types of domestic violence implications for policy l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Types of Domestic Violence Implications for Policy PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Types of Domestic Violence Implications for Policy

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 57

Types of Domestic Violence Implications for Policy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 164 Views
  • Uploaded on

Types of Domestic Violence Implications for Policy. 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. Catholic Family Services of Peel Dufferin

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Types of Domestic Violence Implications for Policy' - joshua


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
types of domestic violence implications for policy

Types of Domestic ViolenceImplications for Policy

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

Catholic Family Services

of Peel Dufferin

June 3, 2010

McKeesport, PA

slide2

Types of Domestic ViolenceImplications for Policy

  • Screening
  • Primary prevention/education
  • Intervention with perpetrators
  • Intervention for survivors
  • Law enforcement
  • Custody and access issues
slide3

Intimate Terrorism

Coercive Control

Violent Resistance

Resisting the Intimate Terrorist

Situational Couple Violence

Situationally-provoked Violence

Separation-instigated Violence

No History of Violence or Control

Mutual Violent Control

Two Intimate Terrorists

screening
Screening
  • Consider different models for different clients
  • To screen, you need information on control and violence for both partners
  • Safety first!
    • Initially assume intimate terrorism and do all of the standard safety planning
    • If SCV seems likely, try single-gender application of non-control-focused approaches
    • As SCV and safety feel more certain over time, move to couple approaches with protections in place
coercive control scale
Coercive Control Scale

Thinking about your husband [yourself], would you say he [you]…

  • 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?

*These are items from the 1995 National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). They were adapted from the Canadian Violence Against Women Survey (Holly Johnson, 1996) and should be asked regarding both partner and self (adapted as appropriate).

danger assessment
Danger Assessment

1. Has the physical violence increased in severity or frequency over the past year?

2. Does he own a gun? 3. Have you left him after living together during the past year?

4. Is he unemployed?

5. Has he ever used a weapon against you or threatened you with a lethal weapon?

6. Does he threaten to kill you? 7. Has he avoided being arrested for domestic violence?

8. Do you have a child that is not his?

9. Has he ever forced you to have sex when you did not wish to do so?

10. Does he ever try to choke you? 11. Does he use illegal drugs?

12. Is he an alcoholic or problem drinker?

13. Does he control most or all of your daily activities?

14. Is he violently and constantly jealous of you?

15. Have you ever been beaten by him while you were pregnant?  

16. Has he ever threatened or tried to commit suicide?

17. Does he threaten to harm your children?

18. Do you believe he is capable of killing you?

19. Does he follow or spy on you, leave threatening notes or messages, destroy your property, or call you when you don’t want him to?

20. Have you ever threatened or tried to commit suicide?

Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., & Glass, N. (2009). The Danger Assessment: Validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(4), 653-674.

dove scale
DOVE Scale

Ellis, D., & Stuckless, N. (2006). Domestic violence, DOVE, and divorce mediation. Family Court Review. Special Issue: The Family Law Education Reform Project, 44(4), 658-671.

primary prevention education
Primary Prevention/Education
  • Intimate terrorism
    • Equality and respect
  • Violent resistance
    • Dangers of violent resistance
    • Safety planning
    • Entrapment/escape issues
  • Situational couple violence
    • Sources of conflict
    • Communication and conflict management
    • Anger management tactics
    • Substance abuse
primary prevention education9
Primary Prevention/Education
  • Programs for young people—most offered through shelters and women’s groups
    • Middle school and high school
      • http://new.vawnet.org/category/Documents.php?docid=849&category_id=10
  • Programs for adults—most offered by churches, government-funded programs, and public health agencies
    • Marriage preparation courses
      • http://www.prepinc.com/main/docs/overview_prep.pdf
    • Healthy marriage/relationship programs
      • http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/
    • Public health approaches
      • http://new.vawnet.org/category/Documents.php?docid=1313&category_id=10
intervention with perpetrators
Intervention with Perpetrators
  • Intimate terrorism (mostly men)
    • Individual control-focused education
    • Perhaps different tactics for sub-types
  • Violent resistance (mostly women)
    • Alternatives to violence/Safety planning
    • Neutralize entrapment
  • Situational couple violence (both genders)
    • Anger management individual counseling
    • Substance abuse individual counseling
    • Couple sources of conflict
    • Couple communication and conflict management
slide11
Intervention with PerpetratorsHold them all accountable in the criminal justice systemto provide an essential motivation for change
  • PAR
    • Control-focused education
    • More eclectic than often acknowledged
  • Couples counseling (screened)
    • Couple communication and conflict management
    • Couple approaches that focus specifically on violence
  • Restorative justice (screened)
    • Includes multiple stakeholders
    • Focus on healing
  • Substance abuse
    • Combine violence counseling with substance abuse intervention
par success by type
PAR Success by Type

Outcomes of Duluth-type

Batterer Intervention Program

(Thirteen Months Post-adjudication)

Adapted from Eckhardt, C. I., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Norlander, B., Sibley, A., & Cahill, M. (2008). Readiness to change, partner violence subtypes, and treatment outcomes among men in treatment for partner assault. Violence and Victims, 23(4), 446-477.

par a better criterion
PAR: A Better Criterion?

