The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Development and Validation of a Coercive 

Control Measure for Intimate Partner Violence: 

Final Technical Report 

Author(s): Mary Ann Dutton ; Lisa Goodman ; R. James 

Schmidt 

Document No.: 214438 

Date Received: June 2006 

Award Number: 2001-WT-BX-0503 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure 

for Intimate Partner Violence 

Final Technical Report 

Mary Ann Dutton 

Lisa Goodman 

R. James Schmidt 

December 30, 2005 

Submitted by: 

COSMOS Corporation 

3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 400 

Bethesda, Maryland 20814 

Prepared for: 

National Institute of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

U.S. Department of Justice 

810 Seventh Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20531 
Acknowledgements 

The authors wish to thank the following individuals for their support during this study: our 

National Institute of Justice project monitors, Leora Rosen, Ph.D., M.P.H. and Bernard Auchter; 

staff of the Violence Against Women Office; and members of our advisory panel—Joyce Chung, 

M.D., Sarah Cook, Ph.D., Walter DeKeseredy, Ph.D., Ed Gondolf, Ed.D., Michael Johnson, 

Ph.D., Lucy Laufe, Ph.D., Leslye Orloff, J.D., Sue Osthoff, Rose Pulliam, M.S.W., and Rachel 

Rodriguez, Ph.D. 

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the many professionals in the field of 

intimate partner violence who reviewed the study instrument, as well as the hundreds of men and 

women who shared their personal experiences with coercive control and intimate partner 

violence with the study team. Their contribution is the cornerstone of this study. 

The authors would also like to thank other persons who contributed to the completion of the 

project and the report—from COSMOS Corporation: Aileen Worrell, Darci Terrell, Oscar 

Espinosa, Alissa Fujimoto, Katherine Page, Bob Johnson, Nyala Watkins, Maren Nyer, Ada 

Cruz, and Elizabeth Circo; from Boston College: Rachel Latta, Amanda Bohlig, Sarah 

Weintraub, Lauren Gentile, Jay Morrison, and Gloria Pearce. 

This project was supported by Grant Number 2001-WT-BX-0503 awarded by the National 

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in 

this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 i 
Note 

This is a technical report of the methods and procedures used in the development of the 

coercive control measure. Scientific reports of findings of the study are currently being 

submitted to other professional publications. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 ii 
 CONTENTS

Page 

Section 

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... i 

Abstract..................................................................................................................................v 

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................1 

1. Introduction to the Study..............................................................................................1 

1.1 Description of the Problem.......................................................................................1 

1.2 Conceptualization of Power in Social Relationships ...............................................3 

1.3 Conceptualization and Measurement of Coercion in IPV........................................4 

1.4 Description of the Study Goals and Objectives .......................................................5 

2. Study Design and Methodology....................................................................................6 

2.1 Study Design ............................................................................................................6

2.2 Study Phase 1: Development of a Conceptual Model of Coercive Control..........10 

2.2.1 Literature Review ..................................................................................10 

2.2.2 Initial Development of the Conceptual Model of Coercive Control .....11 

2.2.3 Ethnographic Data Collection................................................................12 

2.3 Study Phase 2: Development of the Coercive Control Survey .............................15 

2.3.1 Development of the Coercive Control Measure ....................................15 

2.3.2 Consensus Ratings of the Draft Coercive Control Measure ..................16 

2.3.3 Development of the Coercive Control Survey.......................................20 

2.4 Study Phase 3: Testing the New Measure of Coercive Control ............................23 

2.4.1 Recruitment and Training for Survey Administrators ...........................23 

2.4.2 Survey Administration Sites and On-Site Respondent Recruitment .....24 

2.4.3 Administration of the Coercive Control Survey and In-depth 

Interview Protocol .................................................................................26 

2.4.4 Tracking and Processing Completed Survey Materials .........................28 

2.4.5 Raffle Procedures...................................................................................28 

2.4.6 Electronic Data Scanning.......................................................................30 

2.5 Study Phase 4: Data Analysis................................................................................30 

2.5.1 Item Analysis .........................................................................................31 

2.5.2 Scale Analysis........................................................................................31 

3. Results of the Study .....................................................................................................32 

3.1 Development of Coercion Related Measures .........................................................32 

3.1.1 Demands ................................................................................................32 

3.1.2 Surveillance ...........................................................................................33 

3.1.3 Coercion.................................................................................................33 

3.1.4 Involvement of Third Party....................................................................34 

3.1.5 Response to Coercion—Respondent .....................................................34 

3.2 Psychometric Validity of Coercion Measure........................................................35 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 iii
3.3 Preliminary Test of Gender and Perpetrator/Victim Differences in 

Coercion-Related Measures .................................................................................35 

3.4 Dissemination .......................................................................................................35 

References............................................................................................................................36 

