Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:11, 28 January 2015

Intimate partner violence is domestic violence by a spouse or partner in an intimate relationship against the other spouse or partner, and the violence may be mutual, in which case the relationship may be described as a violent relationship. The most extreme form of such violence may be termed "intimate terrorism" where one person is violent and controlling, generally perpetrated by men against women, and most likely of the types of violence to require medical services and shelter. Victims of intimate terrorism may engage in "violence resistance" as the result of the violence; violence resistance is likely to be infrequent and be conducted by women.

The most common form of intimate partner violence is "situational couple violence" which is conducted by individuals of both genders, nearly equally. When both partners in the relationship engage in controlling and violent behavior it is called mutual violent control.

Background

Intimate partner violence occurs between two people in an intimate relationship. It may occur between heterosexual or homosexual couples and victims are men or women. Couples may be dating, cohabiting or married and violence can occur in or outside of the home.

Studies by the 1990s showed that both men and women could be abusers or victims of domestic violence. Women are more likely to act violently in retaliation or self-defense one time and with less violence than that by men; men are more likely to commit long-term cycles of abuse. As a result, the issue is not solely about violence against women, but about "violent people" or "violent couples." It also led to further research to better understand the situations within violent homes.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines intimate partner violence as:

"... any behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm to those in the relationship".

To these forms of abuse, the WHO adds controlling behaviours as a form of abuse. Intimate partner violence has been observed in heterosexual and same-sex relationships, and in the former instance by men against women, and by women against their male partners.

The WHO reported in 2013 that the incidence of women who had experienced physical or sexual abuse from an intimate partner in their lifetime was:

Reciprocal and non-reciprocal

The United States Centers for Disease Control, divide domestic violence into two types: reciprocal, in which both partners are violent, and non-reciprocal violence, in which one partner is violent.

Types

Michael Johnson argues for four major types of intimate partner violence, which is supported by subsequent research and evaluation, as well as independent researchers.

Distinctions are made among the types of violence, motives of perpetrators, and the social and cultural context based upon patterns across numerous incidents and motives of the perpetrator. Types of violence identified by Johnson:

Intimate terrorism

Intimate terrorism (IT) occurs when one partner in a relationship uses coercive control and power over the other partner, using threats, intimidation, and isolation. In such cases, "ne partner, usually a man, controls virtually every aspect of the victim's, usually a woman's, life." Michael P. Johnson reported in 2001 that 97% of the perpetrators of intimate terrorism were men. Using Johnson's typology, other studies have found that intimate terrorism is more often perpetrated by women or not gendered at all.

Intimate partner violence may involve sexual, sadistic control, economic, physical, emotional and psychological abuse. Intimate terrorism is more likely to escalate over time, not as likely to be mutual, and more likely to involve serious injury. Because this type of violence is most likely to be extreme, it is survivors of intimate terrorism that are most likely to require medical services and the safety of shelters.

Abusers are more likely to have witnessed abuse as children than those who engage in situational couple violence.

IT batterers include two types: "Generally-violent-antisocial" and "dysphoric-borderline". The first type includes people with general psychopathic and violent tendencies. The second type are people who are emotionally dependent on the relationship. Violence by a person against their intimate partner is often done as a way for controlling their partner, even if this kind of violence is not the most frequent. Support for this typology has been found in subsequent evaluations.

Violent resistance

Violent resistance (VR), sometimes thought of as "self-defense", is violence perpetrated by victims against their partners who have exerted intimate terrorism against them. Within relationships of intimate terrorism and violent resistance, 96% of the violent resisters are women.

Situational couple violence

Situational couple violence (SCV), also called common couple violence (CCV), is not connected to general control behavior, but arises in a single argument where one or both partners physically lash out at the other. This is the most common form of intimate partner violence, particularly in the western world and among young couples, and involves members of both sexes nearly equally. Among college students, Johnson found it to be perpetrated about 44% of the time by women and 56% of the time by men.

It is a relationship dynamic "in which conflict occasionally gets ‘out of hand,’ leading usually to ‘minor’ forms of violence, and rarely escalates into serious or life-threatening forms of violence.”

In situational couple violence, acts of violence by men and women occur at fairly equal rates, with rare occurrences of injury, and are not committed in an attempt to control a partner. It is estimated that approximately 50% of couples experience SCV in their relationships.

