International Adaptation of a Treatment Program for Situational Couple Violence

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-288
Author(s):  
Sandra M. Stith ◽  
Chelsea M. Spencer ◽  
Karen J. Ripoll‐Núñez ◽  
Ana L. Jaramillo‐Sierra ◽  
Farideh Khodadadi‐Andariyeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Program ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Situational Couple Violence

scholarly journals Untangling the concept of coercive control: Theorizing domestic violent crime

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvia Walby ◽  
Jude Towers
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Violent Crime ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Economic Resources ◽  
Coercive Control ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Intimate Terrorism ◽  
Original Analysis ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Situational Couple Violence

The article assesses three approaches to domestic violence: two that use the concept of ‘coercive control’ and one that uses ‘domestic violent crime’. These are: Stark’s concept of coercive control; Johnson’s distinction between situational couple violence and intimate terrorism, in which coercive control is confined to the latter; and that of domestic violent crime, in which all physical violence is conceptualized as coercive and controlling. The article assesses these three approaches on seven issues. It offers original analysis of data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales concerning variations in repetition and seriousness in domestic violent crime. It links escalation in domestic violent crime to variations in the economic resources of the victim. It concludes that the concept of domestic violent crime is preferable to that of coercive control when seeking to explain variations in domestic violence.

scholarly journals Investigating Violence and Control Dyadically in a Help-Seeking Sample from Mozambique

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Graham-Kevan ◽  
Antonio Eugenio Zacarias ◽  
Joaquim J. F. Soares
Keyword(s):  
Childhood Abuse ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Help Seeking ◽  
Healthcare Service ◽  
Intimate Violence ◽  
Intimate Terrorism ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Situational Couple Violence ◽  
And Control ◽  
Controlling Behaviors

A sample of 1442 women attending a Forensic Healthcare Service provided information on their own and their partners' use of controlling behaviors, partner violence, and sexual abuse, as well as their own experiences of childhood abuse. Using Johnson's typology, the relationships were categorized as Nonviolent, Intimate Terrorism, or Situational Couple Violence. Findings suggest that help-seeking women’s experiences of intimate violence may be diverse, with their roles ranging from victim to perpetrator.

Perpetrator Risk Markers for Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence: A Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 922-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather A. Love ◽  
Chelsea M. Spencer ◽  
Scott A. May ◽  
Marcos Mendez ◽  
Sandra M. Stith
Keyword(s):  
Partner Violence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Sample Type ◽  
Risk Markers ◽  
Female Victims ◽  
Control Power ◽  
Intimate Terrorism ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Situational Couple Violence

Johnson developed a typology of intimate partner violence (IPV) which includes two different categories of violence: situational couple violence (SCV) and intimate terrorism (IT). Johnson proposed that IT is more likely to be found in clinical samples (e.g., batterer intervention programs or domestic violence shelters) compared to nonclinical (general population) samples. This meta-analysis ( n = 149 studies; k = 216 effect sizes) examines differences in the strengths of IPV risk markers in clinical and nonclinical samples of male perpetrators and female victims. All variables (communication and conflict resolution, demand–withdraw patterns, relationship dissatisfaction, controlling behaviors, jealousy, patriarchal beliefs, power in the relationship, and stalking) were expected to be significantly related to IPV for both clinical and nonclinical populations. However, specific variables indicative of IT (control, jealousy, patriarchal beliefs, power, and stalking) were expected to be more strongly associated with clinical samples compared to nonclinical samples. As expected, most variables were significant for clinical and nonclinical populations, and IT risk markers (control, power, jealousy, and patriarchal beliefs) were significantly stronger risk markers for IPV in clinical samples. These results indicate that Johnson’s typology may be conceptualized as representing a continuum of violence, with IT being more severe due to the controlling nature of the violence. Sample type needs to be considered when research about IPV is disseminated, as different degrees of IPV (IT vs. SCV) may be present depending on sample type. Implications from this study include the need to differentiate the level of violence and to tailor intervention for IPV appropriately.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document