Exhibits 

1-1 Johnson’s Typology of IPV............................................................................................3 

2-1 Nested Ecological Model of Intimate Partner Violence.................................................6 

2-2 Coercive Control Survey: Breakdown of Response by Site, Gender, and 

 Victim/Perpetrator Status ...............................................................................................8 

2-3 Respondent Recruitment by Site ....................................................................................8 

2-4 Sample Characteristics ...................................................................................................9 

2-5 Search Terms Utilized for Literature Search at PyschINFO ........................................11 

2-6 Description of Ethnographic Interview Participants ....................................................13 

2-7 Number of Interviews with Professionals....................................................................14 

2-8 Sample Screen Shots from the On-line Version of the Consensus Rating Survey: 

Instruction and Definition Pages ..................................................................................19 

2-9 Sample Screen Shots from the On-line Version of the Consensus Rating Survey:

Section A—Partner’s Expectation Or Demands ..........................................................20 

2-10 Procedures for Electronically Scanning Survey Data via TeleForm............................30 

Appendices 

A. Advisory Panel and Project Team Members 

B. What The Literature (and Categories of Literature) Tell Us: The In-Depth Overview 

C. Synopsis of Listserv Discussion on the Conceptual Framework for the Development 

Of a Coercive Control Measure 

D. Materials from the Ethnographic Interviews 

E. Materials from the Interviews with Professionals 

F. Potential Constructs to Assess in Interview 

G. Development of Coercive Control Measure: Conceptual Framework and Model 

H. Materials from the Advisory Panel Meeting 

I. Transmittal E-Mail and Consensus Rating Survey 

J. Coercive Control Survey, In-depth Interview Protocol, and Consent Forms 

K. Training Materials for Survey Administration 

L. Letters to Court Stakeholders 

M. Dissemination Products 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 iv
Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure 

for Intimate Partner Violence 

Abstract 

Project Goals and Objectives 

Two decades of research on intimate partner violence (IPV) have failed to resolve the 

controversy concerning gender symmetry. Based on the position by advocates and the work of 

Johnson (2000) and others, it seems clear that the notion of nonviolent coercive control should 

be included in future work on typologies of IPV. However, ongoing efforts to understand the 

relational context of IPV are hampered by two significant obstacles: 1) the field has yet to 

develop a clear theoretical understanding of coercive control; and 2) there exists no adequate 

measure of “nonviolent coercive control” for IPV. 

The overall goal of this project was to address the issues raised above in the development of 

a measure of nonviolent coercive control for use in the measurement of IPV. Specific objectives 

were: 1) to develop a conceptual model of coercive control; 2) to develop an ecologically and 

statistically valid instrument to measure coercive control; 3) to evaluate psychometric properties 

of the coercive control measure; and 4) to conduct a preliminary test of the usefulness of the 

measure for validating Johnson’s (2000) typology of IPV. 

Research Design and Methodology 

The study team developed a conceptual model of coercive control (Objective 1) by 

conducting a comprehensive literature review and refining the model through collaboration with 

a panel of experts. An ecologically and statistically valid measure of nonviolent coercive control 

was developed (Objective 2) by using ethnographic and classical test theory methodologies to 

construct the measure. The psychometric properties of the newly developed coercive control 

measure (Objective 3) were assessed in a total sample (n = 757) that included both males (n = 

302) and females (n = 448), those reporting IPV victimization only (n = 139), IPV perpetration 

only (n = 39), both IPV victimization and perpetration (n = 245), and neither IPV victimization 

nor perpetration (n = 334) (see Exhibit 2-2). Respondents were recruited from community 

agencies involving identified IPV victims and perpetrators, agencies providing non-IPV services 

to demographically similar participants, community college settings, and general public 

community settings. A preliminary test of Johnson’s (2000) typology of IPV (Objective 4) was 

conducted using data from the validation groups. 

Conclusions 

Psychometric analysis of Coercion, Demand, Surveillance, and Response scales found 

evidence for hypothesized factors. Convergent and predictive validity of the Coercion measure 

was also found. 

Reference 

Johnson, M.P., and Kathleen J. Ferraro, “Research on Domestic Violence in the 1990s: Making 

Distinctions,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, November 2000, 62(4):948-963. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 v 
Executive Summary 
Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure 

for Intimate Partner Violence 

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

For decades now, battered women’s advocates have placed the notion of coercive 

control squarely at the center of their analysis of intimate partner violence (IPV). Indeed, 

they have defined IPV as a “pattern of coercive control” (Pence and Paymar, 1993) in 

which the batterer asserts his power over the victim through the use of threats, as well as 

actual violence. Violence is simply a tool, within this framework, that the perpetrator 

uses to gain greater power in the relationship in order to deter or trigger specific 

behaviors, win arguments, or demonstrate dominance (Dobash and Dobash, 1992). Other 

tools might include isolation, intimidation, threats, withholding of necessary resources 

such as money or transportation, and abuse of the children, other relatives, or even pets. 