Outcomes of Four Duluth-type

Batterer Intervention Programs

Adapted from pp. 115, 122 of Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and Recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

couples counseling
Couples Counseling
  • Screening
    • Victim preference, violence level, fear
    • Continuous monitoring
  • Safety monitoring
    • Initial screening
    • Constant monitoring for violence and fear
  • Staging
    • Six weeks of gender-specific treatment
      • Power and control education
      • Safety planning, screening
    • Twelve weeks of conjoint treatment
      • Each session begins with a 15-minute separate gender session
      • Flexible—future and goal-oriented, solution focused
effectiveness of couples counseling violent couples in a family counseling setting
Effectiveness of Couples Counseling(Violent Couples in a Family Counseling Setting)

No re-assault

Adapted from Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E., & Thomsen, C. J. (2004). Treating intimate partner violence within intact couple relationships: Outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy. Special Issue: Implications of Research with Diverse Families, 30(3), 305-318.

restorative justice peacemaking or healing circles
Restorative JusticePeacemaking or Healing Circles
  • Screening
    • Only for situational couple violence
    • Only if the victim prefers it
  • Safety monitoring
    • Initial social compact (no violence, other treatment)
    • Continuous screening by facilitators
    • Assigned safety monitor
  • Circles
    • The couple, extended family, and community members
    • Focus on acknowledgement, understanding, responsibility, and healing
    • Structured by a facilitator and a “talking piece” that moves from person to person
effectiveness of restorative justice nogales arizona evaluation
Effectiveness of Restorative JusticeNogales, Arizona Evaluation
  • Misdemeanor cases only. Partners participate only voluntarily.
  • Random assignment of 152 domestic violence offenders (intimate partner and family violence) into PAR or Circles of Peace.
  • Circles of Peace involved 26 weekly conferences with offenders, participating victims, extended family members, and trained community members.
  • Encourage dialogue about the history of violence in this case and develop a social compact with the offender.
  • Circles of Peace participants have lower arrest recidivism two years post-random assignment than PAR participants.

Linda Mills, personal communication, February 16, 2010

substance abuse violence counseling
Substance Abuse/Violence Counseling
  • Individual and couples versions
  • About six months of weekly sessions
  • First half: one-hour sessions with individual couples
  • Second half: two-hour sessions with groups
  • Daily sobriety contract, safety planning, communication and negotiation skills, instigation of positive couple and family activities
  • Antabuse and/or 12-step programs for most
effectiveness of couples substance abuse violence counseling
Effectiveness of CouplesSubstance Abuse/Violence Counseling

No violence

Adapted from O'Farrell, T. J., Murphy, C. M., Stephan, S. H., Fals-Stewart, W., & Murphy, M. (2004). Partner Violence Before and After Couples-Based Alcoholism Treatment for Male Alcoholic Patients: The Role of Treatment Involvement and Abstinence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(2), 202-217.

intervention for survivors
Intervention for Survivors
  • Intimate terrorism
    • Long-term support
    • Alternatives to violent resistance
    • Empowerment to leave (neutralize entrapment)
    • Transitional support
  • Situational couple violence
    • Anger management individual counseling
    • Substance abuse individual counseling
    • Couple sources of conflict
    • Couple communication and conflict management
law enforcement moving away from an incident focused perspective
Law EnforcementMoving away from an incident-focused perspective
  • The law
    • Coercive control as a liberty crime (Stark, 2007)
  • Coordinated risk assessment and service provision
    • Arrest
      • Collecting the necessary information
    • Bail
      • Risk level and credibilityfor different types
    • Prosecution
      • Empowering the victim and keeping her safe
    • Sentencing
      • Alternative sentencing for different types
coordinated risk assessment
Coordinated Risk Assessment
  • Risk assessment team (I-TRAC, Alberta)
    • Police members write the threat assessment
    • Prosecutor, child protection expert, family law expert, consulting psychologist and psychiatrist
  • Request for assessment
    • Police, prosecutor, or children and youth
    • Others submit through police services
  • Information used
    • All police reports, including Family Violence Investigative Report and History Evaluation Assessment Tool
    • Criminal records, corrections/parole/probation, children and youth, accused and victim/witness statements
  • Submitted to police, courts, corrections, children/youth
  • Assist. Director: john.ratcliff@police.edmonton.ab.ca
coordinated service provision
Coordinated Service Provision

