Intimate partner violence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:49, 15 December 2015

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is domestic violence by a spouse or partner in an intimate relationship against the other spouse or partner, and the violence may be mutual, in which case the relationship may be described as a violent relationship. Intimate violence can take a number of forms including physical, verbal, emotional, economic and sexual abuse. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines intimate partner violence as "... any behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm to those in the relationship."^[1]

The most extreme form of such violence may be termed "coercive controlling violence", or simply "coercive control", which is where one person is violent and controlling;^[2]^[3] and is the most likely of the types to require medical services and shelter. Victims of intimate terrorism may engage in "violent resistance" in response to the violence; violent resistance, which is likely to be infrequent, is usually conducted by women.^[2] Some evidence suggests that men are more reluctant to report domestic violence committed against them by their female intimate partners.^[4]

The most common form of intimate partner violence is "situational couple violence", which is conducted by individuals of both genders nearly equally. When both partners in the relationship engage in controlling and violent behavior, it is called "mutual violent control".

Background

Intimate partner violence occurs between two people in an intimate relationship. It may occur between heterosexual or homosexual couples and victims can be male or female. Couples may be dating, cohabiting or married and violence can occur in or outside of the home.^[2]

Studies by the 1990s showed that both men and women could be abusers or victims of domestic violence.^{[nb 1]} Women are more likely to act violently in retaliation or self-defense one time and with less violence than that by men while men are more likely to commit long-term cycles of abuse. As a result, the issue is not solely about violence against women, but about "violent people" or "violent couples." It also led to further research to better understand the situations within violent homes.^[5]

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines intimate partner violence as:

"... any behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm to those in the relationship".^[6]

To these forms of abuse, the WHO adds controlling behaviours as a form of abuse.^[7] Intimate partner violence has been observed in heterosexual and same-sex relationships,^[8] and in the former instance by men against women, and by women against their male partners.^[9]

The WHO reported in 2013 that the incidence of women who had experienced physical or sexual abuse from an intimate partner in their lifetime was:^[10]

Region	Percent
Global	30%
Africa	36.6%
Eastern Mediterranean	37%
European	25.4%
South-East Asia	37.7%
The Americas	29.8%
Western Pacific	24.6%

Gender symmetry

The theory that women perpetrate intimate partner violence (IPV) at roughly the same rate as men has been termed "gender symmetry." The earliest empirical evidence of gender symmetry was presented in the 1975 U.S. National Family Violence Survey carried out by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles on a nationally representative sample of 2,146 "intact families." The survey found 11.6% of men and 12% of women had experienced some kind of IPV in the last twelve months, while 4.6% of men and 3.8% of women had experienced "severe" IPV.^[11]^[12]^: 333 These unexpected results led Suzanne K. Steinmetz to coin the controversial term "battered husband syndrome" in 1977.^[13] Ever since the publication of Straus and Gelles' findings, other researchers into domestic violence have disputed whether gender symmetry really exists.^[12]^[14]^[15]^[16] Numerous other empirical studies since 1975 suggest there is evidence for it.^[17]^[18]^[12]

Gender and Intimate Partner Violence

A 2011 review by researcher Chan Ko Ling from the University of Hong Kong on both Western and Asian studies on intimate partner violence found that minor partner violence was equal for both men and women but more severe partner violence was more likely to be perpetrated by men.^[19] His analysis found that men were more likely to beat up, choke or strangle their partners while women were more likely to throw something at their partner, slap, kick, bite, punch, or hit with an object.^[19]

Researchers have also found different outcomes in men and women in response to intimate partner violence.A 2012 review from the journal Psychology of Violence found that women suffered disproportionately as a result of IPV especially in terms of injuries, fear, and posttraumatic stress.^[20] The review also found that 70% of female victims in their in one study were “very frightened” in response to intimate partner violence from their partners, but 85% of male victims endorsed “no fear”.^[20]The review also found that IPV mediated the satisfaction of the relationship for women but it did not do so for men.^[20]

A 2010 review published in the journal Trauma Violence Abuse also found that one of the most common reasons for women's violence were anger and self-defence.^[21]Another review published journal Violence and Victims found that women's physical violence is more likely to be driven by self-defence and fear while men's violence is more likely to be motivated by control.^[22]

