Lisa,

There is nowadays research on coercive control in intimate relationships. Michael P. Johnson and colleagues have written on differential trajectories and effects of different kinds of IPV that characteristically vary in their levels of coercive control perpetration/victimisation in intimate relationships. For example, perpetrators of high levels of coercive control (known as Intimate Terrorists in Johnson's typology) will typically show more severe mental health issues than perpetrators of lower levels of coercive control (e.g. "situational couple violence perpetrators). It has been found that the aetiology of these different types of IPV who vary in their use of different levels of coercive control. It has also been found that these types of IPV perpetration exist in both sexes (see Denise Hines and Straus studies with clinical and university student samples, respectively).

I myself am using such typology in researching different types of IPV in clinical samples in México. I did a study with university students with interesting findings on the impact of coercive control.

Hope this helps!

Than you, Esteban. I am familiar with the work you cite. The notion that "these types of IPV perpetration exist in both sexes" removes the difference in reported levels of fear and documented levels of injury when it is men versus women doing the controlling or violence. We cannot and should not minimize these differences.

I would be very interested in seeing the results of your study on university students. Whether it is in English or Spanish, I'd be grateful if you could share it with me. Thanks!

Lisa,

The acknowledgement of different types of IPV in both sexes should not lessen the importance on levels of fear and particularly levels of physical injury in women. Such a distinction of IPV is important because the developmental trajectories of these types of IPV are different. For example, some IPV is nested over coercive control and some IPV is borne out of the "normalisation of the use of IPV" as legitimate means of solving everyday conflict. It is essential to study IPV within the relationship dynamics where it occurs to better understand it.

I am attaching several files that are 2 articles (one submitted for publication and another one under review by my colleagues) and a book chapter (submitted for publication). This is part of my research on type of IPV with Mexican and British University students.

Hope this is helpful

Estas son las tablas del artículo anterior

Book chapter

Research paper on victimisation

It appears to me that the problem finding data on coercive control is that this is most likely a characteristic found among women using shelters or are being stalked. A premise is that the woman is too frightened to take action, hence would she call the police? And shelters generally do not include assessments in their standard practices.

Well the "characteristic" is not found among the women victims, it's found among the controlling men! As the concept of coercive control gains greater currency, I hope we will see more research in this area, conducted with community samples.

Hi. I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was asking about motives in general or those of women. In the past it has been assumed that women only use IPV for self-defense so their motives were not explored and the assumption that men used it for coercive control was assumed so other motives were not explored [or funded] and if other motives were noted they were not referenced in articles using traditional IPV theory as the basis for their studies (which has historically been most studies). Below are some excepts from a paper I am writing that might help.

The construct of power and control has been noted among drug seeking women (DeMusis, 2013). Women self-report that self-defense is a motive in their usage of IPV only 5-25% of the time. Research exploring IPV offender motives has not supported the premise that the primary use of IPV by women or men is in self-defense, and that research in this area is likely combining retaliation with the self-defense motive . A retaliatory response to emotional hurt, anger, and jealousy is a common motive for the usage of IPV The population that reports self-dfense is among those arrested -- and it interesting both men and women report close the to same level: 65%. (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, and Tritt (2004) noted a moderate correlation between physical IPV and traditional sex-role ideology; however, it was one of many variables and by no means was it close to being the most significant variable.

Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, and Silva (2001) reported that women with a history of conduct disorders are more likely to have an abusive partner; this significantly contributes to a woman’s use of IPV. Women with a juvenile history of conduct problems were likely to engage in acts of physical IPV, regardless of whether their partners did. These authors also found that a woman’s pre-disposition towards approving the use of aggression, excessive jealousy and suspicion, the tendency to experience intense and rapid emotions, and poor self-control were successfully used to predict which women would engage in acts of physical aggression. It is interesting how similar these descriptions are to Pence & Paymar's (1993) descriptions of men who use IPV.

