Intimate Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: A Test of Johnson's Predictions in Four British Samples
Abstract
This study sought to both replicate and considerably extend the findings of Johnson (1999) that there are two distinct subgroups of physical aggression within relation-ships: intimate terrorism and common couple violence. The present sample consisted of women residing at Women's Aid shelters and their partners (N = 86), male and female students (N = 208), men attending male treatment programs for domestic violence and their partners (N = 8), and male prisoners and their partners (N = 192). Respondents completed measures on physical aggression, injuries sustained, escalation of physical aggression, and controlling behaviors. Cluster analysis was employed to categorize relationships as either intimate terrorism or common couple violence. Frequency analysis showed broad support for Johnson's findings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Controlling Behaviors Scale-Revised was the second most frequently used coercive control measure (n = 7).
“The Controlling Behaviors Scale-Revised (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003) was the second most frequently used measure (n = 7), followed by the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (MMEA; Murphy et al., 1999) (n = 6), particularly the Restrictive Engulfment Subscale (MMEA-RE).”
From The Trauma and Mental Health Impacts of Coercive Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003
Cites
Education Groups for Men Who Batter
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993) · doi:10.1891/9780826179913 · Cited by 1,064 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Violence against women and mental health
Oram, S., Khalifeh, H., & Howard, L. M. (2017) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(16)30261-9 · Cited by 474 · see citing works
Coercive Control: Update and Review
Stark, E., & Hester, M. (2019) · Violence Against Women · doi:10.1177/1077801218816191 · Cited by 430 · see citing works
Psychosocial Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence for Women and Men in Canada
Ansara, D. L., & Hindin, M. J. (2011) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260510370600 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Prevalence of Partner Abuse: Rates of Emotional Abuse and Control
Carney, M. M., & Barner, J. R. (2012) · Partner Abuse · doi:10.1891/1946-6560.3.3.286 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Fortin, I., Guay, S., Lavoie, V., Boisvert, J.-M., & Beaudry, M. (2012) · Journal of Family Violence · doi:10.1007/s10896-011-9402-4 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
The Trauma and Mental Health Impacts of Coercive Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Lohmann, S., Cowlishaw, S., Ney, L., O’Donnell, M., & Felmingham, K. (2024) · Trauma, Violence, & Abuse · doi:10.1177/15248380231162972 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
“The Controlling Behaviors Scale-Revised (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003) was the second most frequently used measure ( n = 7), followed by the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (MMEA; Murphy et al., 1999) ( n = 6), A bu s e S c a l e ( H e ga r t y e t a l., 1999 , 2005 ) ; C AA S = C h i n…”
Method
- Authors
- Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Central Lancashire,
- University of Central Lancashire
- Venue
- Journal of Interpersonal Violence
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1247-1270
- ISSN
- 0886-2605
- 1552-6518
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
