1

 .

Dyadic Concordance In Intimate Terrorism:Implications For The Theoretical, Methodological, And

Empirical Adequacy of Johnson’s Typology

Murray A. Straus and Kristi Gozjolko Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH 03824 603-862-2594 murray.straus@unh.eduWebsite: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2

• Presented at the annual meeting of the American Society Of Criminology, San Francisco, 19 November 2014• Other publications on this and related issues can be downloaded from http//:www.pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2• Current work was supported by the University of New Hampshire and previous work

by National Institute of Mental Health grant T32MH15161

Your are welcome to download these slides fromhttp://pubpages.unh.edu

2

Questions Addressed

1. What identifies an individual as “Intimate Terrorist” (IT) and what has research found about Johnson’s assertion that IT’s are almost all men?

2. What are Dyadic Concordance Types and what percent of couples are in each of IT (Male-Only, Female-Only, and Both IT)?

3. What are the implications of the results for:• Conceptualization and Measurement Of Intimate Terrorism

and Johnson’s typology• Theories explaining partner violence (PV)• Prevention and Treatment of partner violence

Intimate Terrorism, One Of Four Types

• Intimate Terrorism (IT) enacts violence to take general control over one’s partner• Situational Couple Violence (SCV) is violence that arises in the context of specific

conflicts and does not involve coercive control• Mutual Violent Control involves both partners engaging in Intimate Terrorist

violence• Violent Resistance uses violence to resist IT

• Professional interest has been mainly on IT and SCV These are the focus of this paper

Johnson, Michael P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence against Women, 12(11), 1-16. )

3

Table 1. Gender Differences In Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence

Study SampleMeasure of

Coercive ControlPerp Rate For F/M%

IT or SCV

Men Women

[Frye, 2006 #11416]

749 women, 331 physicallyabused

Canada Viol Against Women Survey

ITSCV

34%66%

No signf gender diff

100%

[Graham-Kevan, 2003 #9562]

Shelter 43. Male prisoners 97. Students 104 male, 239 female

Controlling Behaviours Scale (DAIP)

ITSCV

38%53%

6%64%

16%121%

[Graham-Kevan, 2004 #10748]

University Staff and StudentsN=1339

Controlling Behaviours Scale (Duluth Domestic

Abuse Intervention Proj)

ITSCV

9%74%

13%74%

144%100%

[Johnson, 2005 #10691]

4,967 wives. 246 violent & 4,721 non-violent husbs

Psychological Maltreatment Of Women [Tolman, 1989 #1420]

ITSCV

35%55%

Data for female sample not analyzed

[Laroche, 2005 #8553]

Canada Genal Social Survey

Controlling Behaviours Scale (Canada GSS)

ITSCV

19%81%

26%74%

137%91%

[Prospero, 2006 #10746]

StudentsMale=248Female=361

Controlling Behaviours [Graham-Kevan, 2003

#9562]

ITSCV

7%68%

No signf gender diff

100%

4

Summary Of Results Of Six Studies

• Only one found a higher percent of men IT than women• Two found no difference, and reported only percent for combined sample• Two found a larger percent of women than men IT• One did not analyze the data for women

Overall: These six studies suggest that IT by women occurs as often as by men. More studies being added to table. Pattern seems to be the same

Related problem: Johnson’s four types do not include a separate category for female terrorists• Dyadic Concordance Types (discussed next) provide that

5

6

Dyadic Concordance Types (DCTs)A Method of Identifying A Crucial Characteristic Of Couples

Can Increase Understanding Of Intimate Terrorism And All Other Relationship Problems

DCTs classify couples into three categories~Male-Only, ~Female-Only ~Both engaged in the behavior of

interest, such as assault or ITDCTs go beyond comparing men and women:

• Provide a couple-level measure that is also gender-specificDCTs are easy to determine if there is “dyadic data” on the behavior of interest,

i.e., behavior measured for both partners• If IT is measured for both:

oCross-classify the IT measure for each partner oResulting four cells identify the three DCTs & reference Neither

Examples of DCTs for couple concordance in assault (not IT) next slides

Male-Only

Female-Only

Both-Assault

Male-Only

Female-Only

Both-Assault

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

12

26

63

22 23

54

Male Respondents Female Respondents

%

Dyadic Concordance In Assault PerpetrationU.S. National Comorbidity Study (N=8,098)

7Kessler, R. C., Molnar, B. E., Feurer, I. D., & Appelbaum, M. (2001). Patterns and mental health predictors of domestic violence in the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey. International Journal Of Law And Psychiatry, 24(4-5), 487-508.

