Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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”

  • Feminist Forum
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 01 February 2010

An Erratum to this article was published on 01 February 2010

Abstract

This article makes four major points in response to Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rolling’s (2010) review of the intimate partner violence literature. First, the evidence is clear that there is more than one type of intimate partner violence. Second, the feminists are right. Gender is central to the analysis of intimate partner violence, and the coercive controlling violence that most people associate with the term “domestic violence” is perpetrated primarily by men against their female partners. Third, different types of intimate partner violence have different causes, different developmental trajectories, and different consequences. They require different models to understand them. Finally, we need more qualitative research focused on the least understood types of intimate partner violence: violent resistance and situational couple violence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, K. L. (2007). Who gets out?: gender as structure and the dissolution of violent heterosexual relationships. Gender & Society, 21, 173–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, J. C. Green, C. E. Webb, S. A. & Graham, K. H. (2004). A second failure to replicate the Gottman et al. (1995) typology of men who abuse intimate partners...and possible reasons why. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 396–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, A. (1987). When battered women kill. New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, A. Williams, K. R. & Dutton, D. G. (1999). Homicide between intimate partners: a 20-year review. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: a sourcebook of social research (pp. 149–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzawa, E. S. (2003). Domestic violence: the criminal justice response. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. C. & Soeken, K. L. (1999). Women’s responses to battering over time: an analysis of change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. C. Rose, L. Kub, J. & Nedd, D. (1998). Voices of strength and resistance: a contextual and longitudinal analysis of women’s responses to battering. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 743–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choice, P. & Lamke, L. K. (1999). Stay/leave decision-making processes in abusive dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 6, 351–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, K., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Gondolf, E. W., & Meehan, J. C. (2002, November). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe et al. (2000) batterer typology among court-referred maritally violent men. Paper presented at the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy annual meeting, Reno, NV.

  • Dasgupta, S. D. (2002). A framework for understanding women’s use of nonlethal violence in intimate heterosexual relationships. Violence Against Women. Special Issue: Women’s use of violence in intimate relationships Part I, 8, 1364–1389.

  • Delsol, C. Margolin, G. & John, R. S. (2003). A typology of maritally violent men and correlates of violence in a community sample. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 635–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: a case against the patriarchy. New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragiewicz, M., & Lindgren, Y. (2009). The gendered nature of domestioc violence: Statistical data for lawyers considering equal protection analysis. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 72.

  • 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, 446–477.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feld, S. L. & Straus, M. A. (1990). Escalation and desistance from wife assault in marriage. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 489–505). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson, R. B. (1996). Big people hit little people: Sex differences in physical power and interpersonal violence. Criminology, 34, 433–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1286–1313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gelles, R. J. & Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate violence: the causes and consequences of abuse in the American family. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gondolf, E. W. & Fisher, E. R. (1988). Battered women as survivors: an alternative to treating learned helplessness. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham-Kevan, N. & Archer, J. (2003). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: a test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1247–1270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hardesty, J. L. & Chung, G. H. (2006). Intimate partner violence, parental divorce, and child custody: directions for intervention and future research. Family Relations, 55, 200–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardesty, J. L. Ganong, L. H. & Lloyd, S. (2006). How women make custody decisions and manage co-parenting with abusive former husbands. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 543–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardesty, J. L. Khaw, L. Chung, G. H. & Martin, J. M. (2008). Coparenting relationships after divorce: variations by type of marital violence and fathers’ role differentiation. Family Relations, 57, 479–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, D. A. Brown, J. & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse hotline for men. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holstein, N., & Sacks, G. (2009, July 16). The violence we ignore. The Baltimore Sun.

  • Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476–497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holtzworth-Munroe, A. Meehan, J. C. Herron, K. Rehman, U. & Stuart, G. L. (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000–1019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 500–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P. (2001). Conflict and control: Symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter & M. Clements (Eds.), Couples in conflict (pp. 95–104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P. (2006a). Conflict and control: gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P. (2006b). Gendered communication and intimate partner violence. In B. J. Dow & J. T. Wood (Eds.), The sage handbook of gender and communication (pp. 71–87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P. (2007). Domestic violence: the intersection of gender and control. In L. L. O’Toole, J. R. Schiffman & M. K. Edwards (Eds.), Gender violence: interdisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed. pp. 257–268). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P., & Cares, A. (2004, November). Effects and non-effects of childhood experiences of family violence on adult partner violence. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations annual meeting, Orlando, FL.

