Women and Men’s Use of Coercive Control in Intimate Partner Violence

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsten Robertson ◽  
Tamar Murachver
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Coercive Control ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Violent Relationships ◽  
Three Samples ◽  
Conflict Tactics ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Controlling Behaviors

This study examined the relationship between coercive control and intimate partner violence (IPV) for men and women and for targets and perpetrators. One hundred and seventy-two participants (85 men, 87 women) recruited from three samples reported on their own and their partner’s behavior. IPV was measured using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2). Coercive control was measured using modified items from the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI). Coercive control was associated with IPV, and this relationship was similar for men and women across the three samples. In fact, coercive control was predominantly reciprocal in nature, with women and men reporting both receiving and perpetrating controlling behaviors. Overall, coercive controlling behaviors were characteristic of individuals within violent relationships, regardless of their physical abuse status. The experience of violence, rather than gender, was the best predictor of coercive control.

Coercive Controlling Behaviors and Reporting Physical Intimate Partner Violence in Australian Women: An Exploration

2021 ◽  
pp. 107780122098593
Author(s):  
Brittany Patafio ◽  
Peter Miller ◽  
Arlene Walker ◽  
Kerri Coomber ◽  
Ashlee Curtis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Physical Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Differential Utility ◽  
And Control ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Controlling Behaviors

This study explores two approaches to measuring coercive controlling behaviors (CCBs)—counting how many different CCB types and examining the frequency of each CCB experienced—to examine their utility in explaining the relationship between CCBs and physical intimate partner violence (IPV). Australian women aged 18–68 years ( n = 739; Mage = 31.58, SDage = 11.76) completed an online survey. Count and frequency CCB approaches yielded similar significant associations with increased physical IPV. Both approaches suggest that frightening behaviors in particular are significantly indicative of also experiencing physical IPV; however, when you count CCB types, public name-calling becomes important, whereas when you examine the frequency of each CCB type, jealousy/possessiveness becomes important. These findings suggest differential utility between measures of CCBs, which examine the frequency of specific CCB types and which count CCB types, and that both approaches are useful in understanding how coercion and control relate to physical violence within intimate relationships.

Chivalry vs. Patriarchy: Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of Physical Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ara A'Court
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Ambivalent Sexism ◽  
Benevolent Sexism ◽  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
Gendered Theory ◽  
The Relationship

<p>Two leading theories propose different reasons for men’s and women’s intimate partner violence (IPV). The gendered theory proposes that society’s patriarchal norms of male dominance and female subordination cause men’s IPV towards women. From this perspective, violence against ‘wives’ is condoned by society, and women only perpetrate IPV in self-defence against men’s primary violence. Conversely, the chivalrous theory of IPV explains women’s IPV perpetration in terms of society’s chivalrous norms, which protect women from male violence and emboldens women to physically assault male partners. From this perspective, women’s violence is not considered harmful to men. As gendered theory and chivalrous theory both reference stereotyped gender attitudes (sexism) towards women, I used the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI) to test the competing theories efficacy in explaining IPV perpetration by heterosexual men and women. The ASI conceptualises sexist attitudes towards women as comprised of two parts: hostile sexism (reflecting the hostility towards women outlined by gendered theory), and benevolent sexism (reflecting the benevolence towards women outlined by chivalrous theory). Gendered theory states that society condones violence towards women. Thus, men’s attitudes approving of male-perpetrated IPV should mediate the relationship between men’s hostile sexism and IPV, if gendered theory predictions are correct. Alternatively, chivalrous theory poses that society does not approve of violence towards women. Thus, attitudes disapproving of men’s IPV against women and approving of women’s IPV towards men should mediate the relationship between benevolent sexism and IPV if chivalrous theory is correct. I hypothesized men’s increased hostile sexism would predict men’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against women, and men’s increased benevolent sexism would predict men’s decreased IPV perpetration through decreased approval of IPV against women. Further, I hypothesised that women’s increased hostile sexism would predict women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men, and women’s benevolent sexism would predict increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men. North American men and women (N = 688) filled out an online questionnaire measuring experiences of IPV as victims and/or perpetrators, approval of male and female IPV perpetration, and hostile and benevolent sexism. Multi-group structural equation modelling tested the extent to which positive attitudes toward intimate partner violence mediated the association between sexism and IPV perpetration for men and for women. Results found that, for both men and women, increased hostile sexism predicted greater IPV perpetration through greater approval of men’s IPV against women. Furthermore, increased benevolent sexism predicted women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of men’s IPV against women. Men’s increased benevolent sexism did not predict men’s lower IPV perpetration or disapproval of IPV against women. However, men’s and women’s ambivalent sexism also predicted greater approval of women’s IPV towards men. Results did not fully support patriarchal or chivalrous predictions, instead aligning well with ambivalent sexism theory which posits a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the relationship between sexism and IPV perpetration. Reducing all forms of sexism and men’s and women’s positive attitudes toward the use of IPV are identified as important targets for IPV treatment and prevention.</p>

