Extending Johnson’s Typology: Additional Manifestations of Dating Violence and Coercive Control

Abstract

In this study, we explored patterns of violence and coercive control in young adult dating relationships by testing and extending Johnson’s typology of intimate partner violence. Young adults ( N = 398) between 18 and 27 years old completed an online survey about experiences of violence and coercive control in current and past dating relationships. Using cluster analysis, we classified relationships as no/low coercive control and high coercive control. We then categorized relationship types according to Johnson’s typology using the coercive control clusters and the absence/presence of violence. In total, 35% of relationships were abusive (i.e., violent and/or high coercive control), with 24% of all reported relationships including violence with and without high coercive control, and 11% including nonviolent coercive control. Among violent relationships, situational couple violence was more common than other types of dating violence, and two additional types of violence were found: (a) violence toward a nonviolent coercive controlling partner and (b) nonviolent coercive control toward an intimate terrorist, both of which are potentially types of resistance distinct from Johnson’s concept of violent resistance. Additionally, victims of intimate terrorism and victims of nonviolent coercive control were significantly more fearful of their partners than victims of situational couple violence, and victims of situational couple violence did not differ in their fear of partners compared to respondents in nonabusive relationships. These findings identify additional abusive relationship types and elucidate the importance of extending Johnson’s typology to more comprehensively capture the complex dynamics of coercive control and/or violence in young adult dating relationships.

“I felt imprisoned”: A qualitative exploration of controlling behaviors in adolescent and emerging adult dating relationships

“…An in-depth literature review was then conducted to identify initial key concepts pertinent to developing the initial coding grid (Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). Previous research and theory has focused mainly on adult relationships thus, these concepts were used to gather a general sense of the frequent tactics of control present in relationships (Conroy & Crowley, 2022;Crossman et al, 2016;Dutton & Goodman, 2005;Johnson, 2006Johnson, , 2008Lopez et al, 2012;O'Leary & Smith Slep, 2003). However, the coding grid remained flexible to allow for the integration of concepts that emerged during analysis.…”

“…The latter is a powerful tool used by perpetrators to attack a victim's sense of identity and autonomy, thus often being even more enfeebling for the victim than being subject to more direct forms of violence (Johnson, 2006(Johnson, , 2008. In response to Johnson's statement, Conroy and Crowley (2022) added the typology of nonviolent coercive control in a study using a sample of young adults. Nonviolent coercive control is defined as the use of coercive control tactics (e.g., intimidation and isolation of one's partner) without physical violence (Crossman et al, 2016).…”

“…Johnson (2006Johnson ( , 2008 argues that gender differences are present in men's and women's experiences of interpersonal violence, and research has found that women experience greater injury and fear of their partner (Anderson, 2005;Nybergh et al, 2016). Although adolescent relationships are often more flexible and egalitarian than adult relationships (Bentley et al, 2007;Toplu-Demirtaş et al, 2022), gender differences in the use of control tactics may be observed (Conroy & Crowley, 2022).…”

Development and validation of the acceptance of dating violence questionnaire

“…On the other hand, as social discourses and norms are rarely completely unambiguous, these ideas co-exist with conceptions of masculinity that emphasize the protective role, according to which “real” men do not hit women but can limit their autonomy in other ways in order to “protect” them, usually from other men (Conroy & Crowley, 2021; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2013). Research has shown that some ideals of romantic love associate controlling or even aggressive practices (i.e., showing jealousy and restricting a partner’s personal space) with strong, passionate feelings of love and/or romantic attraction that could influence attitudes and acceptance toward such practices (Lara & Gómez-Urrutia, 2019; Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2011; OXFAM, 2018).…”

Alcohol, gender, and violence: Factors influencing blame for partner aggression

“…Intimate partner violence (IPV) is unfortunately common, both globally and in the United States. Although violence within romantic relationships is often bidirectional (Hines et al., 2020; Langhinrichsen‐Rohling et al., 2012), there may be different types of violent relationships marked by more or less symmetry of violence and intimate partner control (Conroy & Crowley, 2022; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). Although both men and women can be victims, IPV is the most common type of violence women encounter with roughly 30% of women worldwide experiencing IPV in their lifetime (Devries et al., 2013; Sardinha et al., 2022).…”