Intimate partner violence

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,^[1] 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.^[1]

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.^[1]

Studies by the 1990s showed that both men and women could be abusers or victims of domestic violence.^{[nb 1]} 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.^[2]

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".^[3]

To these forms of abuse, the WHO adds controlling behaviours as a form of abuse.^[4] Intimate partner violence has been observed in heterosexual and same-sex relationships,^[5] and in the former instance by men against women, and by women against their male partners.^[6]

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:^[7]

Region	Percent
Global	30%
Africa	36.6%
Eastern Mediterranean	37%
European	25.4%
South-East Asia	37.7%
The Americas	29.8%
Western Pacific	24.6%

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.^[8][9] These unexpected results led Suzanne K. Steinmetz to coin the controversial term "battered husband syndrome" in 1977.^[10] Ever since the publication of Straus and Gelles' findings, other researchers into domestic violence have disputed whether gender symmetry really exists.^{[11][12][13][14]} Numerous other empirical studies since 1975 suggest there is evidence for it.^{[15][16][17][18]}

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.^[19][18]

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.^[20][21][22]

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.^[20] Types of violence identified by Johnson:

Intimate terrorism

Intimate terrorism violence against women
by an intimate partner study
by the World Health Organization^[23]

Location	Physical violence	Sexual violence	Both
Bangladesh city	40	37	53
Bangladesh province	42	50	62
Brazil city	27	10	29
Brazil province	34	14	37
Ethiopia	49	59	71
Japan city	13	6	15
Namibia city	31	16	36
Peru	61	47	69
Peru city	49	23	51
Samoa	41	20	46
Serbia and Montenegro city	23	6	24
Thailand city	23	30	41
Thailand province	34	29	47
Tanzania city	33	23	41
Tanzania province	47	31	56

Intimate terrorism occurs when one partner in a relationship uses coercive control and power over the other partner, using threats, intimidation, and isolation. In such cases, "[o]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.^[1] Using Johnson's typology, other studies have found that intimate terrorism is more often perpetrated by women or not gendered at all.^[24]

Intimate partner violence may involve sexual, sadistic control,^[1] economic, physical,^[25] 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.^[20] 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.^[1]

Abusers are more likely to have witnessed abuse as children than those who engage in situational couple violence.^[26]

Intimate terrorism 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.^[6] 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.^[27][28] Support for this typology has been found in subsequent evaluations.^[29][30]

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.^[20] Within relationships of intimate terrorism and violent resistance, 96% of the violent resisters are women.^[1]

Situational couple violence

Situational couple violence,^[1] also called common couple violence, is not connected to general control behavior, but arises in a single argument where one or both partners physically lash out at the other.^[1][20] 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.^[1]

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.”^[31]

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.^[32] It is estimated that approximately 50% of couples experience situational couple violence in their relationships.^[32]

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 2014, Graham-Kevan & Archer^[33] found that contrary to the male control theory, women were found to be more physically aggressive to their partners than men were, and the reverse pattern was found for aggression to same-sex non-intimates. Furthermore, there were no substantial sex differences in controlling behavior, which significantly predicted physical aggression in both sexes. IPV was found to be associated with physical aggression to same-sex non-intimates, thereby demonstrating a link with aggression outside the family. Using Johnson's typology, women were more likely than men to be classed as "intimate terrorists," which was counter to earlier findings. Overall, these results do not support the male control theory of IPV. Instead, they fit the view that IPV does not have a special etiology, and is better studied within the context of other forms of aggressio they identified three subtypes of domestic violence rather than Johnson's two: common couple violence; what they termed "intimate terrorism," noting that women and men can both use violence to control non-violent mates; and "mutual violent control" where both partners use intimate terrorism 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^[34] reported that women are more likely to initiate common couple violence in 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 common couple violence (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.^[20]

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.

Notes

References

Further reading

• Bachman, R.; Carmody, D. C. (1994). "Fighting fire with fire: The effects of victim resistance in intimate versus stranger perpetrated assaults against females". Journal of Family Violence 9 (4): 317. doi:10.1007/BF01531942. 
• Browne, A.; Salomon, A.; Bassuk, S. S. (1999). "The Impact of Recent Partner Violence on Poor Women's Capacity to Maintain Work". Violence Against Women 5 (4): 393. doi:10.1177/10778019922181284. 
• Chang, V. N. (1996). I Just Lost Myself: Psychological Abuse of Women in Marriage. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-275-95209-9. 
• Follingstad, D. R.; Rutledge, L. L.; Berg, B. J.; Hause, E. S.; Polek, D. S. (1990). "The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships". Journal of Family Violence 5 (2): 107. doi:10.1007/BF00978514. 
• Graham-Kevan, N.; Archer, J. (2003). "Physical aggression and control in heterosexual relationships: The effect of sampling". Violence and victims 18 (2): 181–196. doi:10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.181. PMID 12816403. 
• Johnson, M. P. (2006). "Conflict and Control: Gender Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic Violence". Violence Against Women 12 (11): 1003–1018. doi:10.1177/1077801206293328. PMID 17043363. 
• Johnson, Michael P. (2000). "Conflict and Control: Images of Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic Violence". In Booth, A., A. C. Crouter, and M. Clements. Couples in Conflict. Erlbaum. ISBN 0-8058-3545-8. 
• 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. 
• 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. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00032.x. 
• Roberts, A. R. (1996). "Battered women who kill: A comparative study of incarcerated participants with a community sample of battered women". Journal of Family Violence 11 (3): 291–304. doi:10.1007/BF02336946. 
• 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 Overview Outline Epidemiology of domestic violence Cycle of abuse Conflict tactics scale Domestic violence and pregnancy Effects of domestic violence on children Intervention Intimate partner violence Domestic violence against men Women's shelter Forms Economic abuse Financial abuse Physical abuse Acid throwing Bride burning Domestic violence and pregnancy Dowry death Honor killing Murder of pregnant women Sati Psychological abuse Bullying Control Embarrassment Emotional blackmail Gaslighting Intimidation Mind games Nagging Setting up to fail Silent treatment Superficial charm Sexual abuse Marital rape Sexual violence by intimate partners Verbal abuse Falsely accuse Humiliate Combination Abuse Battered person syndrome Birth control sabotage Bride-buying Common couple violence Cycle of abuse Elder abuse Power Reproductive coercion Stalking Traumatic bonding Child related Intergenerational cycle of violence Parental abuse by children Parental abuse of children Sibling abuse Countries Argentina Armenia Australia Bolivia Brazil Chile China Colombia Ecuador Guyana India Iran Kenya Lithuania Nigeria Norway Pakistan Panama Paraguay Peru Romania Russia Samoa Saudi Arabia South Africa Tajikistan Uganda United States Religion Christianity and domestic violence Islam and domestic violence Media Documentaries The Conspiracy of Silence Defending Our Lives Power and Control: Domestic Violence in America Silent Voices Sin by Silence Films American Tragedy Black and Blue Blinded Bordertown The Burning Bed Daughters Enough Looking for Angelina Once Were Warriors One Minute to Nine Provoked Sleeping with the Enemy Submission What's Love Got to Do with It Publications Contemporary Family Therapy Family Process Family Relations Journal of Family Issues Journal of Interpersonal Violence Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society Trauma, Violence, & Abuse Violence Against Women Other Battered woman defense Domestic violence court Feminist dominance in domestic violence discussions Domestic violence in lesbian relationships Men's rights in domestic violence Misandry Misogyny