Victim Help Seeking: Differences Between Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence

Abstract: Research indicates that two major forms of partner violence exist, intimate terrorism (IT) and situational couple violence (SCV). The current study (N = 389) used a subgroup of women who responded to the Chicago Women's Health Risk Study to examine whether type of violence experienced is differentially related to formal (e.g., police, medical agencies, counseling) and informal (e.g., family, friends/neighbors) help seeking. IT victims were more likely to seek each type of formal help but were equally or less likely to seek informal help. Findings can inform both family violence research and the development and implementation of social service programs. Key Words: coercive control, consequences of violence, domestic violence, help seeking, intimate partner violence. Current research indicates that partner violence is not a unitary phenomenon and that distinct types or subgroups of violent partners exist (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003; Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart, 2000; Jacobson & Gottman, 1998; Macmillan & Gartner, 1999; Tweed & Dutton, 1998). Johnson (1995) has argued that two major forms of partner violence exist: one embedded in a general pattern of power and control, which he has called "intimate terrorism" (IT), and the other a response to a situationally specific conflict, which he has called "situational couple violence" (SCV). Violence type is assessed by considering the context of nonviolent, controlling behavior (e.g., isolation, threats, economic abuse) in which the violence exists, particularly differences between motivation to generally control versus violence that is more situationally rooted (Johnson, 1995, 2001, 2005; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). The physical and sexual violence associated with the pattern of control that defines IT effectively entraps victims in the relationship by creating an overwhelming sense of fear and by diminishing victims' personal resources (e.g., confidence, self-esteem), financial resources (e.g., money to escape, stable employment), and contact with support networks (e.g., family, friends, shelters). SCV does not exist within a context of control but is enacted as a means of controlling a specific situation or context and is often a disagreement that escalates into violence. Although IT is associated with more severe, frequent physical violence compared to SCV (see Johnson & Leone, 2005; Leone, Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004), the types are not defined in terms of violence severity or frequency. Therefore IT is not a more severe "stage" of SCV but rather a different phenomenon, which among heterosexual couples may be rooted in patriarchal ideas about gender and the social acceptance of violence against women. Studies utilizing Johnson's typology show that IT and SCV have significantly different outcomes for victims, with IT victims reporting more symptoms of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as more injuries (Johnson & Leone, 2005; Leone et al., 2004). Piispa (2002) found that victims of physical violence involving severe psychological abuse (likely IT) reported more fear and sleeping and concentration difficulties and lower self-esteem compared to women who experienced isolated incidents of violence not involving emotional abuse (likely SCV). Thus, the nature of the violence and its context significantly predict consequences for victims. It is likely that violence type is also associated with different patterns of help seeking, given the differences in psychological and physical consequences among these two groups of victims. A next step, therefore, is to study differences in help-seeking patterns among women experiencing either IT or SCV. The current study examines the utility of theoretically and empirically derived variables to predict the likelihood that women engage in formal and informal help seeking. Research on Victim Help Seeking The psychosocial needs of women in violent relationships can be immense, with many women requiring legal, economic, and health services, as well as housing, child care, and general social support (Sullivan, Basta, Tan, & Davidson, 1992; Weisz, Tolman, & Bennett, 1998). …