Explaining the Duluth Model, a widely used batterer treatment program, Pence (1993), 

one of its founders, wrote that the program “assumes battering is not an individual 

pathology or mental illness but rather just one part of a system of abusive and violent 

behaviors to control the victim for the purposes of the abuser” (p. 30). And, in an 

eloquent description of “battered women’s” responses, Stark (1995) wrote: 

Physical violence may not be the most significant factor about most 

battering relationships. In all probability, the clinical profile revealed by 

battered women reflects the fact that they have been subjected to an 

ongoing strategy of intimidation, isolation, and control that extends to all 

areas of a woman’s life, including sexuality; material necessities; 

relations with family, children, and friends; and work. Sporadic, even 

severe violence makes this strategy of control effective. But the unique 

profile of “the battered woman” arises as much from the deprivation of 

liberty implied by coercion and control as it does from violence-induced 

trauma (p. 987).

 Yet, despite this common assumption, borne out every day in the horrific stories 

told by battered women throughout the country, surprisingly little work has been done to 

conceptualize and measure the key construct of coercive control. In the absence of a 

clear conceptualization, measures of coercion, usually embedded within broader 

measures of psychological abuse, are neither comprehensive nor internally consistent. 

Researchers have variously included behaviors ranging from verbal put-downs to 

intimidation to kidnapping under the rubric of coercion. For a number of reasons, 

detailed below, the need for a tighter conceptualization and operationalization of this 

notion has gained new urgency in recent years. 

First, despite over two decades of research on intimate partner violence (IPV), 

controversy concerning “gender symmetry,” or the relative use of violence by men vs. 

women is more heated than ever. This controversy has come to a head recently, as more 

and more women are being arrested in cases that police officers perceive as “mutual 

violence.” One tradition of research—mainly conducted by family researchers—has 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 1 
consistently produced results indicating that women and men use violence at equal rates, 

and in some cases, women use violence more often (Straus and Gelles, 1990). Another 

body of research has demonstrated that men use violence, including homicide, against 

their female partners more often than women use violence against their male partners 

(Bachman and Saltzman, 1995) and that women’s use of violence largely involves selfdefense or fighting back (DeKeseredy et al., 1997; Saunders, 1986). Many researchers 

have pointed out that one reason (among many) for the absence of consensus on the 

relative use of violence by men vs. women is that measurement of violent acts alone 

cannot adequately characterize violence in intimate partner relationships (DeKeseredy 

and Schwartz, 1998; Dutton, 1996; Edleson and Tolman, 1992; Smith, Smith, and Earp, 

1999; Yoshihama, 2000). Rather, it is necessary to understand the use of, and response 

to, IPV in the context of the relationship and the cultural, social, and institutional systems 

within which the perpetrator and victim live (Dutton, 1996; Edleson and Tolman, 1992). 

Central to this context is the role of coercion. Greater attention to the role of coercion 

would enable researchers to sort out gender differences in the very nature of 

topographically similar acts, as well as their effects on victims’ psychological well-being 

and future behavior. 

A second and related reason for the urgent need to conceptualize and measure 

coercive control in violent relationships is the growing interest in developing subtypes of 

intimate partner violence, rather than lumping them together under one common rubric. 

A rubric that would enable us to make better distinctions could be extremely useful in 

numerous arenas, including batterer treatment, risk assessment, and safety planning for 

victims. A leader in this effort, Johnson (Johnson and Ferraro, 2000) has noted that: 

Partner violence cannot be understood without acknowledging important 

distinctions among types of violence, motives of perpetrators, the social 

locations of both partners, and the cultural contexts in which violence 

occurs (p. 948). 

Three chief features of Johnson’s typology are: 1) his consideration of the couple as 

the unit of analysis; 2) his inclusion of women’s potential use of violence; and, most 

relevant for this paper, 3) his focus on the broader context of potential coercion and 

control in intimate partner relationships. Finally, and perhaps most urgently, the role of 

coercive control in IPV needs to be more thoroughly understood in the legal context. In 

that context, domestic violence is usually understood as a one-size-fits-all category, based 

on acts of assault alone without regard to the coercive context in which they occur. That 

is, the coercion in which an assault is imbedded helps to define its level of severity. 

Moreover, the role of coercive control in extracting criminal conduct is rarely considered 

in criminal cases (Colvin et al., 2001). 