Archer’s (2000) meta-analysis exploring gender differences in IPV found that women engaged in acts of IPV slightly more frequently than did men. When the analysis was limited to acts resulting in visible injuries, men were slightly more likely to injure their partner. Another meta-analysis evaluating aggressive behavioral patterns in “real world settings” (observational, peer-reports, and self-reports using hostility and aggression assessments) with all ages and cultures, found that physical aggression was more common among men than women in all age groups, that aggressive behavior peaked between ages 20 to 30, and that men demonstrate a slightly “greater use of costly methods of aggression [than do women] rather than a threshold difference in [their] anger” (Archer, 2004, p. 291). It is possible that usage of severe IPV resulting in subsequent injuries to women and that 70% of female assault victims treated in hospital emergency rooms were IPV victims (Yau, 2013) are significant contributors to the cultural perception that men are the “true” IPV offenders, thereby supporting traditional IPV advocates focus on men for treatment.

DeMusis, K. (2013). "She snapped!" examining women arrested for intimate partner violence: Dynamics, implications and next steps. (Doctoral dissertation).

Langhinrichsen- Rohling, J., McCullars, A., & Misra, T. (2012). #10 Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 1-33.

Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65-98. 10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001

Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., Rutter, M. & Silva, P. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour : Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651-680. 10.1037// 0033-2909.126.5.651

Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291-322. 10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291

Yau, R., Staton, D., & Davidson, L. (2013). Violence: Recognition, management and prevention. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 45(3), 441–449. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2013.05.005

And an extra that is interesting:

Ward, R. & Muldoon, J. (2007). Female tactics and strategies of intimate partner violence: A study of incidents reports. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 337-364.

Say, I just ran across this study providing data on men and women's usage of coercive control. You might look at the assessment they are using and then look at articles citing it to find some additional studies.

Article:

Swan, S. C., & Snow, D. L. (2002). A typology of women's use of violence in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 8(3), 286-319. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10778010222183071

Assessment:

Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of

women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4, 159-178.

Hi.

Ran across this study. It is the validity and reliability study for a measurement of coercive control. The author notes that there is no distinction between women experiencing iPV who are not seeking services women who are satisfied with their relationship and no IPV. There is a difference with women seeking services. It seems like this would support Johnson's two IPV construct.

Tolman, R. M. (1999). The validation of the psychological maltreatment of women inventory. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 25-37.

Hi. Interesting idea. As far as I am aware there is no research linking trauma and the use of coercive control by perpetrators specifically. However, Donald Dutton conducted research re trauma in IPV perpetrators. I think research in that area is hampered by problems with the coercive control construct. See below an interesting references for the scientific study of the coercive control concept, its assessment, and its problems:

Dutton, Mary Ann, & Goodman, Lisa A. (2005). Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52(11-12), 743. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6

I agree with Kathy that the psychological/emotional abuse venue might be useful to pursue. See below for an interesting measure as an example:

Murphy, C. M., & Hoover, S. A. (1999). Measuring emotional abuse in dating relationships as a multifactorial construct. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 39-53. doi: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1999-08235-003

I hope that helps.

Svenja

You may look my research....

Please give me some help finding it--links or--better yet--PDFs. THank you!

You might like to read:

Evan Stark (2007). Coercive Control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press: New York. 

Also Bancroft, L., Silverman, J.G. & Ritchie, D. (2012) The Batterer as Parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics (2nd Ed). Sage: LA/London/New Delhi/Singapore.  

This book has great descriptions of coercive control tactics employed by perpetrators against women and children.

Thanks ALison. I do find these books helpful. Bancroft's work is based on groups that he's run--not research. I think they're interesting but I'm also wondering about RESEArCH on perpetrators of coercive control

And Stark's book is brilliant and groundbreaking for sure. But he focuses more on victims and the legal situation.

These are both great sources, I just hoped there might be more available!

Lisa

Hi Lisa.  

Bancroft et al 2012 (the second edition) cite research throughout supportive of their findings from the 2000 interviews Bancroft has conducted with men who use domestic violence against women. I agree with you about the importance of Stark's book, which I found conceptually helpful in describing the coercive tactics employed by men who abuse women.

Alison