Family Justice Centers

  • Coordinated victim assistance from police officers, prosecutors, civil legal service providers, and community-based advocates
  • There are currently 55 centers in the US and three international Centers, including Waterloo, Canada
    • www.familyjusticecenter.com/
    • www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/family_justice_center_overview_12_07.pdf
    • http://www.mosaiconline.ca/wps/portal/cfcc/FVP
  • MOSAIC, Waterloo
    • Services such as police trained to deal with family violence, personal counseling for adults and children, assistance with developing safety plans, shelters, crisis/medical support for sexual assault, financial counseling, children's services, support groups, outreach services to the community, legal services, specialized elder abuse services, rural outreach services and specialized programs - all under one roof.
custody and access issues jaffe et al 2008
Custody and Access Issues (Jaffe et al., 2008)
  • Separation-instigated violence
  • Manipulative accusations
  • Resources for thorough evaluation
  • Custody/access options
    • Joint custody/Co-parenting
    • Parallel parenting, minimal couple contact
    • Supervised exchanges
    • Supervised access
    • No contact
we make big mistakes if we don t make big distinctions
We make big mistakes if we don’t make big distinctions.

Different types of partner violence have…

  • Different causes
  • Different developmental trajectories
  • Different effects
  • Different successful intervention strategies
slide26

Fals-Stewart, W., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Treating intimate partner violence among substance-abusing dyads: The effect of couples therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(3), 257-263.

Fals-Stewart, W., Klostermann, K., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Substance abuse and intimate partner violence. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions. (pp. 251-269

). Washington, DC American Psychological Association.

Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and Recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gondolf, E. W. (2007). Theoretical and research support for the Duluth Model: A reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 644-657.

Gondolf, E. W. (2008). Implementation of case management for batterer program participants. [Peer Reviewed]. Violence Against Women, 14(2), 208-225. doi: 10.1177/1077801207312589

Mills, L. G. (2008). Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Stith, S. M., & McCollum, E. E. (2009). Couples treatment for psychological and physical aggression. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and Physical Aggression in Couples: Causes and Interventions (pp. 233-250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Stith, S. M., McCollum, e. E., Rosen, K. H., & Locke, L. D. (2002). Multicouple group therapy for domestic violence. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychotherapy: Integrative/eclectic (Vol. 4, pp. 499-520). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E., & Thomsen, C. J. (2004). Treating intimate partner violence within intact couple relationships: Outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy. Special Issue: Implications of Reseach with Diverse Families, 30(3), 305-318.

Fals-Stewart, W., Klostermann, K., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Substance abuse and intimate partner violence. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions. (pp. 251-269). Washington, DC American Psychological Association.

Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and Recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gondolf, E. W. (2007). Theoretical and research support for the Duluth Model: A reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 644-657.

Hannah, M.T. & Goldstein, B. (2010). Domestic violence, abuse, and child custody. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (Eds.). (2010). Risk assessment for domestically violent men: Tools for criminal justice, offender intervention, and victim services. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J. R., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2008). Custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence: Toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans. Family Court Review, 46(3), 500-522.

Johnson, M. P. (2008). A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Mills, L. G. (2008). Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. (Eds.). (2002). Restorative Justice and Family Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: The Entrapment of Women in Personal Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stith, S. M., & McCollum, E. E. (2009). Couples treatment for psychological and physical aggression. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and Physical Aggression in Couples: Causes and Interventions (pp. 233-250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

support your local women s shelter
Support Your Local Women’s Shelter

Safety

Support

Information

Advocacy

Philadelphia, PA

slide28

Fals-Stewart, W., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Treating intimate partner violence among substance-abusing dyads: The effect of couples therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(3), 257-263.

Fals-Stewart, W., Klostermann, K., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Substance abuse and intimate partner violence. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions. (pp. 251-269

). Washington, DC American Psychological Association.

Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and Recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gondolf, E. W. (2007). Theoretical and research support for the Duluth Model: A reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 644-657.