Much work needs to be done to bring the notion of coercion in IPV into the legal 

arena. Without attention to this critical element of IPV, legal actors hear only parts of the 

stories that victims bring them every day in court. A more discriminating understanding 

of the nature of specific IPV crimes, including the element of coercion, would help secure 

more appropriate sentencing, as well as treatment, for the perpetrators and more effective 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 2 
safety planning for victims (Erskine, 1999). In this grant, we applied the social power 

model (Raven, 1993; Molm, 1997), particularly its characterization of coercion, to the 

conceptualization and measure development of coercive control in relationships 

involving intimate partner violence. The hypothesized theoretical model of coercion in 

intimate partner violence is illustrated in Exhibit 1. Coercive control in intimate partner 

violence is posted as a dynamic process linking a demand with a credible threatened 

negative consequence for noncompliance. 

Measurement Of Coercion 

A multiple-step process, including ethnographic interviews, interviews with 

professionals, advisory panel, and expert consensus panel, was used to develop the 

measure of IPV coercion. The measurement of IPV coercion—consisting of three 

interrelated scales (demands, coercion, surveillance)—was developed as a set of new 

measures of coercion in intimate relationships. 

Demands made by partner to respondent and demands made by respondent to 

partner were measured by two separate sets of 48 items. The hypothesized factor 

structure for demands was supported by confirmatory factor analysis. These factors 

represent the following nine subscales (see Exhibit 2): 

1. Personal activities/Appearance 

2. Support/Social life/Family 

3. Household 

4. Work/Economic/Resources 

5. Health 

6. Intimate relationship 

7. Legal 

8. Immigration 

9. Children/Parenting 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 3 
• 

demand or expectation 

• 

consequence for 

• 

to carry out threatened consequence, 

A

• 

i

ion 

including party 

• 

- Communicate readiness 

IPV) 

- Manipulation 

- Creating indebtedness 

• • • Facilitating

Agent Target 

MOTIVATION / INTENTION / 

SOCIAL ECOLOGY 

d

Exhibit 1 

COERCIVE THREAT 

Communication of 

Communication of threat 

of meaningful negative noncompliance 

Communication of ability 

including involvement 

of third party 

PPRAISAL (OR UNDERSTANDING 

OF) OF COERCIVE THREAT 

Target’s perception of likelihood that 

the agent w ll carry out threat of contingent and meaningful negative consequences for noncompliance with a demand or expectat

SURVEILLANCEinvolvement of thi

SETTING THE STAGE 

Creating vulnerabilities 

- Communicate willingness 

- Communicate ability (e.g., prior

Exploiting existing vulnerabilities Wearing down resistance 

 attachment 

VULNERABILITY TO COERCION 

PERSONAL GAIN 

MODEL OF INTIMATE PARTNER 

COERCIVE CONTROL 

B
Exhibit 2 

DEMAND ITEMS, BY SUBSCALE 

Subscales Demand Items 

Personal • Leaving the house (e.g. not want you to leave) Activities/Appearance • Eating 

• Sleeping in certain places or at certain times 

• Wearing certain clothes 

• Maintaining a certain weight 

• Using TV, radio, or the internet 

• Viewing sexually explicit material 

• Bathing or using the bathroom 

• Answering the phone 

• Reading certain things 

Support/Social • Talking on the phone Life/Family • Spending time with friends or family members 

• Going to church, school, or other community activities 

• Talking to a counselor, clergy, or someone else about 

personal or family matters 

• Taking care of dependent relatives 

• Taking care of pets 

Household • Taking care of the house 

• Buying or preparing foods 

• Living in certain places 

Work/Economic/ • Working Resources • Spending money, using credit cards or bank accounts 

• Learning another language 

• Going to school 

• Using the car or truck 

Health • Using street drugs 

• Using alcohol 

• Going to the doctor 

• Taking medication or prescriptions drugs 

Intimate Relationship • Talking to your partner 

• Spending time with your partner 

• Separating or leaving the relationship 

• Having sex 

• Using birth control/condoms 

• Doing certain sexual behaviors 

• Having sex in exchange for money, drugs, or other things 

• Photographing you nude or while having sex 

Legal • Talking to police or lawyer 

• Doing things that are against the law 

• Carrying a gun or knife 

• Talking to child protection authorities 

• Talking to landlord or housing authorities 

Immigration • Filing citizenship papers 

• Talking to the immigration authorities 

• Immigration sponsorship 

Children/Parenting • Taking care of children 

• Disciplining the children 

• Making every day decisions about the children 

• Making important decisions about the children 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 5 
The core measure of IPV coercion, a 31-item coercion scale, consists of three 

subscales measuring threats contingent on noncompliance with demands made: threat of 

harm to agent (e.g., kill), threat of harm to self (e.g., suicide), and threat of harm to others 

(e.g., kidnap a child) (see Exhibit 3). The hypothesized factor structure for coercion was 

supported by confirmatory factory analysis. 