Characteristics

Situational couple violence is characterized by a few main traits:

• Mode: Mildly aggressive behavior such as throwing objects, ranging to more aggressive behaviors such as pushing, slapping, biting, hitting, scratching, or hair pulling.
• Frequency:Less frequent than PT, occurring once in a while during an argument or disagreement.
• Severity: Milder than PT, very rarely escalates to more severe abuse, generally does not include injuries that were serious or that caused one partner to be admitted to a hospital.
• Mutuality:Violence may be equally expressed by either partner in the relationship.
• Intent:Occurs out of anger or frustration rather than as a means of gaining control and power over the other partner.

Further research

In 2004, Graham-Kevan & Archer were able to partly replicate Johnson's hypothesis. However, they identified three subtypes of domestic violence rather than Johnson's two: CCV; what they termed "intimate terrorism," (IT) noting that women and men can both use violence to control non-violent mates; and "mutual violent control" where both partners use IT-levels of violence. However, Graham-Kevan & Archer also stressed that their and Johnson's research sampling methods should be regarded as preliminary: their subjects were relatively few in number and were drawn from known crime victims or battered women, and thus may not be representative of randomized general population samples. Moreover, Graham-Kevan & Archer argued that, by relying entirely on analysis of data from one partner in an abusive relationship, Johnson's study was incomplete and skewed due to reporting bias.

In 1998, Milardo reported that women are more likely to initiate CCV in common dating scenarios (83% of female subjects were "at least somewhat likely" to use mild to moderate violence, compared to 53% of men). Furthermore, men reported higher rates of fearing they would suffer CCV (70% of men vs. 50% of women). When questioned about the use of more serious violence analogous to Patriarchal or Intimate Terrorism, Milardo found that women were again more likely to approve of its use against a partner. However, women had higher rates of fearing they would be seriously battered.

Mutual violent control

Mutual violent control (MVC) is rare type of intimate partner violence occurring when both partners act in a violent manner, battling for control.

Sexual violence

Sexual violence by intimate partners varies by country and can reach as high as 25% of the women having been subject to forced sex. In some countries forced sex, or marital rape, often occurs with other forms of domestic violence, particularly physical abuse.

Gender symmetry

The theory that women perpetrate intimate partner violence (IPV) at roughly the same rate as men has been termed "gender symmetry." The earliest empirical evidence of gender symmetry was presented in the 1975 U.S. National Family Violence Survey carried out by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles on a nationally representative sample of 2,146 "intact families." The survey found 11.6% of men and 12% of women had experienced some kind of IPV in the last twelve months, while 4.6% of men and 3.8% of women had experienced "severe" IPV. These unexpected results led Suzanne K. Steinmetz to coin the controversial term "battered husband syndrome" in 1977. Ever since the publication of Straus and Gelles' findings, other researchers into domestic violence have disputed whether gender symmetry really exists, in a debate that is still ongoing.

Notes

1. Gelles 1980, 1989; McNeely and Mann 1990; Shupe, Stacey, and Hazelwood 1987; Straus 1973; Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz 1980; Steinmetz 1977/1978.

