Relationships and Health 427Some studies have tried to distinguish
intimate terrorism from situational couple
violence. Although the majority of violence
is situational couple violence, there are more
severe consequences associated with inti-
mate terrorism (Johnson, 2008). Intimate
terrorism is more likely to be associated with
injury, missed work, distress, doctor visits,
and overall poorer health (Johnson, 2008;
Johnson & Leone, 2005). These findings may
explain why IPV is more strongly related to
distress and poor health among female than
male victims (Afifi et al., 2009; Williams &
Frieze, 2005). It is because females are more
likely than males to be victims of the more
severe form of IPV-intimate terrorism.Characteristics of Perpetrator
and Victim
The characteristics of female and male perpe-
trators are quite similar. Many have a history
of aggression and substance use (Carney et al.,
2007). Both women and men who engage in
IPV as adults are often exposed to violence
as a child, as either the subject of or a witness
to violence (Afifi et al., 2009; Godbout et al.,
2009; Gratz et al., 2009; Nabors & Jasinski,
2009). However, that link seems to be stron-
ger for those who engage in intimate terror-
ism rather than situational couple violence
(Johnson, 2009). Lower education also seems
to be associated with both the perpetration
and being a victim of IPV (Leone et al., 2004).
IPV is associated with more traditional
gender-role attitudes. One longitudinal study
showed that this relation was largely due to
violence leading to changes in gender-role atti-
tudes rather gender-role attitudes leading to vi-
olence (Nabors & Jasinski, 2009). In this study,
engaging in IPV was associated with greater ac-
ceptance of gender-role stereotypes in women
and men and an increase in acceptance ofCares, 2005). Overall, then, severity is not the
likely explanation for why the data suggest
similar rates of violence by women and men.
Another reason for the higher than
expected rates of female perpetration of
violence has to do with less public disap-
proval of this kind of violence. Female–male
violence is judged less serious than male–
female violence (Seelau & Seelau, 2005).
A cross-cultural survey of dating couples
showed that students were more approving
of women slapping men than men slapping
women in all 31 universities (Straus, 2004).
Across the universities, 76% found it accept-
able for a woman to slap a man, whereas only
42% found it acceptable for a man to slap a
woman.
However, the primary reason that the
data do not support people’s views of IPV is
that there are different kinds of IPV. Johnson
(2008) distinguishes between three kinds of
IPV: (1)intimate terrorism, (2) violent re-
sistance, and (3)situational couple violence.
The first two are connected. Intimate terror-
ism differs from other kinds of violence in
that it is rooted in control. Violent resistance
involves violent efforts on the part of the vic-
tim to resist this control. Intimate terrorism
involves the systematic repetition of violence
and the use of the control tactics shown in
Figure 11.12. Situational couple violence, by
contrast, refers to the occasional episodes of
violent behavior on the part of husbands and
wives precipitated by stressful events; it is
not linked to the power imbalance between
men and women or to efforts on the part of
one person to control the other. Surveys do
not distinguish among these kinds of vio-
lence. Men are likely to perpetrate intimate
terrorism, whereas women and men are
equally likely to engage in situational couple
violence. And, situational couple violence is
more common than intimate terrorism.M11_HELG0185_04_SE_C11.indd 427 6/21/11 12:43 PM