Typological approaches

Vic

  • Judicial College of Victoria, Family Violence Bench Book (2014).
    5.2.2 discusses how some researchers have categorised different types of intimate partner violence using typologies (including the Kelly and Johnson typology) based on the role of violence in the context of the relationship, and notes that caution has been expressed by some commentators about this approach.

WA

  • Department of Justice (WA), Equal Justice Bench Book (2nd edition September 2017).

    Note: Chapter 13 Family and Domestic Violence is currently under review. Until revision is completed, the first edition chapter 13 applies. The following text is based on the first edition chapter.

    See [13.2.1] ‘Theories of family and domestic violence’, which discusses the development of models to understand family and domestic violence. It notes the development from models understanding domestic violence as a function of mental illness or mental triggers (such as anger/stress/loss of control), to the theory of victims suffering from learned helplessness, to a family conflict model, to an understanding of the theory of Stockholm Syndrome. It notes that ‘While there is no such thing as a “typical” perpetrator of domestic violence, studies reveal certain common behaviours among these men’, going on to discuss the ‘Power and Control Wheel’ as the best tool to capture the dynamics of domestic and family violence.

Canada

  • Neilson, Linda C, Domestic Violence Electronic Bench Book (National Judicial Institute, 2017).
    See Supplementary Reference 1: Developing research: distinguishing types of violence: ‘[t]his section discusses a developing body of domestic violence research that is identifying differences in forms of heterosexual male and female violence in intimate relationships’. It explores Michael Johnson’s distinctions around violence, but also cautions about ‘[d]ifferential assessment of violence’ due to the controversies around the research that has been conducted on distinctions between different types of violence. It states that ‘[i]t is not possible to identify scientifically, with confidence or with clarity, the boundaries between repetitive or severe 'situational violence' and coercive 'domestic violence'’.