrated (half of couples)
Victim services: Continue to give priority to women victims because women are
injured more, physically, psychologically, & economically
Straus, Murray A. (2012). Blaming the messenger for the bad news about partner violence by women: the Methodological, theoretical, and value
basis of the purported invalidity of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(5), 538-556. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2023
19
Downloadable Papers On Dyadic Concordance Types - General
Straus, M. A. (2014). A Gallery Of Dyadic Concordance Type (DCT) Graphics. Unpublished Manuscript. Durham, NH:
Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
Straus. M.A. (in press) Dyadic Concordance and Discordance in Family Violence: A Powerful and Practical Approach to
Research and Practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior.
Straus, M. A. (2014). Bringing couple-level measures and family contradictions into research through dyadic concordance
types. Unpublished Manuscript. Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory.
Specific Empirical Studies
Straus, M. A. (2014). Practical ways to conduct international partner violence research using Dyadic analysis. NCFR Report
Magazine: Family Focus on International Intimate Partner Violence, Fall, 1-4. Straus, M. A., & Michel-Smith, Y. (2014).
Dyadic Concordance In Psychological Aggression And Its Relation to Physical Assault Of Dating Partners By Male And
Female University Students In 32 Nations. Paper presented at the European Society of Criminology, Prague.
Michel-Smith, Yahayra, & Straus, Murray (2014). Dyadic Patterns of Perpetration of Physical Assault and Injury of Dating
Partners By Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations. Paper presented at the Stockholm Criminology
Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden.
Straus, M. A., & Michel-Smith, Y. (2013). Mutuality, Severity, And Chronicity Of Violence By Father-only, Mother-only,
And Mutually Violent Parents As Reported By University Students In 15 Nations. Child Abuse Negl, 38(4), 664-676. Doi:
10.1016/J.Chiabu.2013.10.004.
Straus, Murray A. (2013, November). Relation of Corporal Punishment By Father-Only, Mother-Only, And Both Parents To
Crime by University Students In 15 Nations. Paper presented at the American Society Of Criminology, Atlanta.
Straus, Murray A, & Michel-Smith, Yahayra (2012). Relation Of Violence Between Parents Of University Students In 15
Nations To Student Criminogenic Beliefs And Crime: A comparison of father-only, mother-only, and mutual parental
violence Paper presented at the American Society Of Criminology annual meeting, Chicago, 15 November, 2012.
Straus, M. A., & Winstok, Z.. (2013). Relation of Dyadic Concordance-Discordance Types of Partner Violence to Depression
of Male and Female University Students in 15 Nations. Paper presented at the Society for the Study of Social Problems,
New York.
Winstok, Z. & Straus, M. A. (2014). Gender Differences in the Link between Intimate Partner Physical Violence and
Depression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 91-101. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.01.003.
20
The Both category may be misleading
Both can assault, but he more frequently and/or more severely. also
Run and plot ancova: IV = DCT. DV chronicity and gender. LDT SES
plot means but convert to bars
21
Does not end the controversy because studies of clinical samples show high rates of
female assault (e.g. Gondolf 60%, Giles Sims etc.. See my article, And contrary to
his claim, high freq of severe assault in general population.
o Minimizes symmetrical perpetration of most partner
violence by giving them a more socially acceptable
label ”Situational Couple Violence”
o Asserts the important problem is Intimate Terrorism,
not Situational Couple Violence.
Cite my previous estimate of equivalent of IT and compare %s
Strgthen case for DCT: make case for analyzing couples
22
Messinger, A. M., Fry, D. A., Rickert, V. I., Catallozzi, M., & Davidson, L. L.
(2014). Extending Johnson's Intimate Partner Violence Typology: Lessons From
an Adolescent Sample. Violence against Women, 20(8), 948-971. doi:
10.1177/1077801214546907
Offers an extension of Johnson types, but still no category in which a female
partner can be the sole IT
23
Are The Results “Spurious”
Because Of Methodological Problems?
