Does the Situational Couple Violence- Intimate Terrorism Typology Explain Cohabitors’ High Risk of Intimate Partner Violence?

Abstract

This study examines M. P. Johnson’s assertion that violence in marital unions is more likely to be intimate terrorism (IT) and violence in cohabiting unions is more likely to be situational couple violence (SCV). Having overcome limitations of the data on which Johnson based his assertion, the results show that cohabiting and married victims of violence are equally likely to report experiencing SCV and IT. Moreover, cohabitors have higher odds of experiencing SCV and IT compared to their counterparts living in a marital union. These marital status differences are explained by selection and relationship factors theorized to account for them. Although the SCV— IT typology does appear to shed light on gender differences, the results of this study suggest that, where relevant, researchers using this typology should not neglect risk factors derived from theories for understanding intimate partner violence (IPV).

Keywords

situational couple violence intimate terrorism cohabitation marriage violence women

References

Brownridge, D.A. ( 2002). Cultural variation in male partner violence against women: A comparison of Québec with the rest of Canada. Violence Against Women, 8(1), 87-115.

Brownridge, D.A. ( 2008). The elevated risk for violence against cohabiting women: A comparison of three nationally representative surveys of Canada. Violence Against Women, 14, 809-832.

Brownridge, D.A. , & Halli, S.S. ( 2000). "Living in sin" and sinful living: Toward filling a gap in the explanation of violence against women. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 565-583.

Dutton, D.G. ( 2006). Rethinking domestic violence. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: UBC Press.

Dutton, M.A. , Goodman, L. , & Schmidt, R.J. ( 2005). Development and validation of a coercive control measure for intimate partner violence: Final technical report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Graham-Kevan, N. , & Archer, J. ( 2003). Physical aggression and control in heterosexual relationships: The effect of sampling. Violence and Victims , 18, 181-196.

Johnson, M.P. ( 1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family , 57, 283-294.

Johnson, M.P. ( 2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston : Northeastern University Press.

Kurz, D. ( 1989). Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions. Gender & Society, 3, 489-505.

10.

Macmillan, R. , & Gartner, R. ( 1999). When she brings home the bacon: Labor-force participation and the risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 947-958.

11.

Pollard, M.S. , & Wu, Z. ( 1998). The divergence of Quebec/non-Quebec marriage patterns . Population and Development Review, 24, 329-356.

12.

Schulman, M.A. ( 1981). A survey of spousal violence against women in Kentucky (Vol. 96). New York : Garland Publishing.

13.

Stets, J.E. , & Straus, M.A. ( 1989). The marriage license as a hitting license: A comparison of assaults in dating, cohabiting, and married couples. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 161-180.

14.

Straus, M.A. ( 1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and Family , 41(1), 75-88.

15.

Straus, M.A. ( 1990). Injury and frequency of assault and the "representative sample fallacy" in measuring wife beating and child abuse. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 75-91). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

16.

Yllö, K. , & Straus, M.A. ( 1981). Interpersonal violence among married and cohabiting couples . Family Relations, 30, 339-347.