Nicola Graham-Kevan

Intimate Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: A Test of Johnson's Predictions in Four British Samples

This study sought to both replicate and considerably extend the findings of Johnson (1999) that there are two distinct subgroups of physical aggression within relation-ships: intimate terrorism and common couple violence. The present sample consisted of women residing at Womens Aid shelters and their partners (N = 86), male and female students (N = 208), men attending male treatment programs for domestic violence and their partners (N = 8), and male prisoners and their partners (N = 192). Respondents completed measures on physical aggression, injuries sustained, escalation of physical aggression, and controlling behaviors. Cluster analysis was employed to categorize relationships as either intimate terrorism or common couple violence. Frequency analysis showed broad support for Johnsons findings.

INVESTIGATING THREE EXPLANATIONS OF WOMEN'S RELATIONSHIP AGGRESSION

This study investigated explanations of womens partner aggression in a sample of 358 women. Women completed measures of physical aggression, control, and fear. Three explanations of womens partner aggression were explored: (a) that its use is associated with fear, (b) that it is reciprocal, and (c) that it is coercive. Each explanation received partial support, with multivariate analysis showing that collectively they explained significant proportions of the variance in womens self-reported use of physical aggression toward their male partners. These results indicate that womens physical aggression toward male partners cannot be understood using a unitary explanation.

Physical aggression and control in heterosexual relationships: the effect of sampling

This study investigated the proposition by Johnson (1995) that there are distinct patterns of physical aggression within relationships, characterized as common couple violence and patriarchal terrorism. The present samples comprised students (N = 113), women from a domestic violence refuge (N = 44), and male prisoners (N = 108). Participants completed measures of physical aggression, controlling behavior, fear of injuries, and injuries. Reports of these measures were entered into a Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA). With the exception of self-reported use of controlling behavior, the variables showed univariately significant differences between the groups. The DFA produced two significant functions which together correctly classified 75% of cases. These results support the view that there are distinct patterns of aggressive relationships corresponding to those identified by Johnson (1995).

Does Controlling Behavior Predict Physical Aggression and Violence to Partners

Using data obtained from women’s shelter residents, male and female students, and male prisoners, this study investigated the association between non-violent controlling behaviors, physical aggression, and violence towards a spouse (N = 264). It was predicted that only men and women involved in intimate terrorism (Johnson, Violence Against Women, 11(12):1003–1018, 2006) would use controlling aggression, and that physical aggression used by those involved in situational couple violence would be unrelated to controlling behavior. Contrary to predictions derived from Johnson’s theory, regression analysis showed that control accounted significant proportions of the variance in the use of physical aggression for all three relationship categories. Some support was provided, however, as it was found that the pattern of both interrelationships of the five types of controlling behaviors, and control and physical aggression, supported Johnson’s distinction.

Investigating Sub-groups of Harassers: The Roles of Attachment, Dependency, Jealousy and Aggression

The study aimed to classify non-harassers, minor, and severe harassers based on responses to measures of jealousy, dependency, attachment, perpetration, and victimization of relationship aggression, and harassment victimization, in a convenience sample of undergraduate students. Respondents (n = 177) replied on the following scales: Unwanted Pursuit Behaviors Inventory (UPBI: Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., Violence and Victims 15:73–89, 2000), Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS: Straus, Journal of Marriage and the Family 41:75–88, 1979, measuring physical and verbal aggression for respondents and their partners), Sexual Jealousy Scale (SJS: Nannini and Meyers, The Journal of Sex Research 37:117–122, 2000), Interpersonal Dependency Inventory (IDI: Hirschfeld et al., Journal of Personality Assessment 41:610–618, 1997), and the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ: Bartholomew and Horowitz, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61:226–244, 1991, measuring adult attachment). Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA), with responses to these measures entered as predictors, produced significant differences between the groups in the univariate results on measures of: preoccupied attachment, jealousy, emotional reliance, verbal aggression and harassment victimization, and physical aggression perpetration. The functions identified by the DFA correctly classified 61% of cases, and identified the important roles of jealousy, dependency, attachment, and relationship aggression in harassment. Differing responses to the measurement of these can theoretically distinguish between non-, minor, and severe harassers.