Subscales 

Harm to You 

Harm to Partner 

Harm to Others 

Exhibit 3 

COERCION ITEMS, BY SUBSCALE 

Coercion Items 

• Say something mean, embarrassing or humiliating to you 

• Keep you from seeing or talking to family or friends 

• Tell someone else personal or private information about you 

• Keep you from leaving the house 

• Limit your access to transportation 

• Physically hurt you 

• Try to kill you 

• Scare you 

• Have sex with someone else 

• Leave the relationship or get a divorce 

• Not let you take medication 

• Put you in a mental hospital 

• Cause you to lose your job 

• Keep you from going to work 

• Cause you to lose your housing 

• Hurt you financially 

• Cause you legal trouble 

• Have you arrested 

• Threaten to have you deported 

• Force you to engage in unwanted sex acts 

• Force you to participate in or observe sex acts with others 

• Destroy legal papers 

• Destroy or take something that belongs to you 

• Physically hurt or kill your pet or other animal 

• Not let you see your child or take your children from you 

• Threaten to commit suicide 

• Actually attempt to harm or kill himself/herself 

• Say something mean or hurtful to your friends or family 

members 

• Physically hurt a friend or family member 

• Try to kill a friend or family member 

• Destroy property of family members or friends 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 6 
The 13-item surveillance scale taps behaviors used to determine whether the agent 

in fact did what was demanded (see Exhibit 4). A hypothesized one-factor model was 

confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. 

Exhibit 4 

SURVEILLANCE ITEMS 

• Checked or opened your mail or personal papers/journal 

• Kept track of telephone/cell phone use 

• Called you on the phone 

• Told you to carry a cell phone or pager 

• Checked your clothing 

• Checked the house 

• Checked receipts/checkbook/bank statements 

• Checked the car (odometer, where parked) 

• Asked the children, neighbors, friends, family or coworkers 

• Told you to report your behavior to him/her 

• Used audio or video tape recorder 

• Spied on, followed, or stalked you 

• Your partner didn't need to check; your partner just acted like he/she knew 

In addition, a response to coercion scale—a measure of behaviors used to respond to 

coercion (threats of harm) was developed. A hypothesized one-factor model was not 

supported by confirmatory factor analysis. Rather, two factors (direct response, indirect 

response) emerged in EFA as the best fitting model (see Exhibit 5). 

Exhibit 5 

RESPONSE ITEMS, BY SUBSCALE 

Indirect (n=11) Direct (n=5) 

1 Did what your partner wanted, even though you didn't 8 Fought back physically 

want to 

2 Refused to do what he/she said 9 Used/threatened to use a weapon against him/her 

3 Tried to talk your partner out of wanting you to do it 14 Filed for a civil protection order 

4 Lied about having done what your partner wanted 15 Called the police 

5 Sought help from someone else 16 Tried to get criminal charges filed 

6 Tried to distract your partner 

7 Tried to avoid him/her 

10 Left home to get away from him/her 

11 Ended (or tried to end) the relationship 

12 Argued back verbally 

13 Did nothing—just didn't do it 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 7 
Methods 

Seven hundred fifty-seven adults were participants in the study. Males and females 

from the metropolitan Washington, DC and Boston areas were included. Recruitment 

sites were selected in order to include individuals both who had and had not experienced 

IPV perpetration and IPV victimization (see Exhibit 6). 

Selection criteria included the following: 1) involvement in an intimate partner 

relationship within the past 12 months, and 2) 18 years of age or older. Respondents 

were excluded if they exhibited signs of intoxication or other indications of a lack of 

coherence sufficient to complete the survey. Respondents were samples to maximize 

diversity. Respondent characteristics are summarized in (see Exhibit 7). 

Exhibit 6 

COERCIVE CONTROL SURVEY: 

 BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSE BY SITE, GENDER, AND 

VICTIM /PERPETRATOR STATUS 

Site Gender IPVVictim IPVPerpetrator Both1 Neither2 Total 

Boston, MA Male 21 6 36 42 105 

Female 33 7 68 49 157 

Missing 0 0 1 1 2 

Subtotal 54 13 105 92 264 

Washington, Male 27 12 57 101 197 

DC Female 58 13 80 140 291 

Missing 0 1 3 1 5 

Subtotal 85 26 140 242 493 

TOTAL 139 39 245 334 757 

1

The respondent noted that they were both a victim and perpetrator of IPV. 2

The respondent noted that they are neither a victim, nor perpetrator of IPV. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 8 
Exhibit 7 