Couple PrevalenceAccording to Men 21%Women 23%

Dyadic Concordance Type

%

Figure 1. Concordance In Assault PerpetrationBy 3,642 Men And Women In The World Mental Health Study

8

Couple Prevalence according to:Males: 22%Females 22%

Miller, E., Breslau, J., Petukhova, M., Fayyad, J., Green, J. G., Kola, L., Kessler, R. C. (2011). Premarital mental disorders and physical violence in marriage: cross-national study of married couples. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 199(4), 330-337. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.084061

Mal

e-on

ly

Femal

e-on

lyBot

h0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

39

19

42

Male Respondents

Mal

e-...

Femal

e...

Both

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

36

21

43

Female Respondents

Dyadic Concordance Type

Adapted from Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M. L. (2012). Rates of Bidirectional Versus Unidirectional Intimate Partner Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive Review. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 199-230. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.199

Above suggests hypothesis that Both might also be typical of Intimate Terrorism

48 Studies Found Similar Distribution of DCTs, Especially That Both Assaulted Was Predominant

Dyadic Concordance Type

9

10

DATA FROM THE INTERNATIONAL DATING

VIOLENCE STUDYhttp://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID.htm

14,252 Students At 68 Universities In 32 Nations All Major World Regions Convenience Samples

Questionnaire Completed In Class Analyses Control For And/Or Examine

Interactions With: * Gender and Age * Score on Social Desirability

Response set scale * Other controls as needed

VALIDITY OF THE DATA• Concurrent validity: correlated with

recognized international statistics• Construct Validity: Shown in many

published papers

11

Measures

Partner violence: Revised Conflict Tactics Physical Assault Scale: Any perpetration

High Coercive Control: Cases at 90th percentile of Psychological Aggression scale of the Conflict Tactics Scales• Based on frequent statement that psychological aggression is a key element in

coercive control• For this sample: Correlation with Hamby Dominance Scale: ?

Intimate Terrorism: Assaulted and high coercive controlDyadic Concordance Types of Intimate Terrorist

• Cross classification of partner measures of Intimate Terrorist results in• Four cells ~Male-Only, ~Female-Only, ~Both IT, Reference category Neither

Table 3. Gender Differences In Dominance, Assault, and Intimate Terrorist

Gender of Student

ChiSqrp=> Variable Men Women

Any assault 24% 31% .001

High coercive control 8% 11% .001

Situational Couple Violence (assaulted, not high coercive control

19% 22%% .001

Intimate Terrorist (assaulted and high coercive control) 5% 9% .001

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

17

33

51

Male Only Female Only Both ITDyadic Concordance Types

Dyadic Concordance In Intimate TerrorismDating Relationships Of University Students in 32 Nations

13

Straus, Murray A., & Gozjolko, Kristi L. (2013). Dyadic Analysis Of “Intimate Terrorism” and the Theoretical, Methodological, And Empirical Adequacy Of Johnson’s Typology. Paper presented at the American Society Of Criminology, 19 November 2014, San Francisco.

Intimate Terrorist Prevalence•Men 8%•Women 10%•Couples 10%

Gender Of Participant:• Stats by gender used data provided by participants of that gender• Stats in chart based on combined sample because no significant difference between estimates of Male-Only, Female-Only, Both using data from men and women.

% of the 10% of Couples

With Either

Or BothIntimate Terrorist

14

Summary Of Results On The 3 Questions

1. What percent of partners are “Intimate Terrorists” as measured by Johnson’s methods?

* 5% of men and 9% of women (as reported by each gender) * More women than men are IT in this study and most other studies

2. What Is the level of Concordance Between partners in Intimate Terrorism?* High: When there was IT in a relationship, in 51% of those couples both

were IT* Sole-perpetrators were: Male-Only 16%, Female-Only 33%* Above percentages hold regardless of whether men or women provided

the data3. What are the implications? Next slides

Implications For Validity Of Widely Accepted Distinction Between Intimate Terrorist And Situational Couple Violence

One reason widely accepted: Seems to resolve 35 year controversy over gender symmetry in perpetration and whether the predominant cause is “patriarchy”

But does not because:o Studies found symmetry in IT, not just in SCVo Permits holding on to belief that PV is predominantly a male crime caused

by patriarchy because, according to Johnson (2006), IT is perpetrated almost exclusively by men

15

16

Other Problems With Conceptualization and MeasurementOf Intimate Terrorism

Insufficiently multidimensional because does not take into account dimensions such as chronicity and severity of assault and injury

(Perhaps reflecting Johnson belief the crucial issue is coercion and that “…the frequency and severity of the violence has no bearing whatsoever on whether the violence is classified as IT” (Johnson, 008 p. 94).)

