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

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.

Download Full-text

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

Violence and Victims ◽

10.1891/0886-6708.26.2.208 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 26 (2) ◽

pp. 208-217 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

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.

Download Full-text

Observing coercive control beyond intimate partner violence: Examining the perceptions of professionals about common tactics used in victimization.

Psychology of Violence ◽

10.1037/vio0000354 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jacquelynn F. Duron ◽

Laura Johnson ◽

Gretchen L. Hoge ◽

Judy L. Postmus

Keyword(s):

Intimate Partner Violence ◽

Partner Violence ◽

Intimate Partner ◽

Coercive Control

Download Full-text

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

Violence Against Women ◽

10.1177/1077801220985932 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

COVID‐19 lockdowns, intimate partner violence and coercive control

Australian Journal of Social Issues ◽

10.1002/ajs4.162 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Ciara Smyth ◽

Patricia Cullen ◽

Jan Breckenridge ◽

Natasha Cortis ◽

kylie valentine

Keyword(s):

Intimate Partner Violence ◽

Partner Violence ◽

Intimate Partner ◽

Coercive Control

Download Full-text

Perceptions of Contexts of Intimate Partner Violence Among Young, Partnered Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States

Journal of Interpersonal Violence ◽

10.1177/08862605211001472 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 088626052110014

Author(s):

Rob Stephenson ◽

Lynae A. Darbes ◽

Matthew T Rosso ◽

Catherine Washington ◽

Lisa Hightow-Weidman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Intimate Partner Violence ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Partner Violence ◽

The United States ◽

Intimate Partner ◽

Care Providers ◽

Male Couples ◽

Younger Men ◽

Sex With Men ◽

Controlling Behaviors

There has been a growth in research illustrating that gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) experience intimate partner violence (IPV) at rates that are comparable to those among heterosexual women. However, the majority of research on IPV among same-sex male couples has focused on adults, and research on the experience of IPV among younger men (those aged under 18), remains at a nascent stage, despite knowledge that IPV is often common among younger men. This article adds to the growing body of literature on IPV among young GBMSM (YGBMSM) through of an analysis of qualitative data from in-depth interviews (IDI) with GBMSM aged 15–19 ( n = 30) in romantic relationships partnerships. The study sought to explore issues of relationship development, relationship contexts, and understandings of IPV. More than one-half of the sample reported experiencing some form of IPV in their current or past relationships. Participants described a range of experiences of IPV, including physical IPV, emotional IPV, sexual IPV, and controlling behaviors. Emotional IPV in the form of negative comments and controlling behaviors such as jealousy were the most commonly reported forms of violence behaviors. Although few participants reported experiencing physical or sexual IPV, several discussed concerns about giving, and partners’ acknowledging, sexual consent. Antecedents to IPV included wanting or feeling pressured to participate in normative development milestones, short-lived relationships, and societal stigma. Interventions that develop content on IPV and that reflect the lived realities of YGBMSM who are experiencing their first relationships are urgently needed. Study findings also support the need for training teachers, health care providers, and parents to identify signs of IPV and provide them with the knowledge and skills to talk to YGBMSM about relationships and violence to reduce IPV.

Download Full-text

Intimate Partner Violence: Controlling Behavior and Triggers of Aggression

Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto) ◽

10.1590/1982-4327e3032 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 30 ◽

Author(s):

Fernanda Monteiro de Castro Bhona ◽

Carla Ferreira de Paula Gebara ◽

Ana Regina Noto ◽

Lélio Moura Lourenço

Keyword(s):

Intimate Partner Violence ◽

Partner Violence ◽

Physical Violence ◽

Personal Characteristics ◽

Qualitative Interview ◽

Intimate Partner ◽

Probabilistic Sampling ◽

Demographic Questionnaire ◽

Controlling Behavior ◽

Controlling Behaviors

Abstract It is necessary to better understand the context in which intimate partner violence occurs. This study aimed to examine the occurrence of physical violence between intimate partners, based on the reports of women involved in these situations, by identifying the circumstances in which the physical violence occurs and the presence of controlling behavior in these relationships. We conducted a community survey using probabilistic sampling (144 women), administering the following instruments: socio-demographic questionnaire, CTS2, AUDIT. Fifty-seven women of our sample reported episodes of physical violence and were invited to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview. Most of the reports obtained in the interviews did not confirm the episodes of physical violence initially identified by the scale, showing disagreements between the research instruments. Personal characteristics of the perpetrator of the violence, male alcohol use and aspects of the affective relationship were identified as important triggers of intimate partner violence. Controlling behaviors in combination with physical violence revealed varying degrees of domination occurring in the dyads.

Download Full-text

Coercive control in intimate partner violence: Relationship with women’s experience of violence, use of violence, and danger.

Psychology of Violence ◽

10.1037/vio0000158 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (5) ◽

pp. 596-604 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Melissa E. Dichter ◽

Kristie A. Thomas ◽

Paul Crits-Christoph ◽

Shannon N. Ogden ◽

Karin V. Rhodes

Keyword(s):

Intimate Partner Violence ◽

Partner Violence ◽

Intimate Partner ◽

Coercive Control ◽

Women's Experience

Download Full-text

Assessing States’ Intimate Partner Violence Offender Treatment Standards using a Principles of Effective Intervention Framework

Journal of Interpersonal Violence ◽

10.1177/08862605211050091 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 088626052110500

Author(s):

Tara N. Richards ◽

Angela R. Gover ◽

Caralin Branscum ◽

Alyssa Nystrom ◽

Taylor Claxton

Keyword(s):

Intimate Partner Violence ◽

Partner Violence ◽

Intimate Partner ◽

Effective Intervention ◽

Treatment Modalities ◽

Treatment Programs ◽

Offender Treatment ◽

Treatment Standards ◽

Risk Levels ◽

Training Requirements

Court-ordered treatment programs are a widely used response to intimate partner violence (IPV) and many states have developed standards to guide programs. The current study provides an update to Maiuro and Eberle’s. (2008) review of states’ standards and extends the literature by using the principles of effective intervention (PEIs; i.e., risk, need, responsivity, treatment, and fidelity) as an organizational framework to examine standards. Findings showed that 84% of states had standards in 2020, compared to 88% in 2007, and extensive changes both within and across states’ standards had occurred. Regarding the PEIs, in line with the risk principle most states mandated the use of risk assessments; inconsistent with the needs principle, few states used these assessments to classify clients into risk levels or inform individualized treatment. The majority of standards addressed the treatment principle by outlining a required structure and duration, but few attended to responsivity factors (e.g., identifying treatment modalities, attending to specific client factors). Regarding the fidelity principle, most standards outlined education or training requirements for staff and required periodic program reviews or audits, but few standards were evidenced-based and only about half required that programs collect data to measure effectiveness. Taken together, findings suggest that standards have continued to evolve and that the integration of PEIs into IPV treatment is only just beginning. Standards provide a rich opportunity for future researcher–practitioner partnerships in the field of IPV intervention.

Download Full-text