Samples – world wide, general pop, clinical pop
Measurement – Gender, instrument (Capaldi)
Confounding with SES, LD, SES etc.
24
MISCELEANEOUS
The data and a detailed description of the study, including the questionnaire and all other
key documents can be downloaded from the Interuniversity Consortium For Political And
Social Research (http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29583).
AUS Australia; BEL Belgium; BRA Brazil; CAN Canada; CHE Switzerland; CHN China;
DEU Germany; GBR Great Britain; GRC Greece; GTM Guatemala; HKG ong Kong; HUN
Hungary; IND India; IRN Iran; ISR Israel; JPN Japan; KOR South Korea; LTU Lithuania;
MEX Mexico; MLT Malta; NLD Netherlands; NZL New Zealand; PRT Portugal; ROU
Romania; RUS Russia; SGP Singapore; SWE Sweden; TWN Taiwan; TZA Tanzania; USA
United States; VEN Venezuela; ZAF S Africa
17,404 university students. International Dating Violence Study. ANCOVA controlling
for age, SES, and Limited Disclosure scale score.
14,252 university students. International Dating Violence Study. ANCOVA
controlling for age, SES, and Limited Disclosure scale score.
25
ANALYSES CONTROLLED FOR
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Education of father
Education of mother (are the results just a reflection of SES?
Misbehavior as a child (are results just a continuation of a long –standing pattern)
Corporal punishment by father As above
Corporal punishment by mother As above
Age of student at time of study (because older persons have lower crime rates
Limited Disclosure scale (do the results just reflect that willingness to disclose one
type of socially undesirable behavior is associated with willingness to disclose
other types)
• Nation in which data was collected There are important differences between
nations in the prevalence of crime. National differences in crime, include DCT
are analyzed elsewhere (cite??). The focus of this study is whether there are
effects of DCT that are in addition to the national context effects.
26
Objectives
The objectives of this study are to: (1) Describe the use of
“Dyadic Concordance Types” (DCTs) as a means of better
understanding the concept of “Intimate Terrorist” and identification
of cases. (2) Provide empirical estimates for a large sample of
dating relationships among university students, of the percent of
cases in each of the three DCTs: Male-Only, Female-Only, and BothIntimate Terrorists. (3) Examine the degree to which each type is
associated with physical injury, and gender differences in injury. (4)
Evaluate the theoretical basis and empirical adequacy of Johnson's
assertion that IT is perpetrated almost entirely by men.
27
bidirectional
or mutual partner abuse. These results on how prevalent it is for both partners
in a relationship to assault, important as that is, fails to deal with the half of
aggressive relationships in which the aggression is unidirectional. For that half, as
shown in this article, many studies have found similar percentages in which only the
male partner aggresses and only the female partner aggresses. It is crucial that this
be taken into account in research, theory, and practice about PA. Identifying bidirectional
cases does not do that. Thus, even when results on bidirectional abuse are
reported, a serious gap persists because information on these two DCTs is crucial for
theories of partner abuse and for prevention and treatment, including efforts to end
violence against women
Provide example showing difference between same rate for men and women and Both. It is
in IPS descriptive article and I think in the PASK article.
28
Just how easy it is to obtain data on DCTs
is illustrated by an analysis of the 1975 National Family Violence Survey. In this study, as
in most other studies on partner abuse, only one partner was interviewed. Nevertheless, the
DCTs could be determined
because the partner interviewed was asked about both their own behavior and that
their partner. It required only a cross tabulation of assault by the male partner by
the assault by the female partner. The percentages in the resulting four cells were
the three DCTs and the no-assault group. Among the relationships in which there was
an assault, the percentages were 25% Male-Only, 27% Female-Only, and 48% BothAssaulted (Straus, 1980; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 2006). I did not name this as
DCTs or give the typology any name at all.
29
Increasingly popular – A search u sing Google Scholar located 204 articles published
in 2000-2013 Few empirical studies.
