Coercive control during the transition to parenthood: An overlooked factor in intimate partner violence and family wellbeing?

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa H. Gou ◽  
Kari N. Duerksen ◽  
Erica M. Woodin
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Transition To Parenthood ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Coercive Control ◽  
Family Wellbeing

scholarly journals COVID‐19 lockdowns, intimate partner violence and coercive control

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciara Smyth ◽  
Patricia Cullen ◽  
Jan Breckenridge ◽  
Natasha Cortis ◽  
kylie valentine
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Coercive Control

Factors Distinguishing Reciprocal Versus Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence Across Time and Reporter

2021 ◽  
pp. 088626052110014
Author(s):  
Doris F. Pu ◽  
Christina M. Rodriguez ◽  
Marina D. Dimperio
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Transition To Parenthood ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Couple Functioning ◽  
Female Perpetrators ◽  
Over Time

Although intimate partner violence (IPV) is often conceptualized as occurring unilaterally, reciprocal or bidirectional violence is actually the most prevalent form of IPV. The current study assessed physical IPV experiences in couples and evaluated risk and protective factors that may be differentially associated with reciprocal and nonreciprocal IPV concurrently and over time. As part of a multi-wave longitudinal study, women and men reported on the frequency of their IPV perpetration and victimization three times across the transition to parenthood. Participants also reported on risk factors related to personal adjustment, psychosocial resources, attitudes toward gender role egalitarianism, and sociodemographic characteristics at each wave. Participants were classified into one of four IPV groups (reciprocal violence, male perpetrators only, female perpetrators only, and no violence) based on their self-report and based on a combined report, which incorporated both partners’ reports of IPV for a maximum estimate of violence. Women and men were analyzed separately, as both can be perpetrators and/or victims of IPV. Cross-sectional analyses using self-reported IPV data indicated that IPV groups were most consistently distinguished by their levels of couple satisfaction, across gender; psychological distress also appeared to differentiate IPV groups, although somewhat less consistently. When combined reports of IPV were used, sociodemographic risk markers (i.e., age, income, and education) in addition to couple functioning were among the most robust factors differentiating IPV groups concurrently, across gender. In longitudinal analyses, sociodemographic vulnerabilities were again among the most consistent factors differentiating subsequent IPV groups over time. Several gender differences were also found, suggesting that different risk factors (e.g., women’s social support and men’s emotion regulation abilities) may need to be targeted in interventions to identify, prevent, and treat IPV among women and men.

Intimate Partner Violence and Coparenting Across the Transition to Parenthood

2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marni L. Kan ◽  
Mark E. Feinberg ◽  
Anna R. Solmeyer
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Transition To Parenthood ◽  
Intimate Partner

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 596-604 ◽  
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

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.

The Involvement of Children in Postseparation Intimate Partner Violence in Italy: A Strategy to Maintain Coercive Control?

Affilia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-497
Author(s):  
Mariachiara Feresin ◽  
Federica Bastiani ◽  
Lucia Beltramini ◽  
Patrizia Romito
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Coercive Control ◽  
Multimethod Research ◽  
Complex Design ◽  
Qualitative Part ◽  
Depth Interviews

Violence against women often continues after couples separate. Although the involvement of children in intimate partner violence is known, no study has investigated the role of children in postseparation violence in southern Europe. The aim of this study was to analyze male perpetrators’ strategies to maintain control over the woman after couples separate and the involvement of children in this process. We designed a multimethod research with a sample of women attending five anti-violence centers in Italy: In the quantitative part, women were interviewed with a questionnaire ( N = 151) at baseline and followed up 18 months later ( N = 91); in the qualitative part, in-depth interviews were carried out with women ( N = 13) attending the same centers. Results showed that women experienced high levels of violence and that children were deeply involved. When women with children were no longer living with the violence perpetrator, threats, violence, manipulation, and controlling behaviors occurred during father–child contacts: 78.9% of women in the longitudinal survey and all women in the qualitative study reported at least one of these unsettling behaviors. The qualitative study allowed for discovering some specific perpetrator strategies. Making the woman feel guilty, threatening, denigrating, and impoverishing her; preventing her from living a normal life; and trying to destroy the mother–child bond were key elements of a complex design aimed at maintaining coercive control over the ex-partner. Results from this multimethod study provided a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of coercive control and postseparation violence and how perpetrators use children to fulfill their aims.

scholarly journals Intimate Partner Violence Experiences of Sexual and Gender Minority Adolescents and Young Adults Assigned Female at Birth

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 232-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah W. Whitton ◽  
Christina Dyar ◽  
Brian Mustanski ◽  
Michael E. Newcomb
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Sexual Minority ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Minority Youth ◽  
Coercive Control ◽  
Gender Minority ◽  
Sexual And Gender Minority ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Cyber Abuse

Sexual and gender minority youth, especially those assigned female at birth, are at risk for intimate partner violence (IPV) due to minority stressors. With a sample of 352 sexual and gender minority youth assigned female at birth (ages 16–32), we aimed to describe IPV in this population, including the prevalence, directionality, frequency, co-occurrence, and demographic correlates of various IPV types. Rates of past-6-month IPV were high, with victimization and perpetration of minor psychological IPV most common (64–70%); followed by severe psychological, minor physical, and coercive control (21–33%); and severe physical and sexual IPV (10–15%). For cyber abuse and IPV tactics leveraging anti-sexual minority stigma, victimization (12.5% and 14.8%, respectively) was more common than perpetration (8% and 5.7%, respectively). Most IPV was bidirectional and occurred 1–2 times in 6 months, although the frequency varied considerably. Latent class analyses revealed that half of the participants reported no or minimal IPV; one-third experienced multiple forms of psychological IPV (including coercive control); and 10–15% reported psychological, physical, sexual, and cyber abuse. Racial minority youth had higher rates of most IPV types than White participants. We hope study findings will inform policies and interventions to prevent IPV among gender and sexual minority youth assigned female at birth.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document