Young Women’s Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Patterns Across Multiple Relationships

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 430-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angie C. Kennedy ◽  
Deborah Bybee ◽  
Heather L. McCauley ◽  
Kristen A. Prock
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Young Women ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Multiple Relationships ◽  
Coercive Control ◽  
Relationship Length ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence Victimization ◽  
Occurrence Patterns ◽  
The Relationship

We explored patterns of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization at the relationship level within a socioeconomically diverse sample of young women who had experienced IPV. We recruited from a university, a 2-year college, and high-risk community settings. Drawing on life course theory and utilizing the life history calendar, we conducted retrospective interviews with 148 young women aged 18–24 about partner victimization (physical IPV, coercive control, and sexual IPV) within each relationship, beginning with their first (up to four relationships; 388 total). We assessed patterns of IPV across participants’ relationship histories: rates of the three IPV types and co-occurrence, by setting and relationship number; relationship length in association with the number of IPV types; and transitions into and out of abusive relationships. Coercive control was the most common IPV type across Relationships 1–4 (46–58% of relationships), followed by physical IPV (42–54%) and sexual IPV (29–34%); the most common co-occurrence patterns were physical IPV plus coercive control and all three IPV types combined. Relationships lasted 15–24 months on average, and relationship length was positively associated with the number of IPV types. Transitions were heterogeneous, with systematic, positive change in physical IPV from Relationships 1 to 2; setting was not associated with transition patterns. In the future, researchers should explore a relationship-level approach; prevention and intervention efforts should integrate sexual assault and partner violence, begin early, and target all youth. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ’s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0361684318795880 .

Patterns in Coercive Controlling Behaviors Among Men Mandated for Batterer Treatment: Denial, Minimization, and Consistency of Tactics Across Relationships

Partner Abuse ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa Barbaro ◽  
Chitra Raghavan
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Romantic Relationship ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Subsequent Treatment ◽  
Treatment Programs ◽  
Coercive Control ◽  
Batterer Treatment ◽  
Treatment Relationship ◽  
Controlling Behaviors

The current study sought to explore if perpetrators of intimate partner violence use coercive control behaviors in their first romantic relationship and subsequent treatment relationship, how behaviors are recalled, if there is a pattern in the behaviors used, and the denial and minimization techniques to explain coercive control behaviors. In their first relationship narratives, 48.15% recalled a fight with 14.8% reporting coercive control behaviors. In narratives from the treatment relationships, 61.73% reported coercive control behaviors. Denial and minimization tactics were present as participants described fights where coercive control tactics were used. Results and their implications for treatment programs will be discussed.

The Role of Violence Acceptance and Inequitable Gender Norms in Intimate Partner Violence Severity Among Couples in Zambia

2019 ◽  
pp. 088626051987672
Author(s):  
Shoshanna L. Fine ◽  
Jeremy C. Kane ◽  
Sarah M. Murray ◽  
Stephanie Skavenski ◽  
Saphira Munthali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Relationships ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Gender Norms ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Heterosexual Couples ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
The Relationship