References

1. ^ Tasha R. Howe. Marriages and Families in the 21st Century: A Bioecological Approach. John Wiley & Sons; 29 August 2011. ISBN 978-1-4051-9501-0. p. 370.
2. Marilyn Fernandez. Restorative Justice for Domestic Violence Victims: An Integrated Approach to Their Hunger for Healing. Lexington Books; 2 June 2010. ISBN 978-0-7391-4806-8. pp. 2-3.
3. WHO: World Report on Violence and Health (2002)
4. WHO: Understanding and Addressing Intimate Partner Violence
5. Renzetti, C. M. and C. H. Miley (1996). Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships. Haworth Press. ISBN 1-56023-074-6. OCLC 33947252.
6. ^ Johnson, M. P.; Ferraro, K. J. (2000). "Research on Domestic Violence in the 1990s: Making Distinctions". Journal of Marriage and Family. 62 (4): 948. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00948.x. Cite error: The named reference "johnson2000c" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
7. Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. World Health Organization. 2013. ISBN 978-92-4-156462-5. p. 16, 18
8. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020 instead.
9. Straus, Murray A (23 May 2006). "Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations" (PDF). Trends In Intimate Violence Intervention. New York University. Retrieved 30 April 2012. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
10. ^ Paula Nicolson. Domestic Violence and Psychology: A Critical Perspective. Taylor & Francis; 14 December 2010. ISBN 978-1-136-69861-3. p. 40.
11. Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 19774764, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=19774764 instead.
12. Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 16180370, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=16180370 instead.
13. Tasha R. Howe. Marriages and Families in the 21st Century: A Bioecological Approach. John Wiley & Sons; 29 August 2011. ISBN 978-1-4051-9501-0. p. 374.
14. "Testing predictions from the male control theory of men's partner violence". Aggressive Behavior. July 22, 2013. Retrieved December 7, 2014.
15. Janel M. Leone, Michael P. Johnson, and Catherine L. Cohan, "Victim Help Seeking: Differences between Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence," Family Relations 56, no. 5 (2007)
16. Marilyn Fernandez. Restorative Justice for Domestic Violence Victims: An Integrated Approach to Their Hunger for Healing. Lexington Books; 2 June 2010. ISBN 978-0-7391-4806-8. p. 5.
17. LAROCHE Denis, Context and Consequences of Domestic Violence Against Men and Women in Canada in 2004 p.35. 2004
18. Jacobson, N. and J. Gottman (1998). When Men Batter Women: New Insights into Ending Abusive Relationships. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-81447-1. OCLC 37748396.
19. Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 9210273, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=9210273 instead.
20. Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 11142534, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=11142534 instead.
21. Johnson, M. P., (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294.
22. ^ Olson, L. N. (2002). Exploring Common Couple Violence in Heterosexual Romantic Relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 66, 104–125.
23. http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/Graham_Kevan.ArcherJohnsonstudy.pdf
24. Milardo, Robert M. (1998) Gender asymmetry in common couple violence. Personal Relationships, Volume 5 Issue 4, Pages 423 - 438
25. Gelles, Richard J.; Straus, Murray A. (1988). Intimate Violence: The Causes and Consequences of Abuse in the American Family (PDF). New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 104. ISBN 9780671682965. Retrieved July 5, 2014.
26. Straus, Murray A. (June 2010). "Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment" (PDF). Partner Abuse. 1 (3): 333. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.332. Retrieved June 28, 2014.
27. Steinmetz, Suzanne K. (1977). "The Battered Husband Syndrome" (PDF). Victimology. 2 (3–4): 499–509. Retrieved June 28, 2014.
28. Cite error: The named reference Thirty years was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
29. Saunders, Daniel G. (1988). "Wife Abuse, Husband Abuse, or Mutual Combat? A Feminist Perspective on the Empirical Findings". In Yllö, Kersti; Bogard, Michele (eds.). Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage. pp. 90–113. ISBN 9780803930537. (subscription required)
30. Dobash, Russell P.; Dobash, R. Emerson; Wilson, Margo; Daly, Martin (February 1992). "The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence". Social Problems. 39 (1): 71–91. doi:10.2307/3096914. Retrieved July 4, 2014. (subscription required)
31. Straus, Murray A. (1999). "The Controversy Over Domestic Violence by Women: A Methodological, Theoretical and Sociology of Science Analysis". In Arriaga, Ximena B.; Oskamp, Stuart (eds.). Violence in Intimate Relationships (PDF). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 17–44. ISBN 9780761916420. Retrieved June 28, 2014.

Further reading

• Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/BF01531942, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/BF01531942 instead.
• Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1177/10778019922181284, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1177/10778019922181284 instead.
• Chang, V. N. (1996). I Just Lost Myself: Psychological Abuse of Women in Marriage. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-275-95209-9.
• Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/BF00978514, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/BF00978514 instead.
• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 12816403, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=12816403 instead.
• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 17043363, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=17043363 instead.
• Johnson, Michael P. (2000). "Conflict and Control: Images of Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic Violence". In Booth, A., A. C. Crouter, and M. Clements (ed.). Couples in Conflict. Erlbaum. ISBN 0-8058-3545-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• Johnson, Michael P. (1995). "Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence against Women". Journal of Marriage and Family. 57 (2): 283–294. doi:10.2307/353683. JSTOR 353683.
• Johnson, Michael P. (2006). Violence and abuse in personal relationships: Conflict, terror, and resistance in intimate partnerships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 557–576). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-82617-9
• Kirkwood, C. (1993). Leaving Abusive Partners: From the Scars of Survival to the Wisdom for Change. Sage. ISBN 0-8039-8686-6. OCLC 29049176.
• Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00032.x, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00032.x instead.
• Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/BF02336946, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/BF02336946 instead.
• Tilbrook, E.; Allan, A.; Dear, G. (2010). "Intimate Partner Abuse of Men". Men's Advisory Network. Perth, Western Australia: Edith Cowan University School of Psychology. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-07-12. Retrieved 21 November 2010.

• Domestic violence
• Abuse
• Crime
• Partnerships
• Sexual violence