Gondolf, E. W. (2008). Implementation of case management for batterer program participants. [Peer Reviewed]. Violence Against Women, 14(2), 208-225. doi: 10.1177/1077801207312589

Mills, L. G. (2008). Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Stith, S. M., & McCollum, E. E. (2009). Couples treatment for psychological and physical aggression. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and Physical Aggression in Couples: Causes and Interventions (pp. 233-250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Stith, S. M., McCollum, e. E., Rosen, K. H., & Locke, L. D. (2002). Multicouple group therapy for domestic violence. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychotherapy: Integrative/eclectic (Vol. 4, pp. 499-520). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E., & Thomsen, C. J. (2004). Treating intimate partner violence within intact couple relationships: Outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy. Special Issue: Implications of Reseach with Diverse Families, 30(3), 305-318.

A Few Useful References

Fals-Stewart, W., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Treating intimate partner violence among substance-abusing dyads: The effect of couples therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(3), 257-263.

Fals-Stewart, W., Klostermann, K., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Substance abuse and intimate partner violence. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions. (pp. 251-269). Washington, DC American Psychological Association.

Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and Recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gondolf, E. W. (2007). Theoretical and research support for the Duluth Model: A reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 644-657.

Gondolf, E. W. (2008). Implementation of case management for batterer program participants. Violence Against Women, 14(2), 208-225.

Mills, L. G. (2008). Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Stith, S. M., & McCollum, E. E. (2009). Couples treatment for psychological and physical aggression. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and Physical Aggression in Couples: Causes and Interventions (pp. 233-250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Stith, S. M., McCollum, e. E., Rosen, K. H., & Locke, L. D. (2002). Multicouple group therapy for domestic violence. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychotherapy: Integrative/eclectic (Vol. 4, pp. 499-520). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E., & Thomsen, C. J. (2004). Treating intimate partner violence within intact couple relationships: Outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy. Special Issue: Implications of Research with Diverse Families, 30(3), 305-318.

slide29
Pittsburgh, 1978 (Frieze)

Married women from shelters and courts, matched with married women living on the same block (n=272)

86% White; 14% Black

Data on self and husband, reported by wives

Incident data on most violent incident

  • United States, 1995-96 (NVAW, Tjaden & Thoennes)

National random sample; subsample=4967 married women

83% White; 10% Black; 8% Hispanic (all races)

Data on current husbands, reported by wife

Incident data on most recent incident

  • Chicago, 1995 (Lloyd)

Random sample of women in a poor neighborhood (n=596)

5% White; 54% Black; 41% Hispanic

Data on male partners, reported by female partner

No incident data

pittsburgh control scale high 2 74 40 m 10 w
Pittsburgh Control Scale (High>2.74; 40%m; 10%w)
  • When you and your husband go places together, who decides where you will go?
  • If you disagree [about people you like], which people do the two of you spend more time with?
  • Does your husband know where you are when you are not together?
  • Are there places you might like to go but don’t because you feel your husband wouldn’t want you to? How often does this happen?
  • Do you generally do what your husband asks you to do?
  • Who decides how the family money will be spent in terms of major expenses?
  • [How often} does he try to get what he wants by doing any of the following?…emotionally withdraws?
  • …restricts your freedom?
  • …stops having sex with you?
  • …threatens to leave you?
  • Has your husband ever pressured you to have sexual relations?
pittsburgh other items
Pittsburgh: Other Items
  • “Has your husband ever gotten angry and threatened to use physical force with you?” followed by the item that is actually used: Has he ever actually slapped or pushed you or used other physical force with you?
  • Can you estimate how many times, in total, he was violent with you?
  • Did he become more violent over time?
  • How badly were you hurt [the time your husband was most violent with you]? Frieze codes: severe, severe superficial, severe trauma, and extreme permanent.
  • Were you afraid he would be violent again? Already “very frightened” at the first violent incident.
  • How would you rate the happiness of your marriage on a scale from 1-Not at all to 10-Very happy? Low=1-4, 32%
  • Is sex ever unpleasant for you?
  • Do you and your husband have a good time when you go out together?
chicago items
Chicago Items
  • Control Items: In the past 12 months, when you’ve had an argument, how often did your husband/boyfriend…
    • …say something to spite you?
    • ...insult you, swear at you, or call you out of your name?
    • ...accuse you of being with another man?
    • ...try to control your every move?
    • ...withhold money, make you ask for money or take yours?
    • …threaten you with a knife or gun?
    • ...threaten to kill you?
    • ...threaten to hurt your family or friends?
slide33

Pittsburgh-cutoff

Intimate Terrorism

67% severe

72% escalated

1/25 couples

37% mutual

General Motive: To control the relationship

Situational Couple Violence

29% severe

29% escalated

1/8 couples

74% mutual

Specific Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc.

nvaws control scale high 3 or more
NVAWS Control Scale(High = 3 or more)
  • “Thinking about your current husband, would you say he is jealous or possessive?”
  • “…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?”
  • “…prevents you from knowing about or having access to the family income even when you ask?”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • “…insists on changing residences even when you don’t want or need to?”
  • “…prevents you from working outside the home?”
control scale
Control Scale

“Thinking about your current husband, would you say he is jealous or possessive?”