Prevalence of Women’s Violent and Nonviolent Offending Behavior: A Comparison of Self-Reports, Victims’ Reports, and Third-Party Reports

This study assessed women’s violent and nonviolent offending, using data from two online student samples (men and women: n = 344), reporting on either being a perpetrator and witness (women) or being a victim and witness (men). A comprehensive measure of general violence, intimate partner violence (IPV), and nonviolent offending was collected. From women’s self-reports, 59.9% reported perpetrating general violent offenses, 58.1% reported perpetrating IPV offenses and 85.6% reported perpetrating nonviolent offenses. Correlations showed that women were involved in a variety of offenses and demonstrated the interrelatedness of general violence and IPV, and of violent and nonviolent offenses. Regression analysis confirmed the close association between partner and general violence, and found that drug offenses were also related to the former and criminal damage to the latter. Overall, the prevalence data demonstrated women’s involvement in all types of offending, and a similar pattern of offending was supported across data sources. Limitations of the sampling method and measures are discussed.

Do the same risk and protective factors influence aggression toward partners and same-sex others?

The current studies examined whether several risk and protective factors operate similarly for intimate partner violence (IPV) and same-sex aggression (SSA) in the same sample, and to assess whether they show similar associations for men and women. Study 1 (N = 345) tested perceived benefits and costs, and instrumental and expressive beliefs about aggression: perceived costs predicted IPV and SSA for both men and women. Expressive beliefs predicted IPV (more strongly for women), and instrumental beliefs predicted SSA. Study 2 (N = 395) investigated self-control, anxiety and empathy, finding that self-control strongly predicted both types of aggression in both sexes. Study 3 (N = 364) found that primary psychopathy (involving lack of anxiety) was associated with IPV for men and SSA in both sexes, whereas secondary psychopathy (involving lack of self-control) was associated with IPV and SSA in both sexes. Overall there were both similarities and differences in the risk factors associated with IPV and SSA, and for men and women. The implications of the findings for theoretical debates about the study of IPV are discussed. Aggr. Behav. 43:163-175, 2017.

The CAT: A Gender-Inclusive Measure of Controlling and Abusive Tactics.

Research has consistently found that partner violence, defined as physical abuse between married, cohabitating, or dating partners, is not the only type of abuse with long-term deleterious effects on victims. Male and female victims alike report that emotional abuse, along with controlling behaviors, are often as or more traumatic. Existing instruments used to measure emotional abuse and control have either been limited to male-perpetrated behaviors, as conceived in the well-known Duluth “Power and Control” wheel, or field tested on dating or general population samples. This study discusses the genesis and evolution of a gender-inclusive instrument, the Controlling and Abusive Tactics (CAT) Questionnaire, which was field tested on males and females with both a clinical and general population sample. For perpetration, a preliminary comparison across gender found no significant differences across gender for the great majority of items, with women reporting significantly higher rates on 9 items, and men reporting significantly higher rates on 6 items. Women reported higher rates of received abuse than men on 28 of 30 items in which gender differences were found to be significant, but both males and females reported higher victimization than perpetration rates on all items. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses resulted in the CAT-2, a valid and reliable instrument appropriate for clinical use by treatment providers as well as for research purposes.

Evaluating the Chinese Revised Controlling Behaviors Scale

The present study evaluated the utility of the Chinese version of the Revised Controlling Behaviors Scale (C-CBS-R) as a measure of controlling behaviors in violent Chinese intimate relationships. Using a mixed-methods approach, in-depth, individual interviews were conducted with 200 Chinese women survivors to elicit qualitative data about their personal experiences of control in intimate relationships. The use of controlling behaviors was also assessed using the C-CBS-R. Interview accounts suggested that the experiences of 91 of the women were consistent with the description of coercive control according to Dutton and Goodman’s conceptualization of coercion. Using the split-half validation procedure, a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was conducted with the first half of the sample. The area under the curve (AUC) for using the C-CBS-R to identify high control was .99, and the cutoff score of 1.145 maximized both sensitivity and specificity. Applying the cutoff score to the second half gave a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 95%. Overall, the C-CBS-R has demonstrated utility as a measure of controlling behaviors with a cutoff score for distinguishing high from low levels of control in violent Chinese intimate relationships.

Is the presence of control related to help-seeking behavior? A test of Johnson's assumptions regarding sex differences and the role of control in intimate partner violence

The aim of this study was to test 2 of Johnson’s (1995) assumptions regarding intimate partner violence (IPV), namely, that there are sex differences in the type of physical aggression men and women use and that controlling aggression is more problematic and requires more outside intervention than noncontrolling aggression. These assumptions were tested using survey data from the 13th cycle of the General Social Survey in Canada, which was a telephone survey that asked crime victimization questions in several areas. There were no sex differences in the use of controlling behavior or physical aggression. Controlling aggression did not have an effect on problem presentation when compared with relationships low in controlling behaviors. There was mixed support for Johnson’s work and the utility of his typology is questioned.