Data from the National Violence Against Women Survey show that the two major forms of husband violence toward their wives (intimate terrorism and situational couple violence) have different effects on their victims. Victims of intimate terrorism are attacked more frequently and experience violence that is less likely to stop. They are more likely to be injured, to exhibit more of the symptoms of posttraumatic stress syndrome, to use painkillers (perhaps also tranquilizers), and to miss work. They have left their husbands more often, and when they do leave, they are more likely to acquire their own residence. If we want to understand the true impact of wife abuse from survey data (rather than from agency data), we must make distinctions among types of violence so that the data used to describe battering are not diluted by data regarding other types of partner violence.Keywords: domestic violence; battering; control; marriage; gender M.P. Johnson (1995) has argued that there are two distinct forms of male violence against female partners. The basic pattern in what he called patriarchal terrorism (which we will refer to as intimate terrorism, as he does in more recent articles) is violence that is embedded in a general pattern of controlling behaviors, indicating that the perpetrator is attempting to exert general control over his partner. Johnson suggests that this form of violence is what is typically intended by terms such as domestic violence, wife beating, and spousal abuse. In contrast, the intimate partner violence that he called common couple violence (which we will refer to as situational couple violence, as he does in more recent articles) is violence that 322 Authors' Note: This is a revised version of a paper presented at

Research indicates that two major forms of partner violence exist, intimate terrorism (IT) and situational couple violence (SCV). The current study (N ¼ 389) used a subgroup of women who responded to the Chicago Women's Health Risk Study to examine whether type of violence experienced is differentially related to formal (e.g., police, medical agencies, counseling) and informal (e.g., family, friends/neighbors) help seeking. IT victims were more likely to seek each type of formal help but were equally or less likely to seek informal help. Findings can inform both family violence research and the development and implementation of social service programs.

In this article, we argue that past efforts to distinguish among types of intimate partner violence in general survey data have committed a critical error--using data on current spouses to develop operationalizations of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. We use ex-spouse data from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) to develop new operationalizations. We then demonstrate that NVAWS current spouse data contain little intimate terrorism; we argue that this is likely to be the case for all general surveys. In addition, the ex-spouse data confirm past findings regarding a variety of differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence, including those predicted by feminist theories.

The current study used a random sample of 563 low‐income women to test Johnson's (1995) theory that there are two major forms of male‐partner violence, situational couple violence and intimate terrorism, which are distinguished in terms of their embeddedness in a general pattern of control. The study examined the associations between type of violence experienced and respondents’ physical health, psychological distress, and economic well‐being. Analyses revealed three distinct patterns of partner violence: intimate terrorism, control/no threat, and situational couple violence. Compared to victims of control/no threat and situational couple violence, victims of intimate terrorism reported more injuries from physical violence and more work/activity time lost because of injuries. Compared to women who experienced no violence in the previous year, victims of intimate terrorism reported a greater likelihood of visiting a doctor, poorer health, more psychological distress, and a greater likelihood of receiving government assistance.

This study examined risk of suicidal behavior among low-income, African American women (N = 369) in three types of male intimate relationships- intimate terrorism (IT) (i.e., physical violence used within a general pattern of coercive control), situational couple violence (SCV; i.e., episodic physical violence that is not part of a general pattern of coercive control), and nonviolent (NV; i.e., no physical violence). IT victims had more than double the odds of suicidal behavior compared to SCV victims and this association remained significant after controlling for physical violence severity, depression symptoms, and alcohol and drug abuse. Risk of suicidal behavior was not significantly different for SCV victims compared to women in NV relationships. Findings emphasize the need for researchers and practitioners to distinguish between types of male partner violence when examining its context and consequences for female victims.