Johnson’s Typology of Domestic Violence: Evolution and Implications

Johnson’s Typology of Domestic Violence: Evolution and Implications

In 1995, Michael P. Johnson introduced a framework that significantly altered our understanding of domestic violence: the Typology of Domestic Violence. His work aimed to clarify the diverse forms and dynamics of intimate partner violence (IPV), highlighting that not all forms of domestic abuse are rooted in the same motivations or patterns. Since then, Johnson’s typology has been instrumental in shaping research, therapeutic practice, and policy development in the field. This article delves into Johnson’s original typology, its evolution over time, and its relevance in contemporary discussions on IPV.

Johnson’s Original Typology of Domestic Violence

Johnson’s typology categorised domestic violence into three main forms: Intimate Terrorism, Situational Couple Violence, and Violent Resistance. Each form represents a distinct pattern of abuse with different motivations, tactics, and outcomes. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for tailoring interventions and support for survivors.

1. Intimate Terrorism
   This form is characterised by a pattern of power and control exerted by one partner over the other, typically using coercive control, physical violence, emotional abuse, and isolation. It is often gendered, with male perpetrators targeting female victims in heterosexual relationships, though this dynamic can occur in same-sex and other-gendered partnerships. Intimate terrorism aligns closely with what is often depicted as “traditional domestic violence.”
2. Situational Couple Violence
   Unlike intimate terrorism, situational couple violence does not involve a broad campaign of control but arises from specific arguments or conflicts that escalate into violence. Both partners may be involved, and the violence is typically less severe, though still harmful. This form is more common than intimate terrorism but often less visible due to its situational nature.
3. Violent Resistance
   This type involves a victim of intimate terrorism who responds with violence in self-defence or retaliation. It is not driven by a desire to control but rather a reaction to being controlled. Johnson initially used this category to highlight that not all violence in relationships is driven by a desire for power over the partner.

Evolution of Johnson’s Typology

Since Johnson first proposed his typology, additional research and new perspectives have expanded and refined his categories. Scholars have added two further types to account for more nuanced forms of IPV:

1. Mutual Violent Control
   This pattern involves both partners engaging in violent behaviour as part of an ongoing struggle for control. It is characterised by severe, reciprocal violence and is less common than other forms. The inclusion of this category highlights the complexity of IPV in cases where both partners exhibit controlling behaviour.
2. Separation-Instigated Violence
   A form of violence that occurs specifically during or after a separation, when one or both partners resort to violence in response to the emotional and situational turbulence of a breakup. This type often does not continue after separation, making it distinct from other categories.

Recent Developments and Criticisms

While Johnson’s typology has been widely influential, it has also faced criticism and adaptation. Critics argue that his typology oversimplifies the complexity of intimate relationships and does not adequately address overlapping patterns of abuse. Moreover, emerging research has suggested that the dynamics of IPV can shift over time, with a relationship moving from one type to another depending on external factors such as stress, substance use, or mental health changes.

Intersectionality and IPV

One key area of development has been the integration of intersectional perspectives into IPV research. Johnson’s original typology was critiqued for not sufficiently considering how factors such as race, sexuality, class, and disability status shape the dynamics of violence. For example, intimate terrorism may present differently in a marginalised community, where structural inequalities exacerbate the power imbalance in the relationship.

Gender Symmetry Debate

Another critical debate surrounds the concept of gender symmetry in IPV. Johnson’s typology emphasised that intimate terrorism is largely gendered, with men being the primary perpetrators. However, some researchers have argued that situational couple violence may be more evenly distributed across genders. This debate has led to a more nuanced understanding of how gender influences not just the prevalence but the presentation and outcomes of different forms of IPV.

Applying Johnson’s Typology in Therapy

Understanding the typology of domestic violence is crucial for psychotherapists and counsellors working with individuals or couples experiencing IPV. Misidentifying the type of violence can lead to inappropriate treatment plans or safety recommendations. For instance, joint therapy might be beneficial in cases of situational couple violence but is contraindicated for intimate terrorism, where it could further endanger the victim.

1. Assessment of Violence Type
   Therapists should conduct a thorough assessment to identify the type of IPV present. Tools such as the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus et al., 1996) or the Coercive Control Scale can help differentiate between situational and coercive forms of violence.
2. Creating Safety Plans
   For clients experiencing intimate terrorism or violent resistance, developing a comprehensive safety plan is crucial. This might involve helping the client access resources like shelters, legal aid, or advocacy services.
3. Addressing Trauma and Empowerment
   Understanding the type of violence can guide trauma-informed interventions that focus on rebuilding self-esteem and empowerment, particularly for survivors of coercive control, who may have internalised the abuser’s negative self-image.

Resources for Further Reading and Support

• Books and Research Articles
• Johnson, M. P. (2008). A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. Northeastern University Press. ISBN: 978–1555536947
• Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978–0–19–515427–6
• Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships: Working on a puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 324–349. DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azh026
• Support Services
• Women’s Aid (UK): www.womensaid.org.uk
• Refuge (UK): www.refuge.org.uk
• Respect Phoneline (for perpetrators seeking help): www.respectphoneline.org.uk
• Galop (support for LGBTQ+ individuals facing domestic abuse): www.galop.org.uk
• Screening and Assessment Tools
• Danger Assessment (Jacquelyn C. Campbell): www.dangerassessment.org
• Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus et al., 1996): Accessible through many IPV research and clinical training programmes.
• DASH Risk Checklist Dash Risk Checklist on Safe Lives

Conclusion

Johnson’s typology of domestic violence has provided a foundation for understanding the diverse forms of IPV, but its evolution highlights the ongoing need to adapt and refine our frameworks. As our awareness of how gender, power, and social factors intersect continues to grow, therapists and researchers must remain flexible in applying these typologies. By embracing a nuanced approach, we can better serve individuals experiencing IPV, ensuring that our interventions are both safe and effective.