nach oben

Journal of Family Violence

Erschienen in:

28.05.2022 | Review Article

Assessing the State of Empirical Research on Johnson’s Typology of Violence: A Systematic Review

verfasst von: Nicole E. Conroy, Claire G. Crowley, Daniel L. DeSanto

Erschienen in: Journal of Family Violence | Ausgabe 1/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose:

To assess the state of empirical research on Johnson’s typology of violence.

Method:

Using the PRISMA Statement guidelines, we systematically review and critically evaluate peer-reviewed, empirical research studies testing Johnson’s typology, published 1995 to March 31, 2021.

Findings:

Forty-four studies tested Johnson’s typology using accurate conceptualization and operationalization of the typology. Findings from included studies provided overwhelming support for Johnson’s typology, with only few exceptions.

Conclusions:

Direct tests of Johnson’s assumptions are necessary for revising and strengthening the utility of the typology. Future research should carefully attend to the conceptual definitions of Johnson’s typology and integrate explicit testing of assumptions throughout study designs.

Johnson (1995) originally used the terms “common couple violence” and “patriarchal terrorism,” and other iterations have been used in the literature. In this paper, we use the terms, “situational couple violence,” “intimate terrorism,” “violent resistance,” and “mutual violent control,” except when we identify search terms used.

Johnson’s typology was borne out of his and others’ IPV research with heterosexual couples and/or individuals in heterosexual relationships. This focus (i.e., violence between men and women) is reflected in this section and later references to the primary assumptions underlying the typology.

While reviewing these studies is beyond the scope of this paper, we plan to analyze alternative uses and misapplications of Johnson’s typology separately (Conroy et al., 2021, 2022).

Conroy, N. E., Griffin, S. M., DeSanto, D. L., & Crowley, C. G. (2022). (Mis)uses and (Mis)interpretations of Johnson’s Typology of Violence: A Systematic Review. Manuscript in preparation.

Anderson, K. L. (2005). Theorizing gender in intimate partner research. Sex Roles, 52, 853–865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4204-xCrossRef

*Anderson, K. L. (2008). Is partner violence worse in the context of control? Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(5), 1157–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00557.xCrossRef

Bates, E. A., & Graham-Kevan, N. (2016). Is the presence of control related to help-seeking behavior? A test of Johnson’s assumptions regarding sex differences and the role of control in intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 7(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.7.1.3CrossRef

Bermea, A. M., Slakoff, D. C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2021). Intimate partner violence in the LGBTQ+ community. Primary Care, 48(2), 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pop.2021.02.006CrossRefPubMed

Boss, P. (2016). The context and process of theory development: The story of ambiguous loss. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8, 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12152CrossRef

*Brown, J., & Chew, D. (2018). Prevalence of types of perpetration: Gender and patterns of intimate partner violence within a prison sample in Singapore. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 27(8), 883–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1410744CrossRef

*Brownridge, D. A. (2010). Does the situational couple violence- intimate terrorism typology explain cohabitors’ high risk of intimate partner violence? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(7), 1264–1283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509340544CrossRefPubMed

*Bubriski-McKenzie, A., & Jasinski, J. L. (2013). Mental health effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence among black and hispanic women. Violence against Women, 19(12), 1429–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801213517515CrossRefPubMed

Capaldi, D. M., & Kim, H. K. (2007). Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.09.001CrossRefPubMed

Conroy, N. E., & Crowley, C. G. (2021). Extending Johnson’s typology: Additional manifestations of dating violence and coercive control. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Online first.