  • “…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?”
  • “…prevents you from knowing about or having access to the family income even when you ask?”

NVAWS

slide36
The Great Gender Debate
    • Distinguishing among types of partner violence resolves it
  • A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence
    • The three major types
    • Gender differences and sampling biases
    • Other differences
  • Implications for Research and Theory
    • Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed
    • Need a standard operationalization
    • Tricky sampling problems
    • Need for differentiated theory
  • Implications for Intervention
    • Screening/triage
    • Intervention with perpetrators
    • Intervention for survivors
    • Custody and access issues
a small theory that reconciles the contradiction
A Small TheorythatReconciles the Contradiction
  • There is more than one type of violence
  • The different types are differently gendered
  • Both major sampling plans are biased
    • General survey studies are biased toward situationally-provoked violence, which women are as likely to perpetrate as are men
    • Agency studies are biased toward coercive controlling violence, perpetrated almost entirely by men
slide41
The Great Gender Debate
    • Distinguishing among types of partner violence resolves it
  • A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence
    • The three major types
    • Gender differences and sampling biases
    • Other differences
  • Implications for Research and Theory
    • Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed
    • Need a standard operationalization
    • Tricky sampling problems
    • Need for differentiated theory
  • Implications for Intervention
    • Screening/triage
    • Intervention with perpetrators
    • Intervention for survivors
    • Custody and access issues
need a standard operationalization
Need a Standard Operationalization
  • Problems with cluster analysis
    • Extremely sensitive to sample
    • Not comparable across studies
  • Need a standard operationalization
    • NVAWS items
    • Tolman: Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory
    • Graham-Kevan & Archer: Controlling Behaviors Scale
    • Dutton & Goodman: Coercive control
need for differentiated theory
Need for Differentiated Theory
  • Intimate terrorism
    • Coercive control theory
    • Gender theory
    • Theories of paternalism
  • Violent Resistance
    • Coping
    • Entrapment
  • Situational couple violence
    • Family conflict theory
    • Communication
    • Anger management
    • Substance abuse
slide44
The Great Gender Debate
    • Distinguishing among types of partner violence resolves it
  • A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence
    • The three major types
    • Gender differences and sampling biases
    • Other differences
  • Implications for Research and Theory
    • Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed
    • Need a standard operationalization
    • Tricky sampling problems
    • Need for differentiated theory
  • Implications for Intervention
    • Screening/triage
    • Intervention with perpetrators
    • Intervention for survivors
    • Custody and access issues
slide45
A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence
    • The three major types (plus one or two)
    • Gender differences and sampling biases
    • Some other basic differences
    • We need to re-assess everything we thought we knew
  • Implications for Intervention
    • Screening/triage
    • Primary prevention/education
    • Intervention with perpetrators
    • Intervention for survivors
    • Custody and access issues
slide46

Domestic Violence/Intimate Terrorism

Subtypes: Emotionally dependent; Antisocial

gender symmetry asymmetry by type of violence 1970s pittsburgh violent husbands and wives
Gender Symmetry/Asymmetryby Type of Violence(1970s Pittsburgh: Violent husbands and wives)
slide52

Pittsburgh data

Intimate Terrorism

76% severe

75% escalated

1/25 couples

29% mutual

General Motive: To control the relationship

Situational Couple Violence

28% severe

28% escalated

1/8 couples

69% mutual

Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc .

slide53

British data

Intimate Terrorism

43% severe

78% escalated

15% mutual

General Motive: To control the relationship

Situational Couple Violence

13% severe

20% escalated

87% mutual

Situational Motive: To win, get attention, get even, etc

need to re assess everything various studies
Need to Re-assess EverythingVarious Studies
  • Intergenerational “transmission”
    • SCV d = .11; IT d = .35
    • SCV odds ratio = 2.40; IT odds ratio = 7.51
  • Marriage
    • SCV b = -.62; IT b = .58
  • Gender traditionalism or hostility toward women
    • Traditionalism: SCV d = -.14; IT d = .80
    • Hostility: non-viol., SCV, IT, IT = 154, 153, 135, 131
  • Gender, frequency, severity, escalation, mutuality, impact on victim, impact on children, etc.
slide57
Differential Success of Intervention Strategies by IT Sub-type(Percent non-violent two years after completing treatment)