Reciprocal and non-reciprocal

The United States Centers for Disease Control, divide domestic violence into two types: reciprocal, in which both partners are violent, and non-reciprocal violence, in which one partner is violent.^[23]^[24]

Types

Michael Johnson argues for four major types of intimate partner violence (Johnson's Typology),^[25] which is supported by subsequent research and evaluation, as well as independent researchers.^[26]^[27]^[28]

Distinctions are made among the types of violence, motives of perpetrators, and the social and cultural context based upon patterns across numerous incidents and motives of the perpetrator.^[26] Types of violence identified by Johnson:

Intimate terrorism

Intimate terrorism violence against women
by an intimate partner study
by the World Health Organization^[29]
Location	Physical violence	Sexual violence	Both
Bangladesh city	40	37	53
Bangladesh province	42	50	62
Brazil city	27	10	29
Brazil province	34	14	37
Ethiopia	49	59	71
Japan city	13	6	15
Namibia city	31	16	36
Peru	61	47	69
Peru city	49	23	51
Samoa	41	20	46
Serbia and Montenegro city	23	6	24
Thailand city	23	30	41
Thailand province	34	29	47
Tanzania city	33	23	41
Tanzania province	47	31	56

Intimate terrorism, or coercive controlling violence, occurs when one partner in a relationship uses coercive control and power over the other partner, using threats, intimidation, and isolation. In such cases, "[o]ne partner, usually a man, controls virtually every aspect of the victim's, usually a woman's, life." Michael P. Johnson reported in 2001 that 97% of the perpetrators of intimate terrorism were men.^[2] Using Johnson's typology, other studies have found that intimate terrorism is more often perpetrated by women or not gendered at all.^[30]

Intimate partner violence may involve sexual, sadistic control,^[2] economic, physical,^[31] emotional and psychological abuse. Intimate terrorism is more likely to escalate over time, not as likely to be mutual, and more likely to involve serious injury.^[26] Because this type of violence is most likely to be extreme, it is survivors of intimate terrorism that are most likely to require medical services and the safety of shelters.^[2]

Abusers are more likely to have witnessed abuse as children than those who engage in situational couple violence.^[32]

Intimate terrorism batterers include two types: "Generally-violent-antisocial" and "dysphoric-borderline". The first type includes people with general psychopathic and violent tendencies. The second type are people who are emotionally dependent on the relationship.^[9] Violence by a person against their intimate partner is often done as a way for controlling their partner, even if this kind of violence is not the most frequent.^[33]^[34] Support for this typology has been found in subsequent evaluations.^[35]^[36]

Violent resistance

Violent resistance (VR), sometimes thought of as "self-defense", is violence perpetrated by victims against their partners who have exerted intimate terrorism against them.^[26] Within relationships of intimate terrorism and violent resistance, 96% of the violent resisters are women.^[2]

Situational couple violence

Situational couple violence, also called common couple violence, is not connected to general control behavior, but arises in a single argument where one or both partners physically lash out at the other.^[2]^[26] This is the most common form of intimate partner violence, particularly in the western world and among young couples, and involves members of both sexes nearly equally. Among college students, Johnson found it to be perpetrated about 44% of the time by women and 56% of the time by men.^[2]

It is a relationship dynamic "in which conflict occasionally gets ‘out of hand,’ leading usually to ‘minor’ forms of violence, and rarely escalates into serious or life-threatening forms of violence.”^[37]

In situational couple violence, acts of violence by men and women occur at fairly equal rates, with rare occurrences of injury, and are not committed in an attempt to control a partner.^[38] It is estimated that approximately 50% of couples experience situational couple violence in their relationships.^[38]

Characteristics

Situational couple violence is characterized by a few main traits:

Mode: Mildly aggressive behavior such as throwing objects, ranging to more aggressive behaviors such as pushing, slapping, biting, hitting, scratching, or hair pulling.
Frequency:Less frequent than PT, occurring once in a while during an argument or disagreement.
Severity: Milder than PT, very rarely escalates to more severe abuse, generally does not include injuries that were serious or that caused one partner to be admitted to a hospital.
Mutuality:Violence may be equally expressed by either partner in the relationship.
Intent:Occurs out of anger or frustration rather than as a means of gaining control and power over the other partner.

