This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Brownridge, D. A. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brownridge, D. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Does the Situational Couple Violence–Intimate Terrorism Typology Explain Cohabitors' High Risk of Intimate Partner Violence?

University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: brownrid{at}cc.umanitoba.ca.

	Abstract

This study examines M. P. Johnson’s assertion that violence in marital unions is more likely to be intimate terrorism (IT) and violence in cohabiting unions is more likely to be situational couple violence (SCV). Having overcome limitations of the data on which Johnson based his assertion, the results show that cohabiting and married victims of violence are equally likely to report experiencing SCV and IT. Moreover, cohabitors have higher odds of experiencing SCV and IT compared to their counterparts living in a marital union. These marital status differences are explained by selection and relationship factors theorized to account for them. Although the SCV–IT typology does appear to shed light on gender differences, the results of this study suggest that, where relevant, researchers using this typology should not neglect risk factors derived from theories for understanding intimate partner violence (IPV).

First published on September 3, 2009
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2009, doi:10.1177/0886260509340544


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?