Citation

Leone JM, Johnson MP, Cohan CL, Lloyd SE. J. Marriage Fam. 2004; 66(2): 472-490.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, National Council on Family Relations, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00032.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The current study used a random sample of 563 low-income women to test Johnson's (1995) theory that there are two major forms of male-partner violence, situational couple violence and intimate terrorism, which are distinguished in terms of their embeddedness in a general pattern of control. The study examined the associations between type of violence experienced and respondents' physical health, psychological distress, and economic well-being. Analyses revealed three distinct patterns of partner violence: intimate terrorism, control/no threat, and situational couple violence. Compared to victims of control/no threat and situational couple violence, victims of intimate terrorism reported more injuries from physical violence and more work/activity time lost because of injuries. Compared to women who experienced no violence in the previous year, victims of intimate terrorism reported a greater likelihood of visiting a doctor, poorer health, more psychological distress, and a greater likelihood of receiving government assistance.