Mutual violent control

Mutual violent control (MVC) is rare type of intimate partner violence occurring when both partners act in a violent manner, battling for control.^[26]

Sexual violence

Sexual violence by intimate partners varies by country and can reach as high as 25% of the women having been subject to forced sex. In some countries forced sex, or marital rape, often occurs with other forms of domestic violence, particularly physical abuse.

Notes

^ Gelles 1980, 1989; McNeely and Mann 1990; Shupe, Stacey, and Hazelwood 1987; Straus 1973; Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz 1980; Steinmetz 1977/1978.

References

^ Krug, Etienne G.; Dahlberg, Linda L.; Mercy, James A.; Zwi, Anthony B.; Lozano, Rafael (2002). World report on violence and health (PDF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. ISBN 9789240681804.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Howe, Tasha R. (2012). "Families in crisis: violence, abuse, and neglect: intimate partner violence: marital rape". In Howe, Tasha R. (ed.). Marriages and families in the 21st century a bioecological approach. Chichester, West Sussex Malden, Massachusetts: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781405195010. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link) Preview.
^ García-Moreno, Claudia; Stöckl, Heidi (2013), "Protection of sexual and reproductive health rights: addressing violence against women", in Grodin, Michael A.; Tarantola, Daniel; Annas, George J.; et al. (eds.), Health and human rights in a changing world, Routledge, pp. 780–781, ISBN 9781136688638, Intimate male partners are most often the main perpetrators of violence against women, a form of violence known as intimate partner violence, 'domestic' violence or 'spousal (or wife) abuse.' Intimate partner violence and sexual violence, whether by partners, acquaintances or strangers, are common worldwide and disproportionately affect women, although are not exclusive to them.
^ Dutton, Donald G.; Nicholls, Tonia L. (2005-09-01). "The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—The conflict of theory and data". Aggression and Violent Behavior. 10 (6): 680–714. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2005.02.001.
^ Fernandez, Marilyn (2010), "Hunger for healing: is there a role for introducing restorative justice principles in domestic violence services", in Fernandez, Marilyn (ed.), Restorative justice for domestic violence victims an integrated approach to their hunger for healing, Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, pp. 2–3, ISBN 9780739148068. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Preview.
^ Krug, Etienne G.; Dahlberg, Linda L.; Mercy, James A.; Zwi, Anthony B.; Lozano, Rafael (2002). World report on violence and health (PDF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. ISBN 9789240681804.
^ WHO. Understanding and addressing intimate partner violence (PDF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. WHO/RHR/12.36.
^ Renzetti, Claire M.; Miley, Charles Harvey, eds. (1996). Violence in gay and lesbian domestic partnerships. New York: Harrington Park Press. ISBN 9781560230748.
^ ^a ^b Johnson, Michael P.; Ferraro, Kathleen J. (November 2000). "Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: making distinctions". Journal of Marriage and Family. 62 (4). Wiley for the National Council on Family Relations: 948–963. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00948.x. JSTOR 1566718. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Moreno, Claudia (2013), "Section 2: Results - lifetime prevalence estimates", in Moreno, Claudia (ed.), Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence (PDF), Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, pp. 16, 18, ISBN 9789241564625. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^ Gelles, Richard J.; Straus, Murray A. (1988), "How violent are American families?", in Gelles, Richard J.; Straus, Murray A. (eds.), Intimate violence: the causes and consequences of abuse in the American family (PDF), New York: Simon & Schuster, p. 104, ISBN 9780671682965. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c Straus, Murray A. (June 2010). "Thirty years of denying the evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence: implications for prevention and treatment". Partner Abuse. 1 (3). Springer: 332–362. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.332. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link) Pdf.
^ Steinmetz, Suzanne K. (1977–1978). "The battered husband syndrome" (pdf). Victimology. 2 (3–4). Visage Press, Inc.: 499–509. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link) NCJ 46165
