| Civilian research has established that intimate partner violence (IPV) is not a unitary phenomenon. To further understanding of how IPV differs within a civilian population, typologies have been developed to distinguish among various patterns (Johnson, 2006; Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Messinger, Fry, Rickert, & Catallozzi, 2014). IPV research on military populations has also identified the existence of different patterns of physical violence that vary by the type of violence, levels of severity of the violence, direction of violence and risk factors for violence (Forgey & Badger, 2006; Forgey & Badger, 2010; McCarroll, Ursano, Fan, & Newby, 2004; McCarroll, Fan, & Bell, 2009) however, no formal typology of IPV has been developed yet specifically for a military population. Questions also remain as to the applicability of the existing civilian typologies to a military population. The purpose of this qualitative study was to further IPV pattern research within the military that will inform the development of a military specific IPV typology. Through the mining and analysis of case information collected by the Army as part of their IPV assessment process, this study found more specific details about intimate partner violence patterns, as well as, a proposed military specific IPV typology. Out of the 391 couples studied, the eight most frequent couple patterns that emerged included: 1. Male Mild Conflict to Female Mild Conflict (n=41, 10.5%); 2. Male Severe Power and Control to Female No Violence (n=40, 10.2%); 3. Male Mild Conflict to Female No Violence (n=34, 8.7%); 4. Female Mild Conflict to Male No Violence (n=30, 7.7%); 5. Female Unknown to Male No Violence (n=22, 5.6%); 6. Male Unknown to Female No Violence (n=19, 4.9%); 7. Male Severe Power and Control to Female Mild Self-Defense (n=14, 3.6%); 8. Male Mild Psychological Impairment to Female No Violence (n=11, 2.8%). |