More popular as a citation and a defense of the idea that PV is male than it is as an
empirical method? Try to count
30
DCTs and APIM
31
DCTs For Positive Behaviors
Essential For Prevention Of Child Abuse And Partner Abuse
Empathy
Support
Trust
Aggressive attribution – out to get me
Negotiation
Communication
See list of skills for prevention programs
32
Table 1 IDVS-Dyadic Concordance Type by Gender of Respondent
Gender of
% Male
% Female
Dyadic Type
Respondent
Only
Only
% Both
Any Assault
Male
11
16
73
Female
8.5
24.6
66.8
Severe Assault
Male
14.3
25.9
59.9
Female
15.6
31.0
53.4
Any Injury-Perpetrated
Male
10.7
17.4
72.0
Female
21.1
13.8
65.1
Severe Injury-Perp
Male
11.6
28.4
60
Female
39.2
9.9
50.9
Any Psych Aggression
Male
9.8
19.7
70.5
Female
9.3
17.2
73.5
Severe Psych Aggression
Male
19.0
16.8
64.2
Female
13.9
30.9
55.2
Any Sexual Coercion
Male
21.4
10.6
68.0
Female
33.2
9.5
57.3
Physical Sexual Coercion
Male
26.9
18.5
54.6
Female
42.8
14.5
42.8
Verbal Sexual Coercion
Male
16.8
21.2
61.9
Female
44.0
8.9
47.1
N
1184
3481
441
1368
328
896
95
171
1623
4682
1022
2989
1335
3252
119
318
113
293
33
DCTs Are Remarkably Consistent
* Both Assault is almost always the predominant type
* Sole-perpetrator type is about evenly split between Male-Only
and Female-Only
 Across sources source of the data
Men and women
Self report, partner report, and observer
Children reporting on parents or parents reporting
Student and general population samples
 Across levels of severity of assault
Minor versus severe assaults
General population versus clinical samples
 Across cultural groups
Nations and ethnic and class groups within nations
 Across relationship stages
Dating and married, except that dating always have a higher percent
Across sexual orientation
Heterosexual and same relationships
34
Recognizing that female partners also assault and that about the same
percent of women as men assault was a major advance, with extensive
research, but one not yet the basis for theory and practice.
Recognizing mutual violence is a further major advance with small but
growing amount of research, and also not yet the basis for theory and
practice. It has been consistently found that mutually violent
relationships experience more violence, more severe violence, and
higher rates of injury (Gray and Foshee 1997; Swahn et al. 2010).
Whitaker, Straus and Gozjolko
Recognizing DCTs has just begun.
35
DCTs and APIM
Cousins share some of the same genes
Need to spend more time together
Dyadic analysis is a much broader concept than Dyadic Concordance
Types. DCTs are only one specific tool to aid dyadic analysis. The
fact that DCTs deal with only a small part of what is implied by
dyadic analysis is not only a limitation but also an advantage. The
advantage is that it gives scholars and practitioners a specific and
easily applied tool to aid making the dyadic nature of partner abuse
part of their research, theorizing, or prevention and treatment work.
use of DCTs as an aid to investigating and theorizing about partner
abuse and in preventing and treating partner abuse.
36
References On the Conflict Tactics Scales
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2):
Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316. doi:
10.1177/019251396017003001
Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for seventy
and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507-520.
Straus, M. A. (2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the revised conflict tactics scales: A study of university
student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(4), 407-432.
Straus, M. A. (2012). Blaming the messenger for the bad news about partner violence by women: the Methodological,
theoretical, and value basis of the purported invalidity of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
30(5), 538-556. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2023
Straus, M. A., & Mickey, E. L. (2012). Reliability, validity, and prevalence of partner violence measured by the conflict
tactics scales in male-dominant nations. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 463-474. doi:
10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.004
37
Some References On The International Dating Violence Study
Straus, M. A. (2009). The National context effect: An Empirical test of the validity of Cross-National
research using unrepresentative samples. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(3), 183-205. doi:
10.1177/1069397109335770
38