^ Saunders, Daniel G. (1988), "Wife abuse, husband abuse, or mutual combat? A feminist perspective on the empirical findings", in Yllö, Kersti; Bograd, Michele Louise (eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse, Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, pp. 90–113, ISBN 9780803930537. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^ Dobash, Russell P.; Dobash, R. Emerson; Wilson, Margo; Daly, Martin (February 1992). "The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence". Social Problems. 39 (1). Oxford Journals for the Society for the Study of Social Problems: 71–91. doi:10.2307/3096914. JSTOR 3096914. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Straus, Murray A. (1999), "The controversy over domestic violence by women: a methodological, theoretical and sociology of science analysis", in Arriaga, Ximena B.; Oskamp, Stuart (eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (PDF), Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, pp. 17–44, ISBN 9780761916420. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^ Kessler, Ronald C.; Molnar, Beth E.; Feurer, Irene D.; Applebaum, Mark (July–October 2001). "Patterns and mental health predictors of domestic violence in the United States: results from the national comorbidity survey". International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, special issue: Epidemiology, forensic psychiatry, and public policy. 24 (4–5). Elsevier: 487–508. doi:10.1016/S0160-2527(01)00080-2. PMID 11521422. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Dutton, Donald G. (2006), "The domestic assault of men", in Dutton, Donald G. (ed.), Rethinking domestic violence, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, p. 140, ISBN 9781282741072. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^ ^a ^b Ling, Chan Ko (2011). "Gender Differences in Self-reports of Intimate Partner Violence: A Review" (PDF). Aggression And Violent Behavior.
^ ^a ^b ^c Caldwell, Jennifer E (2012). "Gender Differences in Intimate Partner Violence Outcomes" (PDF). Psychology of Violence ,2012, Vol. 2, No. 1, 42–5. doi:10.1037/a0026296.
^ Bair-Merritt, Megan H.; Crowne, Sarah Shea; Thompson, Darcy A.; Sibinga, Erica; Trent, Maria; Campbell, Jacquelyn (2010-10-01). "Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women's motivations". Trauma, Violence & Abuse. 11 (4): 178–189. doi:10.1177/1524838010379003. ISSN 1552-8324. PMC 2994556. PMID 20823071.
^ Swan, Suzanne C.; Gambone, Laura J.; Caldwell, Jennifer E.; Sullivan, Tami P.; Snow, David L. (2008-01-01). "A review of research on women's use of violence with male intimate partners". Violence and Victims. 23 (3): 301–314. ISSN 0886-6708. PMC 2968709. PMID 18624096.
^ Straus, Murray A. (23 May 2006). "Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations" (PDF). Trends in intimate violence intervention. New York University. Retrieved 30 April 2012. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
^ Whitaker, Daniel J.; Haileyesus, Tadesse; Swahn, Monica; Saltzman, Linda S. (May 2007). "Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence". American Journal of Public Health. 97 (5). American Public Health Association: 941–947. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020. PMC 1854883. PMID 17395835. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Johnson, Michael P. (November 2006). "Conflict and control: gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence". Violence Against Women. 12 (11). Sage: 1003–1018. doi:10.1177/1077801206293328. PMID 17043363. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link) Pdf.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Nicolson, Paula (2010), "What is domestic abuse?", in Nicolson, Paula (ed.), Domestic violence and psychology: a critical perspective, London New York: Taylor & Francis, p. 40, ISBN 9781136698613. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Preview.
^ Graham-Kevan, Nicola; Archer, John (November 2003). "Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: a test of Johnson's predictions in four British samples". Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 18 (11). Sage: 1247–1270. doi:10.1177/0886260503256656. PMID 19774764. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Rosen, Karen H.; Stith, Edd Sandra M.; Few, April L.; Daly, Kathryn L.; Tritt, Dari R. (2005). "A qualitative investigation of Johnson's typology". Violence & Victims. 20 (3). Springer: 319–334. doi:10.1891/vivi.20.3.319. PMID 16180370. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Howe, Tasha R. (2012). "Families in crisis: violence, abuse, and neglect: intimate partner violence: the gender symmetry controversy". In Howe, Tasha R. (ed.). Marriages and families in the 21st century a bioecological approach. Chichester, West Sussex Malden, Massachusetts: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781405195010. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link) Preview.
