Extending Johnson’s Intimate Partner Violence Typology

Abstract

Johnson's intimate partner violence (IPV) typology-categorizing IPV by both use and receipt of physical violence and controlling behaviors-effectively predicts IPV consequences among adults. His typology has not yet been applied to adolescents, an important population for early IPV intervention. Therefore, in analyzing IPV covariates among 493 female urban high school students, we used as key predictors both Johnson's original typology and, for enhanced clarity, a relationship-level extension. Preliminary evidence suggests that the pattern of adolescent IPV differs substantially from that of adult IPV and that a relationship-level typology provided additional clarity in categorizing this pattern.

In Search of Teen Dating Violence Typologies

“…Other typologies [16,18] have demonstrated severe, unidirectional perpetration. Our data suggest that the most severe perpetrators were also the most severe victims.…”

“…Although there have been various attempts to explicate different forms of IPV or identify typologies or classes of perpetrators in adult relationships [12–17], there have been relatively few attempts to parse TDV. Messinger et al [18] used cluster analytic methods to identify subgroups of TDV offender/victims in a sample of adolescent girls. A particularly pertinent finding was that adolescent relationships characterized by a high degree of controlling behavior involved more frequent acts of physical violence and fear of the controlling partner [18].…”

“…Messinger et al [18] used cluster analytic methods to identify subgroups of TDV offender/victims in a sample of adolescent girls. A particularly pertinent finding was that adolescent relationships characterized by a high degree of controlling behavior involved more frequent acts of physical violence and fear of the controlling partner [18]. Diaz-Aguado and Martinez [19] conducted a latent class analysis (LCA) on a probability sample of adolescent boys in Spain.…”

Intimate Partner Violence and Gender A/Symmetry: An Integrative Literature Review

“…Upon reading, men were 60% more likely to perceive mutual assault allegations, while women demonstrated being up to 40% more likely to understand unidirectional aggression (Hans, Hardesty, Haselschwerdt, & Frey, 2014). Men tend to inhibit their aggressiveness when with their partners, not because they are their partners, but Rickert, Catallozzi, & Davidson, 2014;Miller, Cater, Howell, & Graham-Bermann, 2014;Nybergh, Taft, & Krantz, 2012;Simmons, Farrar, Frazer, & Thompson, 2011;Straus, 2012 because they are women, while women increase their aggressiveness with partners, not because they are men, but because they are their partners (Cross, Tee, & Campbell, 2011).…”

“…6) Articles that addressed diverse topics associated with the gender a/symmetry and proved the validity of instruments for measuring violence (Lehmann et al, 2012;Straus, 2012), the influence of family origin (Miller, Cater, Howell, & Graham-Bermann, 2014), strategies to increase the search for help (Simmons et al, 2011), that violence in intimate relationships between adolescents differs from that seen in adults (Messinger, Fry, Rickert, Catallozzi, & Davidson, 2014) and that boundaries between acts of psychological, physical and sexual violence were indistinct among the men exposed to domestic violence (Nybergh et al, 2012).…”