Extending Johnson's Typology: Additional Manifestations of Dating Violence and Coercive Control.

In this study, we explored patterns of violence and coercive control in young adult dating relationships by testing and extending Johnson's typology of intimate partner violence. Young adults (N = 398) between 18 and 27 years old completed an online survey about experiences of violence and coercive control in current and past dating relationships. Using cluster analysis, we classified relationships as no/low coercive control and high coercive control. We then categorized relationship types according to Johnson's typology using the coercive control clusters and the absence/presence of violence. In total, 35% of relationships were abusive (i.e., violent and/or high coercive control), with 24% of all reported relationships including violence with and without high coercive control, and 11% including nonviolent coercive control. Among violent relationships, situational couple violence was more common than other types of dating violence, and two additional types of violence were found: (a) violence toward a nonviolent coercive controlling partner and (b) nonviolent coercive control toward an intimate terrorist, both of which are potentially types of resistance distinct from Johnson's concept of violent resistance. Additionally, victims of intimate terrorism and victims of nonviolent coercive control were significantly more fearful of their partners than victims of situational couple violence, and victims of situational couple violence did not differ in their fear of partners compared to respondents in nonabusive relationships. These findings identify additional abusive relationship types and elucidate the importance of extending Johnson's typology to more comprehensively capture the complex dynamics of coercive control and/or violence in young adult dating relationships.

Centering Transgender Survivors' Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization: A Critique of Dominant Approaches to Research and Service Provision.

Transgender (trans) survivors are infrequently included in the intimate partner violence (IPV) literature, and they are rarely the central subjects of IPV research. Similarly, trans survivors are rarely at the center of IPV service provision. In this article we articulate the importance of centering trans survivors in IPV research and practice through developing a nuanced understanding of the unique manifestations of abuse for trans individuals. Using intersectionality (Collins, 2019; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991) as our theoretical framework, we discuss the manifestations of dominance in trans IPV research and service provision. Specifically, we explain how cissexism, binarism, trans misogyny, and dysphoria reify White supremacist cisheteropatriarchy in intimate relationships, research, and service provision. We argue the importance of researchers and service providers alike to recognize and detect identity abuse tactics as well and how they contribute to the unique barriers trans survivors encounter to access resources and their help-seeking behaviors. With a more nuanced understanding of the ways that White supremacist cisheteropatriarchy affect trans individuals' experiences of IPV, researchers and service providers will be better able to understand and respond to abuse tactics used against trans people.

Satisfaction, safety, and supports: Comparing people with disabilities' insider experiences about participation in institutional and community living.

BACKGROUND: Legislation and court decisions in the United States mandate the right to least restrictive community living and participation for people with disabilities, yet little research has examined differences in participation across institutional and community settings, or over time in the community post-transition. OBJECTIVE: As part of a multi-site participatory action research project examining participation, we examined the differences in quality of life in institutional and community living environments among people with disabilities. METHODS: We conducted surveys with adults with disabilities between 18 and 65 years-old that transitioned from institutions to the community in the United States within the last five years. This paper reports on findings for a diverse sample of 150 participants. RESULTS: We found significant differences between ratings of institutional and community experiences, with increased reports of satisfaction, personal safety, service access, and participation in community settings. We also found significant improvements in community integration and inclusion after transition to community living, although barriers to transportation and activity access often remained. CONCLUSIONS: This study of insider experiences of previously institutionalized people with disabilities illuminates important understandings of community participation, integration, and quality of life for the disability community in the United States.

A quantitative study of attitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability: Do stakeholders agree?

BACKGROUND: Attitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability inform research policy and practice, impact interest in and support for research participation, and promote or discourage the generation of new knowledge to promote health among adults with intellectual disability. Yet we know little about these beliefs among the public and the scientific community. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: We quantitatively studied attitudes among adults with intellectual disability, family and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. We predicted that adults with intellectual disability, and researchers would espouse views most consistent with disability rights, whereas IRB members, and to a lesser degree family, friends, and service providers, would espouse more protective views. METHODS: We surveyed five hundred and twelve members of the five participant stakeholder groups on their attitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability. RESULTS: We found broad support for research about people with intellectual disability, though slightly more tempered support for their direct participation therein. In general, IRB members and to some extent adults with intellectual disability endorsed direct participation less than others. We also found that adults with intellectual disability strongly believed in their consent capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Resources should be directed toward health-related research with adults with intellectual disability, and interventions should be pursued to address ethical challenges and promote beliefs consistent with human rights.

What's the Harm? Harms in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability.

Scientific advances can improve the lives of adults with intellectual disability, yet concerns that research participation may impose harm impede scientific progress. What counts as harmful can be subjective and perceptions of harm may vary among stakeholders. We studied perspectives on the harmfulness of research events among adults with intellectual disability, family members and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board members. We found considerable variance. For example, adults with intellectual disability see exclusion from research as more harmful, but most psychosocial harms as less significant than others. All stakeholders agree that having someone else make the participation decision is harmful. Findings provide insights into the concept of harm and ethical research with adults with intellectual disability.

Is It Worth It? Benefits in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability.

Including adults with intellectual disability in research promotes direct benefits to participants and larger societal benefits. Stakeholders may have different views of what count as benefits and their importance. We compared views on benefits in research with adults with intellectual disability among adults with intellectual disability, family and friends, service providers, researchers, and institutional review board members. We found that adults with intellectual disability value direct and indirect research benefits, and want to participate in research that offers them. Other stakeholders generally see less value in direct benefits and predict more tempered interest in research participation as compared to adults with intellectual disability. To promote respectful research participation, research policy and practice should incorporate the views of adults with intellectual disability.

Is Safety in the Eye of the Beholder? Safeguards in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability.

Human subjects research has a core commitment to participant well-being. This obligation is accentuated for once exploited populations such as adults with intellectual disability. Yet we know little about the public's views on appropriate safeguards for this population. We surveyed adults with intellectual disability, family members and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members to compare views on safeguards. We found many points of convergence of views, particularly for decision-making and participation. One trend is that adults with intellectual disability perceive greater safety in being engaged directly in recruitment, and recruitment by specific individuals. Researchers and IRB members need to consider community views to facilitate the safe and respectful inclusion of adults with intellectual disability.

Reexamining issues of conceptualization and willing consent: the hidden role of coercion in experiences of sexual acquiescence.

This study problematizes the literature's conceptualization of sexual compliance, predominantly defined as willing participation in, and consent to, unwanted sexual activity in the absence of immediate partner pressure. Using a feminist theoretical framework, we argue that covert forms of social coercion, including normalized expectations for heterosexual women to participate in sexual activity and maintain relationship satisfaction, ultimately pressure women into participating in unwanted sexual activity. In other words, immediate partner pressure is not necessary for a sexually coercive experience to occur. Results of the current study indicate that relationship control and media influence significantly predict sexual acquiescence, and women acquiesce to unwanted sexual activity in an effort to maintain relationships and partner satisfaction as well as to avoid negative outcomes. Women cite various forms of social coercion, such as fulfilling sexual scripts and relationship obligations, as primary reasons for participating in unwanted sexual activity without resisting their partners.