Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Trauma Violence Abuse. 2020 Dec;21(5):922-931. doi: 10.1177/1524838018801331. Epub 2018 Nov 8.
Johnson developed a typology of intimate partner violence (IPV) which includes two different categories of violence: situational couple violence (SCV) and intimate terrorism (IT). Johnson proposed that IT is more likely to be found in clinical samples (e.g., batterer intervention programs or domestic violence shelters) compared to nonclinical (general population) samples. This meta-analysis ( = 149 studies; = 216 effect sizes) examines differences in the strengths of IPV risk markers in clinical and nonclinical samples of male perpetrators and female victims. All variables (communication and conflict resolution, demand-withdraw patterns, relationship dissatisfaction, controlling behaviors, jealousy, patriarchal beliefs, power in the relationship, and stalking) were expected to be significantly related to IPV for both clinical and nonclinical populations. However, specific variables indicative of IT (control, jealousy, patriarchal beliefs, power, and stalking) were expected to be more strongly associated with clinical samples compared to nonclinical samples. As expected, most variables were significant for clinical and nonclinical populations, and IT risk markers (control, power, jealousy, and patriarchal beliefs) were significantly stronger risk markers for IPV in clinical samples. These results indicate that Johnson's typology may be conceptualized as representing a continuum of violence, with IT being more severe due to the controlling nature of the violence. Sample type needs to be considered when research about IPV is disseminated, as different degrees of IPV (IT vs. SCV) may be present depending on sample type. Implications from this study include the need to differentiate the level of violence and to tailor intervention for IPV appropriately.
约翰逊（Johnson）提出了亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）的一种类型学，其中包括两种不同类别的暴力：情境伴侣暴力（SCV）和亲密恐怖主义（IT）。约翰逊提出，与非临床（普通人群）样本相比，IT 更有可能在临床样本（例如，虐待者干预计划或家庭暴力庇护所）中发现。这项荟萃分析（= 149 项研究；= 216 个效应量）研究了临床和非临床男性施害者和女性受害者样本中 IPV 风险标志物的强度差异。所有变量（沟通和冲突解决、需求-撤回模式、关系不满、控制行为、嫉妒、父权信仰、关系中的权力和跟踪）都预计与临床和非临床人群的 IPV 相关。然而，特定指示 IT 的变量（控制、嫉妒、父权信仰、权力和跟踪）预计与临床样本的相关性强于非临床样本。正如预期的那样，大多数变量对临床和非临床人群都是显著的，而 IT 风险标志物（控制、权力、嫉妒和父权信仰）在临床样本中与 IPV 的相关性更强。这些结果表明，约翰逊的类型学可能被概念化为代表暴力的连续体，由于暴力的控制性质，IT 更为严重。在传播有关 IPV 的研究时需要考虑样本类型，因为根据样本类型，可能存在不同程度的 IPV（IT 与 SCV）。这项研究的启示包括需要区分暴力程度，并适当调整针对 IPV 的干预措施。
