About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


39 J. Fam. Violence 1 (2024)

handle is hein.journals/jfamv39 and id is 1 raw text is: Journal of Family Violence (2024) 39:1-8 https://doi.org/l0.1007/si0896-023-00669-6 EDITORIAL After All This Time: Clarifying Misconceptions and Charting Clear Directions for the Next 25 Years of Johnson's Typology Alison C. Cares' Megan L. Haselschwerdt2 - Jennifer L. Hardesty3 - April L. Few-Demo4 Published online: 17 January 2024 ŠThe Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024 Abstract In 1995, Michael P. Johnson published work proposing there were multiple types of intimate partner violence, and types differed in their causes, characteristics, and outcomes. As more than a quarter century has passed, this special issue brings together reviews of and reflections on work related to the typology that has already been done and includes new empirical and theoretical works to open the next quarter century. This introduction details the purpose and process that led to this special issue, summarizes what we see as the contributions of this issue, and ends by looking ahead to what work still needs to be done. In doing so, we implore scholars to take care in their methodological and conceptual operationalizations of the typology and expand the work to previously understudied populations, as well as explore the implications of the typology for policy and practice. Keywords Intimate partner violence - Johnson's typology Introduction In 1995, Johnson published what has become a foundational piece in the study of intimate partner violence (IPV). For example, as we write this today, the number of citations in Web of Science of the 1995 piece is 1,292. In that piece, Johnson sought to understand the roots of what had been referred to as the gender symmetry debate and, in doing so, proposed that the root of the issue was bifurcated. He pro- posed there was both a reality of the phenomenon and meth- odological differences fueling the divergent findings between E Alison C. Cares alison.cares@ucf.edu Department of Sociology & Violence Against Women Cluster, University of Central Florida, 4297 Andromeda Loop N., Howard Phillips Hall 403, Orlando, FL 32816, USA 2 Department of Child and Family Studies, University of Tennessee, 1215 Cumberland Ave., 420 Jessie Harris Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA 3 Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 243 Bevier Hall, MC-180, 905 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61802, USA 4 Department of Human Development and Family Science, University of Georgia, 123 Dawson Hall, 305 Sanford Dr., Athens, GA 30602, USA those who showed gender symmetry in IPV perpetration (i.e., family violence researchers) and those who showed gender asymmetry in IPV perpetration, with men primarily perpetrators against women (i.e., feminist researchers). In fact, he proposed that there were multiple types of IPV that showed up in different proportions depending on methodo- logical choices, and that the types differed in causes, pat- terns, consequences, frequency in the general population, and gender symmetry. Agency or clinical samples heavily include people who have experienced or perpetrated what he initially called patriarchal terrorism, now referred to as intimate terrorism or coercive controlling violence (CCV; Johnson, 2017). That is physical violence, perpetrated along with other tactics of abuse in service of gaining or maintain- ing power and control over one's partner and depriving them of personal rights and freedom (i.e., coercive control). In the context of different-gender couples, this is perpetrated largely by men against women. In contrast, large, general population samples disproportionately tapped into what he initially labeled common couple violence, now referred to as situational couple violence (SCV; Johnson, 2017). That is physical violence that occurs as a result of conflict or escalating arguments that is not grounded in a relationship- wide motive of one partner to coercively control the other partner. In the context of different-gender couples, men and women in general samples were equally likely to report e_ Springer