Label “terrorist” implies chronic assaults, severe assaults, and injury, but not measured to identify IT. Therefore • low “sensitivity” i.e., ability to identify cases that fit the image • Low “specificity” i.e., false positives

Inadequate specification of coercion. Johnson argues that a key characteristic of IT is generalized coercion not situational coercion to get the partner to do or to stop a specific behavior (Johnson, 1995). The measures used by Johnson and others do not adequately distinguishes generalized coercion from situational coercion.

Although Johnson’s method of measuring IT can be applied to women• The four types do not include a separate category for female terrorists

Categorizes most cases as Common Couple Violence, which is implied to not be serious problem

The Reality Behind The Miracle Cure

Does not end the controversy because most studies that empirically compared men and women find similar percentages of male and female IT

Downplays the importance of SCV. But from a public health perspective, SCV is extremely important because• Affects many more couples• Produces the most injuries, physical and psychological because it exposes the

most people to risk of injury• Is a contagious disease and infects the next generation

Diverts attention from the need to protect women by attending to violence by reducing violence by women and their social and psychological problems

Has not improved treatment. In current Batterer Intervention Programs, all offenders get the same intervention

Although Johnson typology identifies important variations in PV, it contuse the controversy over whether the most important cause is “patriarchy” because the typology assumes that only men are terrorists

17

19

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONRevise theories of PV to recognizes that dyadic nature of PV, including:

• About the same percent of women as men physically assault a partner• Most cases are bi-directional and involve an escalation pattern and a relationship

problem, not just a male problem• 17 studies found only a small percent of acts in self-defense, and no study found

a higher percent than men (Straus, 2012)

IMPLICATIONS FOR PREVENTION AND TREATMENTPrevention programs: Replace programs directed to men and boys with programs

explicitly addressed explicitly to both gendersTreatment of partner violence: Replace the assumption that it is violent men who

need treatment with:• Initial screening to determine whether it is unilateral or mutual,• Base treatment on that evidence, not male-only perpetrator assumption• Provide treatment for both where both perpetrated (half of couples)

Victim services: Continue to give priority to women victims because women are injured more, physically, psychologically, & economically

Straus, Murray A. (2012). Blaming the messenger for the bad news about partner violence by women: the Methodological, theoretical, and value basis of the purported invalidity of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(5), 538-556. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2023

Downloadable Papers On Dyadic Concordance Types -  General Straus, M. A. (2014). A Gallery Of Dyadic Concordance Type (DCT) Graphics. Unpublished Manuscript. Durham, NH:

Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.Straus. M.A. (in press) Dyadic Concordance and Discordance in Family Violence: A Powerful and Practical Approach to

Research and Practice.  Aggression and Violent Behavior.Straus, M. A. (2014). Bringing couple-level measures and family contradictions into research through dyadic concordance

types. Unpublished Manuscript. Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory.Specific Empirical Studies

Straus, M. A. (2014). Practical ways to conduct international partner violence research using Dyadic analysis. NCFR Report Magazine: Family Focus on International Intimate Partner Violence, Fall, 1-4. Straus, M. A., & Michel-Smith, Y. (2014). Dyadic Concordance In Psychological Aggression And Its Relation to Physical Assault Of Dating Partners By Male And Female University Students In 32 Nations. Paper presented at the European Society of Criminology, Prague.

Michel-Smith, Yahayra, & Straus, Murray (2014). Dyadic Patterns of Perpetration of Physical Assault and Injury of Dating Partners By Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations. Paper presented at the Stockholm Criminology Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden.

Straus, M. A., & Michel-Smith, Y. (2013). Mutuality, Severity, And Chronicity Of Violence By Father-only, Mother-only, And Mutually Violent Parents As Reported By University Students In 15 Nations. Child Abuse Negl, 38(4), 664-676. Doi: 10.1016/J.Chiabu.2013.10.004.

Straus, Murray A. (2013, November). Relation of Corporal Punishment By Father-Only, Mother-Only, And Both Parents To Crime by University Students In 15 Nations. Paper presented at the American Society Of Criminology, Atlanta.

Straus, Murray A, & Michel-Smith, Yahayra (2012). Relation Of Violence Between Parents Of University Students In 15 Nations To Student Criminogenic Beliefs And Crime: A comparison of father-only, mother-only, and mutual parental violence Paper presented at the American Society Of Criminology annual meeting, Chicago, 15 November, 2012.

