Intimate partner violence (IPV) is estimated to affect over 1.3 million women a year and costs society more than $5.8 billion annually (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003). Extensive evidence indicates that men and women perpetrate IPV at similar rates (Fiebert, 2010) and a large portion of IPV involves perpetration by both partners in a couple unit (Kessler, Molnar, Feurer, & Appelbaum, 2001). These findings have created a contentious debate among researchers about the nature of IPV and utility of gender in understanding its dynamics. Family conflict theorists contend that IPV is used as an outgrowth of conflict and that societal and family characteristics explain the high rates of IPV perpetration for men and women (Fiebert & Gonzalez, 1997, Straus, 2010). Meanwhile, feminist theorists focus on the role that control plays in understanding violence and how control intersects with gender to create a culture of terror (Stark, 2007) and contend that methodological issues account for the high prevalence of gender symmetry (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). A typology of IPV, which assumes that violence is not used in intimate relationships for one static reason, asserts that there are different categories of IPV that occur within intimate partner relationships and failure to specify the category of IPV being explored has led to confusing and uninterpretable empirical findings regarding the rates of IPV and gender (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). The purpose of this research was to bridge these theories by advancing the typology of IPV perspective using a gender and racially robust sample and identifying the correlates and consequences of each category. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is estimated to affect over 1.3 million women a year and costs society more than $5.8 billion annually (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003). Extensive evidence indicates that men and women perpetrate IPV at similar rates (Fiebert, 2010) and a large portion of IPV involves perpetration by both partners in a couple (Kessler, Molnar, Feurer, & Appelbaum, 2001). These findings have created a contentious debate among researchers about the nature of IPV and utility of gender in understanding its dynamics. Family conflict theorists contend that IPV is used as an outgrowth of conflict and that societal and family characteristics explain the high rates of IPV perpetration for men and women (Fiebert & Gonzalez, 1997; Straus, 2010). Meanwhile, feminist theorists focus on how control intersects with gender to create a culture of terror (Stark, 2007) and contend that methodological issues account for the high prevalence of gender symmetry (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). A typology of IPV, which assumes that violence is not used in intimate relationships for one static reason, asserts that there are different categories of IPV that occur within intimate partner relationships and failure to specify the category of IPV being explored has led to confusing and uninterpretable empirical findings regarding the rates of IPV and gender (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). The purpose of this research is to bridge these theories by advancing the typology of IPV perspective using a gender and racially diverse sample and identifying the correlates and consequences of each category. This research tested a theory of IPV at the relationship level, conceptualizing categories of IPV as occurring from the interaction of individual behavior within a relationship, forming 10 unique categories. An analysis of secondary data was used; the data were originally collected by Dutton, Goodman, and Schmidt (2006) to develop and validate a measure of nonviolent coercive control under a project entitled "Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure for Intimate Partner Violence", which was funded by the National Institute of Justice (Award number 2001-WT-BX-0503). The original sample consisted of 757 participants who were recruited from several locations, which was reduced to 714 participants through data cleaning procedures. Individuals completed a survey which included questions about their own perpetration of violence and control, victimization by violence and control, levels of social/relationship related constructs, mental health related outcomes, and demographic characteristics. Cluster analyses, chi-square tests of independence, multinomial logistic regressions, and multigroup path analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Cluster analyses indicated that elements of IPV (control perpetration, control victimization, violence victimization and violence perpetration) all clustered in a high/low pattern, which intersected to form six unique categories of IPV in addition to the no-IPV category. Chi-square tests of independence indicated that distributions of these categories of IPV were dependent on gender but independent of race. A multinomial logistic regression found that each category of IPV was predicted by a unique combination of demographic and social/relationship variables, and interactions between race, gender, and socioeconomic status to account for intersectionality theory were not useful in the retained model. Finally, a multigroup path analysis revealed that levels of PTSD and depression were higher for individuals in relationships with IPV than without IPV. This research provides empirical support that IPV as previously described and identified by two seemingly competing theoretical orientations exists simultaneously. Support for the FCTs perspective was found because the majority of violence that existed in relationships was bidirectional, suggesting an association with conflict. Several categories of IPV were control-related, in line with feminist theories; most notably a unique category of intimate terrorism was affirmed that could not be explained by any demographic characteristics. This research found support for all four categories of IPV identified under Johnson's (2008) typology of IPV, but also found the presence of two control-related categories: situational control and control resistance. Interpreted cautiously in lieu of the limitations of the study, this new typology of IPV provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the range of violent and controlling experiences within relationships, and gives social workers a common language to describe the variety of IPV present within their client systems which can be used to guide the development and implementation of more responsive treatment modalities. Cluster analyses indicated that elements of IPV (control perpetration, control victimization, violence victimization and violence perpetration) all clustered in a high/low pattern, which intersected to form six unique categories of IPV in addition to the no-IPV category. Chi-square tests of independence indicated that distributions of these categories of IPV were dependent on gender but independent of race. Each category of IPV was predicted by a different combination of demographic and social/relationship variables, and interactions between race, gender, and socioeconomic status to account for intersectionality theory were not useful in the retained model, as indicated by a series of multinomial logistic regressions. Finally, a multigroup path analysis revealed that levels of PTSD and depression were higher for individuals within each category of IPV in comparison to the no-IPV reference group. This research provides empirical support that IPV as previously described and identified by two seemingly competing theoretical orientations exists simultaneously. Support for the FCTs perspective of IPV was found because the majority of violence that existed in relationships was bidirectional, suggesting an association with conflict. Several categories of IPV were identified that were control related, in line with feminist theories; most notably a unique category of intimate terrorism was identified that could not be explained by any demographic characteristics, suggesting there is a type of IPV that cuts across all social identities and is used to maintain power and control in a relationship. This research found support for all four categories of IPV identified under Johnson's (2008) typology of IPV, but also found the presence of two control-related categories: situational control and control resistance. Interpreted cautiously in lieu of the limitations of the study, this new typology of IPV provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the range of violent and controlling experiences within relationships, and gives social workers a common language to describe the variety of IPV present within their client systems which can be used to make decisions about treatment. / A Dissertation submitted to the College of Social Work in partial fulfillment of the Doctor of Philosophy. / Spring Semester, 2015. / April 7, 2015. / domestic violence, feminist theory, gender symmetry, intimate partner violence, typology of intimate partner violence / Includes bibliographical references. / Dina J. Wilke, Professor Directing Dissertation; Joyce Carbonell, University Representative; Melissa Radey, Committee Member; Stephen J. Tripodi, Committee Member; Philip Osteen, Committee Member.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_253003 |
| Contributors | Mennicke, Annelise Mae Shearer (authoraut), Wilke, Dina J. (professor directing dissertation), Carbonell, Joyce L., 1951- (university representative), Radey, Melissa (committee member), Tripodi, Stephen J. (committee member), Osteen, Philip J. (committee member), Florida State University (degree granting institution), College of Social Work (degree granting college), College of Social Work (degree granting department) |
| Publisher | Florida State University, Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Language | English, English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, text |
| Format | 1 online resource (201 pages), computer, application/pdf |
| Rights | This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s). The copyright in theses and dissertations completed at Florida State University is held by the students who author them. |
Page generated in 0.007 seconds