Consequences of Male Partner Violence for Low‐Income Minority Women

Abstract

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.

Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach

“…A further typological approach based more explicitly on the motivation for the violence than on characteristics of the perpetrator is exemplified by the influential work of Johnson and colleagues (Johnson, 1995;Leone, Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004). He attempted to explain the discrepant findings from gender feminist and family violence research by positing two theoretically different kinds of violence in couples; namely, common couple violence and patriarchal terrorism, later changing the latter term to "intimate terrorism."…”

Employment Status and Intimate Partner Violence Among Mexican Women

“…Tanha, Beck, Figueredo, and Raghavan (2010) describe coercive control as a pattern of violence, intimidation, isolation, where the individual seeks to restrict the victim's liberties. Specific characteristics of PT include higher frequency of violence that is usually initiated by the husband and likely to escalate over time, exercise of general control of the victim, and use of multiple control tactics (Johnson, 1995(Johnson, , 2006Lawson, 2012;Leone, Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004). Research shows that this type of violence is gender asymmetric, with men being more likely to perpetrate violence against women (Johnson, 1995;Johnson & Leone, 2005;Kelly & Johnson, 2008).…”

A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications

“…The coercive partner keeps the victim under surveillance, and failure to follow the rules established by them often results in punitive action (Beck et al, 2013;Kelly & Johnson, 2008;Tanha, Beck, Figueredo, & Raghavan, 2009). Major forms of violence, as shown in the power and control wheel, include intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, minimizing, denying, and blaming, use of children, asserting male privilege, economic abuse, and coercion and threats (Pence & Paymar, 1993 (Johnson & Leone, 2005;Kelly & Johnson, 2008;Leone, Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004). CCV is the type of IPV that is most frequently encountered in agency settings, such as law enforcement, the courts, shelters, and hospitals (Kelly & Johnson, 2008).…”