^ Bates, Elizabeth A.; Graham-Kevan, Nicola; Archer, John (January 2014). "Testing predictions from the male control theory of men's partner violence". Aggressive Behavior. 40 (1). Wiley: 42–55. doi:10.1002/ab.21499. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Leone, Janel M.; Johnson, Michael P.; Cohan, Catherine L. (December 2007). "Victim help seeking: differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence". Family Relations. 56 (5). Wiley for the National Council on Family Relations: 427–439. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00471.x. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Fernandez, Marilyn (2010), "Hunger for healing: is there a role for introducing restorative justice principles in domestic violence services", in Fernandez, Marilyn (ed.), Restorative justice for domestic violence victims an integrated approach to their hunger for healing, Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, p. 5, ISBN 9780739148068. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Preview.
^ Laroche, Denis (2008), "Classification of victims in the 2004 General Social Survey (GSS) in Canada according to Johnson's typology", in Laroche, Denis (ed.), Context and consequences of domestic violence against men and women in Canada in 2004 (pdf), Québec City, Que: Institut de la statistique Québec, p. 35, ISBN 9782550527824. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^ Jacobson, Neil; Gottman, John M. (1998). When men batter women: new insights into ending abusive relationships. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9781416551331.
^ Hamberger, L.K.; Lohr, Jeffrey M.; Bonge, Dennis; Tolin, David F. (Winter 1996). "A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions of abuse". Violence & Victims. 11 (4). Springer: 277–292. PMID 9210273. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Holtzworth-Munroe, Amy; Meehan, Jeffrey C.; Herron, Katherine; Rehman, Uzma; Stuart, Gregory L. (December 2000). "Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 68 (6). American Psychological Association via PsycNET: 1000–1019. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.68.6.1000. PMID 11142534. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Johnson, Michael P. (May 1995). "Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: two forms of violence against women". Journal of Marriage and Family. 57 (2). Wiley for the National Council on Family Relations: 283–294. doi:10.2307/353683. JSTOR 353683. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link) Pdf.
^ ^a ^b Olson, Loreen N. (March 2002). "Exploring "common couple violence" in heterosexual romantic relationships". Western Journal of Communication. 66 (1). Taylor and Francis: 104–128. doi:10.1080/10570310209374727. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 |}
+==Gender symmetry                                                                                                                                        ==
-==Gender symmetry==
 {{Main|Domestic violence against men|Domestic violence against women}}
@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 == Gender and Intimate Partner Violence ==
 A 2011 review by researcher Chan Ko Ling from the [[University of Hong Kong]] on both Western and Asian studies on intimate partner violence found that minor partner violence was equal for both men and women but more severe partner violence was more likely to be perpetrated by men.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|url = http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/134467/1/Content.pdf?accept=1|title = Gender Differences in Self-reports of Intimate Partner Violence: A Review|last = Ling|first = Chan Ko|date = 2011|journal = Aggression And Violent Behavior|doi = |pmid = |access-date = }}</ref> His analysis found that men were more likely to beat up, choke or strangle their partners while women were more likely to throw something at their partner, slap, kick, bite, punch, or hit with an object.<ref name=":0" />
@@ Line 52: / Line 53: @@
 A 2010 review published in the journal ''Trauma Violence Abuse'' also found that one of the most common reasons for women's violence were anger and self-defence.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women's motivations|url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823071|journal = Trauma, Violence & Abuse|date = 2010-10-01|issn = 1552-8324|pmc = 2994556|pmid = 20823071|pages = 178-189|volume = 11|issue = 4|doi = 10.1177/1524838010379003|first = Megan H.|last = Bair-Merritt|first2 = Sarah Shea|last2 = Crowne|first3 = Darcy A.|last3 = Thompson|first4 = Erica|last4 = Sibinga|first5 = Maria|last5 = Trent|first6 = Jacquelyn|last6 = Campbell}}</ref>Another review published journal [[Violence & Victims|''Violence and Victims'']] found that women's physical violence is more likely to be driven by self-defence and fear while men's violence is more likely to be motivated by control.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = A review of research on women's use of violence with male intimate partners|url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096|journal = Violence and Victims|date = 2008-01-01|issn = 0886-6708|pmc = 2968709|pmid = 18624096|pages = 301-314|volume = 23|issue = 3|first = Suzanne C.|last = Swan|first2 = Laura J.|last2 = Gambone|first3 = Jennifer E.|last3 = Caldwell|first4 = Tami P.|last4 = Sullivan|first5 = David L.|last5 = Snow}}</ref>