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS 

Characteristic

Age 

 Range=17-80 years 

Race/Ethnicity 

Missing 

African-American 

Caucasian 

Latino/Latina 

Asian-American or Pacific Islander 

American Indian 

Other 

Mixed 

Born outside the U.S. 263 34.5 

Years in the U.S. (for those born 

outside the U.S.) 19.4 14.7 

Parents of children 

No 275 37.9 

Number of children 1.6 1.8 

Employment 

Full-time 

Part-time 

Unemployed 

Student 

Stay at home 

Retired 

Blank 

More than one category 

Federal or state public assistance 

No 

Education 

Less than 8th grade 

9th grade 

10th grade 

11th grade 

12th grade 

Trade school 

Some (or in) college 

2-yr degree 

4-yr degree 

Post-BA education 

Currently involved with intimate 

partner 

Relationship status 

Legally married 

Committed relationship 

Dating 

Casual relationship 

Living arrangement 

Living together 

Living together—off and on 

Living separately 

N=number 

%=percentage 

M=mean 

SD=standard deviation 

 Descriptive Statistics 

N % M SD 

31.0 11.4 

11 1.5 

392 51.8 

177 23.4 

91 12.0 

24 3.2 

5 .7 

29 3.8 

28 3.7 

213 28.1 

125 16.5 

137 18.1 

87 11.5 

42 5.5 

14 1.8 

15 2.0 

100 14.0 

509 71.0 

26 3.5 

21 2.8 

47 6.3 

55 7.4 

189 25.3 

43 5.8 

240 32.2 

36 4.8 

43 5.8 

46 6.2 

461 62.3 

169 23.2 

325 44.5 

131 17.9 

105 14.4 

253 34.7 

74 10.1 

403 55.2 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 9 
Validity Testing 

Data analysis provided strong support for convergent validity of the IPV coercion 

construct. Relationships between scores on the coercion scale and 1) demands, 2) 

surveillance, and 3) levels of IPV demonstrated convergent validity. Higher coercion 

was related to greater number of demands and surveillance tactics. Support for predictive 

validity was also found, based on associations between coercion scale scores and 

measures of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, IPV threat appraisal, and 

fear. Even when controlling for physical, sexual, and psychological IPV, evidence of 

predictive validity was maintained for PTSD, IPV threat appraisal, and fear, but not for 

depression. This provides support for the conclusion that the measure of coercion is 

specific to IPV, and does not reflect general emotional distress. These findings held 

when examined for both males and females separately. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 10 
References 

Bachman, R., and L.E. Saltzman, Violence Against Women: Estimates from the 

Redesigned Survey, NCJ 154348, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, 1995. 

Colvin, M., F. T. Cullen, and T. Vander Ven, “Coercion, Social Support, and Crime: An 

Emerging Theoretical Consensus,” Criminology, 2001, 40(1):19-42. 

DeKeseredy, W.S. and M.D. Schwartz, “Measuring the Extent of Woman Abuse in 

Intimate Heterosexual Relationships: A Critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales,” 

National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women, February 1998. 

DeKeseredy, W.S., D.G. Saunders, M.D. Schwartz, and S. Alvi, “The Meanings and 

Motives for Women’s Use of Violence in Canadian College Dating Relationships: 

Results from a National Survey,” Sociological Spectrum, 1997, 17:199-222. 

Dobash, R., R. Dobash, M. Wilson, and M. Daly, “The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in 

Marital Violence,” Social Problems, 1992, 39:71-91. 

Dutton, M.A., “Battered Women’s Strategic Response to Violence: The Role of 

Context,” in J.L. Edleson and Z.C. Eisikovits (eds.), Future Interventions with 

Battered Women and Their Families, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California, 

1996. 

Edelson. J.L., and R.M. Tolman, Intervention for Men Who Batter: An Ecological 

Perspective, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California, 1992. 

Erskine, J., “If It Quacks Like a Duck: Recharacterizing Domestic Violence as Criminal 

Coercion,” Brooklyn Law Review, 1999, 65:1207-1232. 

Johnson, M.P., and Kathleen J. Ferraro, “Research on Domestic Violence in the 1990s: 

Making Distinctions,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, November 2000, 

62(4):948-963. 

Molm, L. D., Coerceive Poser in Social Exchange, Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1997. 

Pence, E., and M. Paymar, Power and Control: Tactics of Men Who Batter, Minnesota 

Program Development, Inc., Duluth, Minnesota, 1986. 

Pence, E., and M. Paymar, Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth model, 

Springer Publishing Co, New York, NY, 1993. 

Raven, B. H., “The Bases of Power: Origins and Recent Developments, Journal of 

Social Psychology, 1993, 49(4):227-251. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 11 
Smith, P.H., J.B. Smith, and J.A. Earp, “Beyond the Measurement Trap: A 

Reconstructed Conceptualization and Measurement of Woman Battering,” 

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1999, 23(1):177-193. 

Stark, E., “Re-Presenting Woman’s Battering: From Battered Woman Syndrome to 

Coercive Control,” Albany Law Review, 1995, 58:973-1026 

Straus, M., and R. Gelles, Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions to 

Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, Canada, 1990. 