Straus, M. A., & Winstok, Z.. (2013). Relation of Dyadic Concordance-Discordance Types of Partner Violence to Depression of Male and Female University Students in 15 Nations. Paper presented at the Society for the Study of Social Problems, New York.

Winstok, Z. & Straus, M. A. (2014). Gender Differences in the Link between Intimate Partner Physical Violence and Depression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 91-101. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.01.003.

20

21

The Both category may be misleadingBoth can assault, but he more frequently and/or more severely. also

Run and plot ancova: IV = DCT. DV chronicity and gender. LDT SESplot means but convert to bars

22

Does not end the controversy because studies of clinical samples show high rates of female assault (e.g. Gondolf 60%, Giles Sims etc.. See my article, And contrary to his claim, high freq of severe assault in general population.

o Minimizes symmetrical perpetration of most partner violence by giving them a more socially acceptable label ”Situational Couple Violence”

o Asserts the important problem is Intimate Terrorism, not Situational Couple Violence.

Cite my previous estimate of equivalent of IT and compare %s

Strgthen case for DCT: make case for analyzing couples

23

Messinger, A. M., Fry, D. A., Rickert, V. I., Catallozzi, M., & Davidson, L. L. (2014). Extending Johnson's Intimate Partner Violence Typology: Lessons From an Adolescent Sample. Violence against Women, 20(8), 948-971. doi: 10.1177/1077801214546907

Offers an extension of Johnson types, but still no category in which a female partner can be the sole IT

24

Are The Results “Spurious”Because Of Methodological Problems?

Samples – world wide, general pop, clinical popMeasurement – Gender, instrument (Capaldi)Confounding with SES, LD, SES etc.

MISCELEANEOUS

AUS Australia; BEL Belgium; BRA Brazil; CAN Canada; CHE Switzerland; CHN China; DEU Germany; GBR Great Britain; GRC Greece; GTM Guatemala; HKG ong Kong; HUN Hungary; IND India; IRN Iran; ISR Israel; JPN Japan; KOR South Korea; LTU Lithuania; MEX Mexico; MLT Malta; NLD Netherlands; NZL New Zealand; PRT Portugal; ROU Romania; RUS Russia; SGP Singapore; SWE Sweden; TWN Taiwan; TZA Tanzania; USA United States; VEN Venezuela; ZAF S Africa

17,404 university students. International Dating Violence Study. ANCOVA controlling for age, SES, and Limited Disclosure scale score.

14,252 university students. International Dating Violence Study. ANCOVA controlling for age, SES, and Limited Disclosure scale score.

The data and a detailed description of the study, including the questionnaire and all other key documents can be downloaded from the Interuniversity Consortium For Political And Social Research (http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29583).

25

26

ANALYSES CONTROLLED FOR • Education of father• Education of mother (are the results just a reflection of SES?• Misbehavior as a child (are results just a continuation of a long –standing pattern)• Corporal punishment by father As above• Corporal punishment by mother As above• Age of student at time of study (because older persons have lower crime rates• Limited Disclosure scale (do the results just reflect that willingness to disclose one

type of socially undesirable behavior is associated with willingness to disclose other types)• Nation in which data was collected There are important differences between

nations in the prevalence of crime. National differences in crime, include DCT are analyzed elsewhere (cite??). The focus of this study is whether there are effects of DCT that are in addition to the national context effects.

27

ObjectivesThe objectives of this study are to: (1) Describe the use of

“Dyadic Concordance Types” (DCTs) as a means of better understanding the concept of “Intimate Terrorist” and identification of cases. (2) Provide empirical estimates for a large sample of dating relationships among university students, of the percent of cases in each of the three DCTs: Male-Only, Female-Only, and Both-Intimate Terrorists. (3) Examine the degree to which each type is associated with physical injury, and gender differences in injury. (4) Evaluate the theoretical basis and empirical adequacy of Johnson's assertion that IT is perpetrated almost entirely by men.

28

bidirectionalor mutual partner abuse. These results on how prevalent it is for both partnersin a relationship to assault, important as that is, fails to deal with the half ofaggressive relationships in which the aggression is unidirectional. For that half, asshown in this article, many studies have found similar percentages in which only themale partner aggresses and only the female partner aggresses. It is crucial that thisbe taken into account in research, theory, and practice about PA. Identifying bidirectionalcases does not do that. Thus, even when results on bidirectional abuse arereported, a serious gap persists because information on these two DCTs is crucial fortheories of partner abuse and for prevention and treatment, including efforts to endviolence against women

Provide example showing difference between same rate for men and women and Both. It is in IPS descriptive article and I think in the PASK article.