-==Reciprocal and non-reciprocal==
+==Reciprocal and non-reciprocal                                                                                                                            ==
 The United States [[Centers for Disease Control]], divide domestic violence into two types: reciprocal, in which both partners are violent, and non-reciprocal [[violence]], in which one partner is violent.<ref name="Straus_Dom">{{cite conference|url=http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf|format=PDF|first1=Murray A.|last1=Straus|title=Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations|date=23 May 2006|accessdate=30 April 2012|publisher=New York University|booktitle=Trends in intimate violence intervention}}</ref><ref name="10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020">{{Cite journal | last1 = Whitaker | first1 = Daniel J. | last2 = Haileyesus | first2 = Tadesse | last3 = Swahn | first3 = Monica | last4 = Saltzman | first4 = Linda S. | title = Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence | journal = American Journal of Public Health | volume = 97 | issue = 5 | pages = 941–947 | publisher = [[American Public Health Association]] | doi = 10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020 | pmid =  17395835| pmc =1854883 | date = May 2007 | url= http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020 | ref = harv | postscript = .}}</ref>
@@ Line 124: / Line 125: @@
 * Mutuality:Violence may be equally expressed by either partner in the relationship.
 * Intent:Occurs out of anger or frustration rather than as a means of gaining control and power over the other partner.
-====Further research====
-In 2014, Bates, Graham-Kevan & Archer found that contrary to the male control theory, women were found to be more physically aggressive to their partners than men were, and the reverse pattern was found for aggression to same-sex non-intimates.<ref name=Bates /> Furthermore, there were no substantial sex differences in controlling behavior, which significantly predicted physical aggression in both sexes. IPV was found to be associated with physical aggression to same-sex non-intimates, thereby demonstrating a link with aggression outside the family. Using Johnson's typology, women were more likely than men to be classed as "intimate terrorists," which was counter to earlier findings. Overall, these results do not support the male control theory of IPV. Instead, they fit the view that IPV does not have a special etiology, and is better studied within the context of other forms of aggression they identified three subtypes of domestic violence rather than Johnson's two: common couple violence; what they termed "intimate [[terrorism]]," noting that women and men can both use violence to control non-violent mates; and "mutual violent control" where both partners use intimate terrorism levels of violence. However, Bates, Graham-Kevan & Archer also stressed that their and Johnson's research sampling methods should be regarded as preliminary: their subjects were relatively few in number and were drawn from known crime victims or battered women, and thus may not be representative of randomized general population samples. Moreover, Bates, Graham-Kevan & Archer argued that, by relying entirely on analysis of data from one partner in an abusive relationship, Johnson's study was incomplete and skewed due to [[reporting bias]].
-In 1998, [[Milardo]] reported that women are more likely to initiate common couple violence in dating scenarios (83% of female subjects were "at least somewhat likely" to use mild to moderate violence, compared to 53% of men).<ref>{{Cite journal | last = Milardo | first = Robert M. | title = Gender asymmetry in common couple violence | journal = [[Personal Relationships]] | volume = 5 | issue = 4 | pages = 423–438 | publisher = [[Wiley-Blackwell|Wiley]] for the International Association for Relationship Research | doi = 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00180.x | date = December 1998 | url= http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00180.x | ref = harv | postscript = .}}</ref> Furthermore, men reported higher rates of fearing they would suffer common couple violence (70% of men vs. 50% of women). When questioned about the use of more serious violence analogous to [[Patriarchal]] or Intimate Terrorism, [[Milardo]] found that women were again more likely to approve of its use against a partner. However, women had higher rates of fearing they would be seriously battered.
 ===Mutual violent control===