  • Johnson, M. P. & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: findings from the national violence against women survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 322–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P., Conklin, V., & Menon, N. (2002, November). The effects of different types of domestic violence on women: Intimate terrorism vs. situational couple violence. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations annual meeting, Houston, Texas.

  • Johnson, M. P., Leone, J. M., & Xu, Y. (2008, November). Gender, intimate terrorism, and situational couple violence in general survey data: The gender debate revisited—again. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations annual meeting, Little Rock, AR.

  • Kaukinen, C. (2004). The help-seeking strategies of female violent-crime victims: the direct and conditional effects of race and the victim-offender relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 967–990.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J. B. & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46, 476–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, M. S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: a substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332–1363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, C. (1993). Leaving abusive partners: from the scars of survival to the wisdom for change. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles.

  • Laroche, D. (2005). Aspects of the context and consequences of domestic violence: Situational couple violence and intimate terrorism in Canada in 1999. Retrieved from http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/bul/conditions_vie/AspectViolen_an.pdf.

  • Leone, J. M. (2007, November). Suicide ideation among African American victims of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations annual meeting, Pittsburgh.

  • Leone, J. M. Johnson, M. P. Cohan, C. M. & Lloyd, S. (2004). Consequences of male partner violence for low-income, ethnic women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 471–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leone, J. M. Johnson, M. P. & Cohan, C. M. (2007). Victim help-seeking: differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Family Relations, 56, 427–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, D. (1989). Family violence in a cross-cultural perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 the Family, 61, 947–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. L. (2005). Victims as offenders: the paradox of women’s violence in relationships. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, L. G. (2003). Insult to injury: rethinking our responses to intimate abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, L. G. (2008). Violent partners: a breakthrough plan for ending the cycle of abuse. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, L. N. (2002). Exploring “common couple violence” in heterosexual romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 66, 104–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, H. (2008). Battle cries: black women and intimate partner abuse. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzetti, C. M. (1992). Violent betrayal: partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risman, B. (2004). Gender as a social structure: theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18, 429–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, K. H., Stith, S. M., Few, A. L., Daly, K. L., & Tritt, D. R. (2005). A qualitative investigation of Johnson’s typology. Violence and Victims. Special Issue: Women’s and Men’s Use of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 319–334.

  • Saunders, D. G. (1996). Feminist-cognitive-behavioral and process-psychodynamic treatments for men who batter: interactions of abuser traits and treatment model. Violence and Victims, 4, 393–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: the entrapment of women in personal life. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H. & Braithwaite, J. (eds). (2002). Restorative justice and family violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. & Gelles, R. J. (1990). How violent are American families? Estimates from the national family violence resurvey and other studies. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8, 145 Families (pp. 95–112). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugarman, D. B. & Frankel, S. L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 13–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, T. P. Meese, K. J. Swan, S. C. Mazure, C. M. & Snow, D. L. (2005). Precursors and correlates of women’s violence: child abuse traumatization, victimization of women, avoidance coping, and psychological symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 290–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, S. C. & Snow, D. L. (2002). A typology of women’s use of violence in intimate relationships. Violence against Women, 8, 286–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taft, C. T. Resick, P. A. Panuzio, J. Vogt, D. S. & Mechanic, M. B. (2007). Coping among victims of relationship abuse: a longitudinal examination. Violence and Victims, 22, 408–418.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, J. Babcock, J. C. Jacobson, N. S. & Gottman, J. M. (2000). Testing a typology of batterers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 658–669.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yllö, K. (1983). Sexual equality and violence against wives in American states. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 14, 67–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, C. (2009, July 16). Battered women—and men. The Boston Globe.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sociology, Women’s Studies, and African and African American Studies, Penn State, University Park, PA, USA

    Michael P. Johnson

Authors
  1. Michael P. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael P. Johnson.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9767-5

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, M.P. 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 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9697-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9697-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation