October is designated National Domestic Violence Awareness Month by the National Network to End Domestic Violence. University of Illinois human development and family studies professor Jennifer Hardesty is an expert on intimate partner violence (IPV), especially violence that occurs during separation or divorce. Hardesty spoke recently with social work editor Sharita Forrest about her most recent research, which examined the concept of coercive control within abusive relationships.
Your paper emphasized the need to develop a standardized approach for classifying the types of IPV based upon the frequency of coercive control tactics being used, rather than the number of tactics used. Why are these distinctions important for research, practice and policy on IPV?
Most researchers agree that there are different types or contexts of violence in intimate relationships – for example, coercive controlling violence and situational couple violence, which have different dynamics and result in different short- and long-term effects.
Coercive control has become central to distinguishing between the two types of violence. For example, coercive controlling violence occurs within the context of a larger relationshipwide motive of one partner to control the daily activities and autonomy of the victim, and it’s associated with more frequent and severe physical violence.
Situational violence tends to result from arguments or situations that escalate to physical acts and is not part of a pattern of domination and isolation. Both are problematic, but by treating all violence the same we miss the opportunity to match interventions and assessments to individual needs.
Furthermore, treating all violence as situational denies the pervasive and persistent effects of being controlled.
Past studies have often measured high coercive control based on the number of tactics used, such as monitoring a partner’s time or limiting contact with friends, which may not be as useful as measuring it based on the frequency of a given act.
A controlling partner may rely on a limited number of different control tactics, but use that tactic 24/7. This persistent control tells us more about the victim’s experience than the number of tactics.
Does coercive control occur in relationships without IPV? And are these tactics harbingers that a partner is likely to perpetrate physical violence?
It’s been said that all partners, to some extent, control one another by influencing their activities, goals and interests, but this is different from the persistent and pervasive nature of coercive control.
Coercive control can occur without physical violence, but it has been found to be associated with perpetration of violence, so yes, controlling behaviors can be red flags.
Survivors often can look back at behaviors that occurred prior to physical violence and identify them as controlling in hindsight. For example, their partner may constantly monitor their activities through repeated texting or calling, or restricting their time with others. These behaviors may not seem too concerning early on because they may be perceived as their partner being interested in what they’re doing or wanting to spend all their time together.
Historically, coercive control has been studied in conjunction with physical or sexual violence; thus, we don’t know as much about it in relationships without physical violence.
A new study that I co-wrote with one of my doctoral students, Kimberly Crossman, focused on nonviolent coercive control to explore whether it is effective without physical violence. We found that women in the nonviolent coercive control group reported similar levels of fear and coping strategies as women in the violent coercive control group, and all were in need of support and services.
Most of the attention about domestic violence focuses on physical assault. What help is available for women who experience coercively controlling abuse?
Without the occurrence of physical violence or physical injury, women may be limited in the amount of help they receive from the police or in legal settings.
Current screenings and assessments in health care settings that focus on physical violence may not identify other types of abuse or may deter providers from acknowledging the serious consequences of coercive control, which may include post-traumatic stress, depression and low self-esteem.
Regular assessments for coercive control should occur in various practice-oriented settings along with screenings for violence to provide adequate services to women who seek help or are in need of resources.
To contact Jennifer Hardesty, call 217-333-0725; e-mail hardesty@illinois.edu
The study “Toward a Standard Approach to Operationalizing Coercive Control and Classifying Violence Types,” published in the August issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family, is available online from Wiley Library or from the News Bureau.
The study “He Could Scare Me Without Laying a Hand on Me: Mothers’ Experiences of Nonviolent Coercive Control During Marriage and After Separation,” accepted for publication in the journal Violence Against Women, is available online or from the News Bureau.