*Crossman, K. A., Hardesty, J. L., & Raffaelli, M. (2016). He could scare me without laying a hand on me. Violence against Women, 22(4), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215604744CrossRefPubMed

Dolan, C. V., & Conroy, N. E. (2021). Centering transgender survivors’ experiences of intimate partner violence victimization: A critique of dominant approaches to research and service provision. Violence and Victims, 36(4), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1891/VV-D-20-00077

Dutton, D. G. (2006). A briefer reply to Johnson: Re-affirming the necessity of a gender-neutral approach to custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 3(1), 67–69. https://doi.org/10.1300/J190v03n01_04.zCrossRef

*Eckstein, J. J. (2012). Sex, gender, and relationship type in the relational uncertainty of victims of partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.1.22CrossRef

*Eckstein, J. J. (2016). IPV stigma and its social management: The roles of relationship-type, abuse-type, and victims’ sex. Journal of Family Violence, 31(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9752-4CrossRef

*Eckstein, J. J. (2017). Intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Classification variability across five methods to distinguish Johnson’s violent relationship types. Violence & Victims, 32(6), 955–976. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-16-00022CrossRef

*Frankland, A., & Brown, J. (2014). Coercive control in same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9558-1CrossRef

*Frye, V., Manganello, J., Campbell, J. C., Walton-Moss, B., & Wilt, S. (2006). The distribution of and factors associated with intimate terrorism and situational couple violence among a population-based sample of urban women in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(10), 1286–1313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506291658CrossRefPubMed

*Gaertner, L., & Foshee, V. (1999). Commitment and the perpetration of relationship violence. Personal Relationships, 6(2), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-sCrossRef

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003a). Physical aggression and control in heterosexual relationships: The effect of sampling. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.181CrossRefPubMed

*Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003b). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: A test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(11), 1247–1270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260503256656CrossRefPubMed

*Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2008). Does controlling behavior predict physical aggression and violence to partners? Journal of Family Violence, 23(7), 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9162-yCrossRef

*Graham-Kevan, N., Zacarias, A. E., & Soares, J. J. F. (2012). Investigating violence and control dyadically in a help-seeking sample from Mozambique. The Scientific World, 2012, 590973–591012. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/590973CrossRef

Hamel, J. (2009). Toward a gender-inclusive conception of intimate partner violence research and theory: Part 2 – New directions. International Journal of Men’s Health, 8, 41–59. https://doi.org/10.3149/jmh.0801.41CrossRef

*Hardesty, J. L., Oswald, R., Khaw, L., Fonseca, C., & Chung, G. H. (2008). Lesbian mothering in the context of intimate partner violence. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12(2), 191210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160802161364CrossRef

*Hardesty, J. L., Crossman, K. A., Haselschwerdt, M. L., Raffaelli, M., Ogolsky, B. G., & Johnson, M. P. (2015). Toward a standard approach to operationalizing coercive control and classifying violence types. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(4), 833–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12201CrossRefPubMed

*Hardesty, J. L., Crossman, K. A., Khaw, L., & Raffaelli, M. (2016). Marital violence and coparenting quality after separation. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(3), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000132CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

*Hardesty, J. L., Ogolsky, B. G., Raffaelli, M., Whittaker, A., Crossman, K. A., Haselschwerdt, M. L., Mitchell, E. T., & Khaw, L. (2017). Coparenting relationship trajectories: Marital violence linked to change and variability after separation. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(7), 844–854. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000323CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

*Hardesty, J. L., Ogolsky, B. G., Raffaelli, M., & Whittaker, A. (2019). Relationship dynamics and divorcing mothers’ adjustment: Moderating role of marital violence, negative life events, and social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(11–12), 3651–3672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519833178CrossRef

*Haselschwerdt, M. L., Mitchell, E. T., Raffaelli, M., & Hardesty, J. L. (2016). Divorcing mothers’ use of protective strategies: Differences over time and by violence experience. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039444CrossRefPubMed

*Haselschwerdt, M. L., Hlavaty, K., Carlson, C., Schneider, M., Maddox, L., & Skipper, M. (2019). Heterogeneity within domestic violence exposure: Young adults’ retrospective experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(7), 1512–1538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516651625CrossRefPubMed

*Haselschwerdt, M. L., Maddox, L., & Hlavaty, K. (2020). Young adult women’s perceptions of their maritally violent fathers. Family Relations, 69(2), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12406CrossRef