Yoshihama, M., “Reinterpreting Strength and Safety in a Socio-cultural Context: 

Dynamics of Domestic Violence and Experiences of Women of Japanese Descent,” 

Children and Youth Services Review, 2000, 22(3-4):207-229. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 12 
Final Technical Report 
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 

1.1 Description of the Problem 

The Gender Symmetry Debate. Two decades of research on intimate partner violence 

(IPV) have failed to resolve the controversy concerning gender symmetry. One tradition of 

research—mainly conducted by family researchers—has consistently produced results indicating 

that women and men use violence at equal rates, and in some cases, women use violence more 

often (Straus and Gelles, 1990). However, the studies of the severity of violent acts and resultant 

injury, even when the violent acts were topographically similar, have shown women to be the 

victims of more serious acts and to receive more serious injuries from their intimate partners 

than men (Cantos, Neidig, and O’Leary, 1994). Another body of research has demonstrated that 

men use violence, including homicide, against their female partners more often than women use 

violence against their male partners (Bachman and Saltzman, 1995) and that women’s use of 

violence largely involves self-defense or fighting back (DeKeseredy et al., 1997; Saunders, 

1986). 

Some researchers have suggested that methodological considerations, including the context 

in which questions about violence are constructed and the populations from which samples are 

selected, account for the differences between the findings (Archer, 2000; Bachman, 1998; Straus, 

1999). Advocates and researchers alike have suggested that measurement of violent acts alone 

cannot adequately characterize IPV violence in intimate partner relationships (Campbell et al., 

1998; DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 1998; Dutton, 1996; Edleson and Tolman, 1992; Smith, Smith, 

and Earp, 1999; Yoshihama, 2000). Rather, it is necessary to understand the use of, and 

response to, IPV in the context of the relationship and the cultural, social, and institutional 

systems within which the individual lives (Dutton, 1996; Edleson and Tolman, 1992). In a 

recent review of women’s use of violence in heterosexual relationships, Das Dasgupta (2001) 

concluded that to compartmentalize women’s motivations for engaging in IPV as either selfdefense or retaliation fails to account for important proximal and distal antecedents as contexts 

that influence their behavior. 

Additionally, Johnson (Johnson and Ferraro, 2000) argued that “partner violence cannot be 

understood without acknowledging important distinctions among types of violence, motives of 

perpetrators, the social locations of both partners, and the cultural contexts in which violence 

occurs.” Finally, a federal interagency workgroup (Saltzman and Fingerhut, 2000) 

recommended that “study methodologies should account for contextual issues surrounding the 

violence.” 

Coercion and Control. With regard to IPV, perhaps the most critical contextual element is 

the extent of nonviolent coercion and control in the relationship. Historically, advocates have 

recognized the central role of coercion and control in violent relationships. Indeed, they have 

defined IPV as a “pattern of coercive control” (Pence and Paymar, 1986). However, the 

measurement of IPV in research has focused largely on violent and aggressive acts, and not on 

the coercive relationship context in which they may take place. The development of several 

measures of psychological abuse has advanced our understanding of the dynamics and impact of 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 1 
IPV (O’Leary, 1999). However, many of these do not capture the unique characteristics of 

coercion. 

Johnson (2000) proposed a new typology of IPV that may help to clarify and resolve the 

often-heated debate on gender symmetry in IPV (see Exhibit 1-1). The three chief features of 

Johnson’s typology are: 

1) The focus on the broader context of potential coercion and control in intimate partner 

relationships (Salzman and Fingerhut, 2000); 

2) The consideration of the couple as the unit of analysis; and 

3) The inclusion of women’s potential use of violence. 

Johnson’s (1995) early typology of intimate terrorism and common couple violence was 

later expanded to include violent resistance and mutual violent control (Johnson and Ferraro, 

2000) (see Exhibit 1-1). Others have focused largely on typologies of batterers (Gondolf, 1988; 

Hamberger et al., 1996; Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart, 1994; Saunders, 1992; Waltz et al., 

2001). A recent study (Holtzworth-Monroe et al., 2000) found empirical support for three 

dimensions along which batterers have been characterized in these typologies: 1) severity (and 

frequency) of violence; 2) generality of violence; and 3) batterer’s psychopathology or 

personality disorders. The dimensional approach to identifying typologies offers promise. 

Johnson (2000) has found empirical support for his hypothesized typology based on a 

secondary analysis of data collected by Frieze in the late 1970s. Using a set of items modeled 

after the power and control wheel (Pence and Paymar, 1986), Johnson generated a two-cluster 

solution representing high- and low-control males and females. Combining these clusters with 

wives’ reports of violence, he found the following breakdown: mutual violence (3% of the 

couples overall; 50% husbands, 50% wives); patriarchal terrorism (29% overall; 97% husbands, 

3% wives); violent resistance (23% overall; 4% husbands, 96% wives); and common couple 

violence (44% overall; 56% husbands, 44% wives). Other researchers have provided additional 

evidence suggesting that women use violence primarily to defend themselves and that men use 

violence typically to control their female partners (DeKeseredy et al., 1997; Saunders, 1986). 

