This study examines M. P. Johnson's assertion that violence in marital unions is more likely to be intimate terrorism (IT) and violence in cohabiting unions is more likely to be situational couple violence (SCV). Having overcome limitations of the data on which Johnson based his assertion, the results show that cohabiting and married victims of violence are equally likely to report experiencing SCV and IT. Moreover, cohabitors have higher odds of experiencing SCV and IT compared to their counterparts living in a marital union. These marital status differences are explained by selection and relationship factors theorized to account for them. Although the SCV IT typology does appear to shed light on gender differences, the results of this study suggest that, where relevant, researchers using this typology should not neglect risk factors derived from theories for understanding intimate partner violence (IPV). (Published Abstract)