*Haselschwerdt, M. L., Carlson, C. E., & Hlavaty, K. (2021). The romantic relationship experiences of young adult women exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), 3065–3092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518771679CrossRefPubMed

Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2010). A closer look at men who sustain intimate terrorism by women. Partner Abuse, 1(3), 286–313. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.286CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

*Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2018). Influence of intimate terrorism, situational couple violence, and mutual violent control on male victims. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(4), 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000142CrossRef

*Jasinski, J., Blumenstein, L., & Morgan, R. (2014). Testing Johnson’s typology: Is there gender symmetry in intimate terrorism? Violence and Victims, 29(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00146CrossRefPubMed

Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 283–294. https://doi.org/10.2307/353683CrossRef

*Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence against Women, 12(11), 1003–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206293328CrossRefPubMed

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

Johnson, M. P. (2010). Langhinrichsen-Rolling’s confirmation of the feminist analysis of intimate partner violence: Comment on “controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States.” Sex Roles, 62, 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9697-2CrossRef

Johnson, M. P. (2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 16(4), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.006CrossRef

Johnson, M. P. (2017). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. In M. Natarajan (Ed.), Domestic violence: The five big questions. Routledge.

*Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Journal of Family Issues, 26(3), 322–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X04270345CrossRef

*Johnson, M. P., Leone, J. M., & Xu, Y. (2014). Intimate terrorism and situational couple violence in general surveys: Ex-spouses required. Violence against Women, 20(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214521324CrossRefPubMed

Lehmann, P., Simmons, C. A., & Pillai, V. K. (2012). The Validation of the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB). Violence against Women, 18(8), 913–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212456522CrossRefPubMed

*Leone, J. M. (2011). Suicidal behavior among low-income, African American female victims of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(13), 2568–2591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510388280CrossRefPubMed

*Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., Cohan, C. L., & Lloyd, S. E. (2004). Consequences of male partner violence for low-income minority women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 472–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00032.xCrossRef

*Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., & Cohan, C. L. (2007). Victim help seeking: Differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Family Relations, 56(5), 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00471.xCrossRef

Leone, J. M., Lane, S. D., Koumans, E. H., DeMott, K., Wojtowycz, M. A., Jensen, J., & Aubry, R. H. (2010). Effects of intimate partner violence on pregnancy trauma and placental abruption. Journal of Women’s Health, 19(8), 1501–1509. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1716CrossRefPubMed

*Leone, J. M., Lape, M. E., & Xu, Y. (2014). Women’s decisions to not seek formal help for partner violence: A comparison of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(10), 1850–1876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513511701CrossRefPubMed

Linder, C. (2018). Sexual violence on campus: Power-conscious approaches to awareness, prevention, and response. Emerald Group Publishing.CrossRef

*Love, H. A., Spencer, C. M., May, S. A., Mendez, M., & Stith, S. M. (2020). Perpetrator risk markers for intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(5), 922–931. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018801331CrossRef

*Lysova, A., Dim, E. E., & Dutton, D. (2019). Prevalence and consequences of intimate partner violence in Canada as measured by the national victimization survey. Partner Abuse, 10(2), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.10.2.199CrossRef

*McKay, T., Tueller, S., Landwehr, J., & Johnson, M. P. (2020). Types of partner violence in couples affected by incarceration: Applying Johnson's typology to understand the couple-level context for violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520971266

Meier, J. S. (2015). Johnson’s differentiation theory: Is it really empirically supported? Journal of Child Custody, 12(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2015.1037054CrossRef

*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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214546907CrossRefPubMed

*Michalski, J. H. (2005). Explaining intimate partner violence: The sociological limitations of victimization studies. Sociological Forum, 20(4), 613–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11206-005-9060-5CrossRef

Murnen, S. K., Wright, C., & Kaluzny, G. (2002). If “boys will be boy”, then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46, 359–375.CrossRef