Inequitable gender norms, including the acceptance of violence in intimate relationships, have been found to be associated with the occurrence of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration and victimization. Despite these findings, few studies have considered whether inequitable gender norms are related to IPV severity. This study uses baseline data from a psychotherapeutic intervention targeting heterosexual couples ( n = 247) in Lusaka, Zambia, who reported moderate to severe male-perpetrated IPV and male hazardous alcohol use to consider: (a) prevailing gender norms, including those related to IPV; (b) the relationship between IPV acceptance and IPV severity; and (c) the relationship between inequitable gender norms and IPV severity. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to model the relationships between IPV acceptance and inequitable gender norms, and female-reported IPV severity (including threats of violence, physical violence, sexual violence, and total violence), separately among male and female participants. In general, men and women were similar in their patterns of agreement with gender norms, with both highly endorsing items related to household roles. More than three-quarters of men (78.1%) and women (78.5%) indicated overall acceptance of violence in intimate relationships, with no significant differences between men and women in their endorsement of any IPV-related gender norms. Among men, IPV acceptance was associated with a statistically significant increase in IPV perpetration severity in terms of threatening violence ( B = 5.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.84, 9.89]), physical violence ( B = 4.54, 95% CI = [0.10, 8.98]), and total violence ( B = 11.65, 95% CI = [3.14, 20.16]). There was no association between IPV acceptance and IPV victimization severity among women. Unlike IPV acceptance, there was no evidence for a relationship between inequitable gender norms and IPV severity for either men or women. These findings have implications for the appropriateness of gender transformative interventions in targeting men and women in relationships in which there is ongoing IPV.

scholarly journals Chivalry vs. Patriarchy: Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of Physical Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ara A'Court
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Ambivalent Sexism ◽  
Benevolent Sexism ◽  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
Gendered Theory ◽  
The Relationship

<p>Two leading theories propose different reasons for men’s and women’s intimate partner violence (IPV). The gendered theory proposes that society’s patriarchal norms of male dominance and female subordination cause men’s IPV towards women. From this perspective, violence against ‘wives’ is condoned by society, and women only perpetrate IPV in self-defence against men’s primary violence. Conversely, the chivalrous theory of IPV explains women’s IPV perpetration in terms of society’s chivalrous norms, which protect women from male violence and emboldens women to physically assault male partners. From this perspective, women’s violence is not considered harmful to men. As gendered theory and chivalrous theory both reference stereotyped gender attitudes (sexism) towards women, I used the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI) to test the competing theories efficacy in explaining IPV perpetration by heterosexual men and women. The ASI conceptualises sexist attitudes towards women as comprised of two parts: hostile sexism (reflecting the hostility towards women outlined by gendered theory), and benevolent sexism (reflecting the benevolence towards women outlined by chivalrous theory). Gendered theory states that society condones violence towards women. Thus, men’s attitudes approving of male-perpetrated IPV should mediate the relationship between men’s hostile sexism and IPV, if gendered theory predictions are correct. Alternatively, chivalrous theory poses that society does not approve of violence towards women. Thus, attitudes disapproving of men’s IPV against women and approving of women’s IPV towards men should mediate the relationship between benevolent sexism and IPV if chivalrous theory is correct. I hypothesized men’s increased hostile sexism would predict men’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against women, and men’s increased benevolent sexism would predict men’s decreased IPV perpetration through decreased approval of IPV against women. Further, I hypothesised that women’s increased hostile sexism would predict women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men, and women’s benevolent sexism would predict increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men. North American men and women (N = 688) filled out an online questionnaire measuring experiences of IPV as victims and/or perpetrators, approval of male and female IPV perpetration, and hostile and benevolent sexism. Multi-group structural equation modelling tested the extent to which positive attitudes toward intimate partner violence mediated the association between sexism and IPV perpetration for men and for women. Results found that, for both men and women, increased hostile sexism predicted greater IPV perpetration through greater approval of men’s IPV against women. Furthermore, increased benevolent sexism predicted women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of men’s IPV against women. Men’s increased benevolent sexism did not predict men’s lower IPV perpetration or disapproval of IPV against women. However, men’s and women’s ambivalent sexism also predicted greater approval of women’s IPV towards men. Results did not fully support patriarchal or chivalrous predictions, instead aligning well with ambivalent sexism theory which posits a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the relationship between sexism and IPV perpetration. Reducing all forms of sexism and men’s and women’s positive attitudes toward the use of IPV are identified as important targets for IPV treatment and prevention.</p>