29

Just how easy it is to obtain data on DCTs

is illustrated by an analysis of the 1975 National Family Violence Survey. In this study, as in most other studies on partner abuse, only one partner was interviewed. Nevertheless, the DCTs could be determinedbecause the partner interviewed was asked about both their own behavior and thattheir partner. It required only a cross tabulation of assault by the male partner bythe assault by the female partner. The percentages in the resulting four cells werethe three DCTs and the no-assault group. Among the relationships in which there wasan assault, the percentages were 25% Male-Only, 27% Female-Only, and 48% Both-Assaulted (Straus, 1980; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 2006). I did not name this asDCTs or give the typology any name at all.

30

Increasingly popular – A search u sing Google Scholar located 204 articles published in 2000-2013 Few empirical studies.

More popular as a citation and a defense of the idea that PV is male than it is as an empirical method? Try to count

31

DCTs and APIM

32

DCTs For Positive BehaviorsEssential For Prevention Of Child Abuse And Partner Abuse

EmpathySupportTrustAggressive attribution – out to get meNegotiationCommunication

See list of skills for prevention programs

33

Table 1 IDVS-Dyadic Concordance Type by Gender of Respondent

Dyadic Type Gender of

Respondent% Male

Only% Female

Only 

% Both N

Any Assault Male 11 16 73 1184  Female 8.5 24.6 66.8 3481Severe Assault Male 14.3 25.9 59.9 441  Female 15.6 31.0 53.4 1368Any Injury-Perpetrated Male 10.7 17.4 72.0 328  Female 21.1 13.8 65.1 896Severe Injury-Perp Male 11.6 28.4 60 95  Female 39.2 9.9 50.9 171Any Psych Aggression Male 9.8 19.7 70.5 1623  Female 9.3 17.2 73.5 4682Severe Psych Aggression Male 19.0 16.8 64.2 1022  Female 13.9 30.9 55.2 2989Any Sexual Coercion Male 21.4 10.6 68.0 1335  Female 33.2 9.5 57.3 3252Physical Sexual Coercion Male 26.9 18.5 54.6 119  Female 42.8 14.5 42.8 318Verbal Sexual Coercion Male 16.8 21.2 61.9 113  Female 44.0 8.9 47.1 293Intransigent Male 8.9 12.6 78.5 984  Female 12.5 9.4 78.0 2118

34

DCTs Are Remarkably Consistent* Both Assault is almost always the predominant type* Sole-perpetrator type is about evenly split between Male-Only and Female-Only

Across sources source of the dataMen and womenSelf report, partner report, and observerChildren reporting on parents or parents reportingStudent and general population samples

Across levels of severity of assaultMinor versus severe assaultsGeneral population versus clinical samples

Across cultural groupsNations and ethnic and class groups within nations

Across relationship stagesDating and married, except that dating always have a higher percent Across sexual orientation

Heterosexual and same relationships

35

Recognizing that female partners also assault and that about the same percent of women as men assault was a major advance, with extensive research, but one not yet the basis for theory and practice.

Recognizing mutual violence is a further major advance with small but growing amount of research, and also not yet the basis for theory and practice. It has been consistently found that mutually violent relationships experience more violence, more severe violence, and higher rates of injury (Gray and Foshee 1997; Swahn et al. 2010). Whitaker, Straus and Gozjolko

Recognizing DCTs has just begun.

36

DCTs and APIM

Cousins share some of the same genes

Need to spend more time together

Dyadic analysis is a much broader concept than Dyadic Concordance Types. DCTs are only one specific tool to aid dyadic analysis. The fact that DCTs deal with only a small part of what is implied by dyadic analysis is not only a limitation but also an advantage. The advantage is that it gives scholars and practitioners a specific and easily applied tool to aid making the dyadic nature of partner abuse part of their research, theorizing, or prevention and treatment work.

use of DCTs as an aid to investigating and theorizing about partner abuse and in preventing and treating partner abuse.

37

References On the Conflict Tactics ScalesStraus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2):

Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for seventy

and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507-520. Straus, M. A. (2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the revised conflict tactics scales: A study of university

student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(4), 407-432.Straus, M. A. (2012). Blaming the messenger for the bad news about partner violence by women: the Methodological,

theoretical, and value basis of the purported invalidity of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(5), 538-556. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2023Straus, M. A., & Mickey, E. L. (2012). Reliability, validity, and prevalence of partner violence measured by the conflict

tactics scales in male-dominant nations. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 463-474. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.004

38

Some References On The International Dating Violence StudyStraus, M. A. (2009). The National context effect: An Empirical test of the validity of Cross-National

research using unrepresentative samples. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(3), 183-205. doi: 10.1177/1069397109335770