*Nielsen, S. K., Hardesty, J. L., & Raffaelli, M. (2016). Exploring variations within situational couple violence and comparisons with coercive controlling violence and no violence/no control. Violence against Women, 22(2), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215599842CrossRefPubMed

Niknazar, P., & Bourgault, M. (2017). Theories for classification vs. classification as theory: Implications of classification and typology for the development of project management theories. International Journal of Project Management, 35, 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.002CrossRef

*O’Neal, E. N., Tellis, K., & Spohn, C. (2014). When the bedroom is the crime scene: To what extent does Johnson’s typology account for intimate partner sexual assault? Journal of Child Custody, 11(4), 278–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2014.943450CrossRef

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffman, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, Brennan, S. E., Chou, R. Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S. McGuinnes, L. A., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.CrossRef

*Stith, S. M., Amanor-Boadu, Y., Strachman Miller, M., Menhusen, E., Morgan, C., & Few-Demo, A. (2011). Vulnerabilities, stressors, and adaptations in situationally violent relationships. Family Relations, 60(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00634.xCrossRef

Straus, M. A. (2012). Blaming the messenger for bad news about partner violence: The methodological, theoretical, and value basis of the purported invalidity of the Conflict Scales. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 538–556. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2023CrossRef

*Tiwari, A., Chan, K. L., Cheung, D. S. T., Fong, D. Y. T., Yan, E. W., & Tang, D. H. M. (2015). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence on mental health outcomes among abused Chinese women: A mixed-method study. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 314. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1649-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 1, 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.xCrossRef

Tudge, J. R. H., Payir, A., Merçon-Vargas, E., Cao, H., Liang, Y., Li, J., & O’Brien, L. (2016). Still misused after all these years? A reevaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8, 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12165CrossRef

*Verschuere, B., Van Horn, J., & Buitelaar, N. (2021). The role of control in intimate partner violence: A study in Dutch forensic outpatients. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), 3400–3410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518775152CrossRefPubMed

*Zweig, J. M., Yahner, J., Dank, M., & Lachman, P. (2014). Can Johnson’s typology of adult partner violence apply to teen dating violence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(4), 808–825. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12121CrossRef

*Zweig, J. M., Yahner, J., Dank, M., & Lachman, P. (2016). Do substance use, psychosocial adjustment, and sexual experiences vary for dating violence victims based on type of violent relationships? The Journal of School Health, 86(12), 882–887. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12453CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Assessing the State of Empirical Research on Johnson’s Typology of Violence: A Systematic Review
verfasst von: Nicole E. Conroy
Claire G. Crowley
Daniel L. DeSanto
Publikationsdatum: 28.05.2022
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Family Violence / Ausgabe 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0885-7482
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2851
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00416-3

Update Psychiatrie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Assessing the State of Empirical Research on Johnson’s Typology of Violence: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Purpose:

Method:

Findings:

Conclusions:

Neu im Fachgebiet Psychiatrie

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

ADHS-Medikation erhöht das kardiovaskuläre Risiko

Klinikreform soll zehntausende Menschenleben retten

Typ-2-Diabetes und Depression folgen oft aufeinander

Update Psychiatrie

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose:

Method:

Findings:

Conclusions:

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2024

Types of domestic violence in Pakistan: Elaborating on Johnson’s typology

Incarcerated Women’s Strategic Responses to Intimate Terrorism

Commentary: 25 Years After Johnson’s Typology of Intimate Partner Violence the Impact of Johnson’s Typology on Clinical Work

Conceptualizing Johnson’s Typology of Intimate Partner Violence in Queer Relationships

After All This Time: Clarifying Misconceptions and Charting Clear Directions for the Next 25 Years of Johnson’s Typology

Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence in Same-Gender Relationships: A Study of Narratives from a Caribbean Context

Neu im Fachgebiet Psychiatrie

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

ADHS-Medikation erhöht das kardiovaskuläre Risiko

Klinikreform soll zehntausende Menschenleben retten

Typ-2-Diabetes und Depression folgen oft aufeinander

Update Psychiatrie