Animal Maltreatment as a Risk Marker of More Frequent and Severe Forms of Intimate Partner Violence

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (23-24) ◽  
pp. 5131-5156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betty Jo Barrett ◽  
Amy Fitzgerald ◽  
Rochelle Stevenson ◽  
Chi Ho Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Companion Animals ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Abusive Relationship ◽  
Abuse Severity ◽  
New Findings ◽  
Conflict Tactics ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Pet Abuse

Although there is a growing body of literature documenting the co-occurrence of animal abuse and intimate partner violence (IPV), only a few studies have examined the relationship between animal maltreatment, types of IPV, and abuse severity. The results of those studies have been inconclusive and in some cases even contradictory. The current study contributes new findings to that specific segment of the literature and sheds some light on the inconsistent findings in previous studies. Data were gathered from 86 abused women receiving services from domestic violence shelters across Canada via a structured survey about pet abuse and the level and types of IPV perpetrated by abusive partners. Type and severity of IPV was measured using subscales of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) and the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB). Animal maltreatment was measured using the Partner’s Treatment of Animals Scale (PTAS). Participants were divided into three groups: women who did not have pets during their abusive relationship ( n = 31), women who had pets and reported little or no animal maltreatment ( n = 21), and women who had pets and reported frequent or severe animal maltreatment ( n = 34). Examining within-group variations in experiences of IPV and pet abuse using a series of one-way between-groups ANOVA tests, this study provides evidence to support the conclusion that women who report that their partner mistreated their pets are themselves at significantly greater risk of more frequent and severe forms of IPV, most specifically psychological, physical, and sexual abuse. The findings point to the urgency of better understanding and mitigating the unique barriers to leaving an abusive relationship faced by women with companion animals.

Childhood Sexual Abuse and Antisocial Traits and Behaviors: A Gendered Examination of the Factors Associated With Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (20) ◽  
pp. 3125-3161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle A. Cubellis ◽  
Bryce Elling Peterson ◽  
Alana M. Henninger ◽  
Daiwon Lee
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Abuse ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Hierarchical Linear Modeling ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Mediating Effect ◽  
Physical Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
And Behaviors ◽  
The Relationship

The current study addressed the relationship between child sexual abuse (CSA) and perpetration of physical intimate partner violence, examining the possible mediating effect of antisocial traits and behaviors, as well as the differences in these relationships between men and women. Data came from the International Dating Violence Study. Hypotheses were tested on a sample of 13,659 university students from 68 sites and 32 countries using hierarchical linear modeling. Results indicated that CSA was significantly associated with perpetration of physical intimate partner violence for both men and women. The slope of the relationships, however, varied across sites for women. Antisocial traits and behaviors fully mediated the relationship between CSA and perpetration of physical intimate partner violence for women but only partially mediated this relationship for men. Increased focus needs to be paid to gender differences on the effect of CSA on the development of antisocial traits and behaviors, the relationship between these factors and perpetration of intimate partner violence, and the variation of these relationships across nations.

Abusive Men's Use of Children to Control Their Partners and Ex-Partners

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marisa L. Beeble ◽  
Deborah Bybee ◽  
Cris M. Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Emotional Abuse ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Anecdotal Evidence ◽  
Multiple Variables ◽  
The Relationship

While research has found that millions of children in the United States are exposed to their mothers being battered, and that many are themselves abused as well, little is known about the ways in which children are used by abusers to manipulate or harm their mothers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that perpetrators use children in a variety of ways to control and harm women; however, no studies to date have empirically examined the extent of this occurring. Therefore, the current study examined the extent to which survivors of abuse experienced this, as well as the conditions under which it occurred. Interviews were conducted with 156 women who had experienced recent intimate partner violence. Each of these women had at least one child between the ages of 5 and 12. Most women (88%) reported that their assailants had used their children against them in varying ways. Multiple variables were found to be related to this occurring, including the relationship between the assailant and the children, the extent of physical and emotional abuse used by the abuser against the woman, and the assailant's court-ordered visitation status. Findings point toward the complex situational conditions by which assailants use the children of their partners or ex-partners to continue the abuse, and the need for a great deal more research in this area.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document