It seems clear that the notion of nonviolent coercive control should be included in future 

work on typologies of IPV. However, ongoing efforts to understand the relational context of 

IPV will be hampered by a number of obstacles. First, the field has yet to develop a clear 

theoretical understanding of the nature and function of coercive control. Johnson’s model, for 

example, suggests that it is a “motive to control” that differentiates types of violent couples. Yet 

the only empirical test of the model (Johnson, 2000) measures control tactics, not motive. Can a 

behavior be considered “coercively controlling” without the intent? Moreover, can an otherwise 

benign-appearing behavior be considered controlling if the intent is there? Similarly, the 

measurement of control tactics alone does not capture the capacity to control or the function of 

control in relationships. Can the same set of tactics be considered controlling when used by a 

man or a woman? What kinds of consequences or contingencies should “count” as defining 

coercive 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 2 
Exhibit 1-1 

JOHNSON’S TYPOLOGY OF IPV 

Intimate Terrorism 

Common Couple Violence 

Violent Resistance 

Mutual Violent Control 

Violence is one tactic in a general pattern of control with a range of severity of 

violence. 

Violence is not connected to a general pattern of control but arises in the context 

of a specific argument and is more likely to be mutual; the violence does not 

escalate over time but reflects a range of severity. Typically, it is not severe. 

Violence consists of fighting back against partner’s violence. 

Both partners are controlling and violent. This is a rare occurrence. 

control? Should they be different depending on the psychological, physical, or economic 

vulnerability of the target of control? Should different definitions exist for different purposes, 

some legal and some not? As elaborated below, theoretical work exists on the concepts of 

coercion and control; however, few have attempted to integrate this work with the current 

understanding of violent intimate relationships. 

At this point, there exists no adequate measure of the construct “nonviolent coercive 

control” relevant for IPV. Subscales embedded in larger measures of psychological abuse are 

neither comprehensive nor based on a clear theoretical framework. A psychometrically valid 

measure of coercive control would enable researchers to examine differences in violent couples 

beyond those attributed to levels of violence alone. It also would enable a deeper understanding 

of the nature of violent relationships, and it would shed light on the question of gender 

symmetry. 

1.2 Conceptualization of Power in Social Relationships 

French and Raven (1959) defined power in social relationships as the ability of an agent to 

influence a target. Molm (1997) elaborated on the mechanism of influence by defining power as 

“the level of potential cost that an actor can impose on another.” The theoretical approach to 

social power distinguishes bases (i.e., ability or potential to control), processes (i.e., attempts to 

control), and outcomes of power (i.e., who wins or makes the decision/compliance or resistance) 

(Cromwell and Olson, 1975). Most theories of social power embrace the view that power is the 

inevitable currency of social exchange. However, it is the abuse of power that is of concern to 

IPV advocates, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers, not merely the ability to exert 

influence on another person. 

Coercive power is based on the notion that one can and will punish another for 

noncompliance (Raven, Center, and Rodriguez, 1975). Recent developments (Raven, 1993) 

have distinguished force, which involves the lack of volition, from coercion. That is, with 

enough force there is no discretion regarding compliance. However, coercion involves a 

contingent outcome: The expectation is that noncompliance leads to, whereas compliance 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 3 
avoids, a negative consequence. Thus, coercion controls the target through contingent 

punishment. The opportunity for resistance exists, but at a cost. 

Raven (1993) suggested that coercion may require softening the target or “setting the 

stage,” where it is “important to demonstrate to the target that not only are the means available 

for coercion, but that the agent is ready and willing to pay the costs that coercion implies.” He 

further stated that coercion could occur through invoking the power of a third party (e.g., Child 

Protection Services, police). Molm (1997) defined “coercive power” as the “level of actual 

power that an actor can impose on another.” She and Raven argue that the use of coercive power 

is strategic. 

The concept of reward power is closely related to coercive power. Raven et al. (1975) 

defined reward power as based on the belief that the other can and will do something positive in 

return for compliance. Molm (1997) extended the theory to recognize “reward power” as that 

which can be used to impose an “opportunity cost” on another—that is, withholding a reward for 

failing to comply. Both coercive and reward power require surveillance, since the outcome is 

contingent on failure to comply (Raven, 1993). Thus, the use of both coercive power and reward 

power define coercion. 

Compliance and resistance are possible responses to coercion. Compliance has been shown 

to increase over time when the probability of contingent punishment is high (Molm, 1997). 

Greater power to punish and greater likelihood of being punished is predicted to result in both 

greater compliance and greater resistance (Molm, 1997). Interestingly, retaliation and 

compliance have been shown to be independent behavioral outcomes; that is, compliant victims 

do not retaliate less and vice versa (Molm, 1997). 

1.3 Conceptualization and Measurement of Coercion in IPV 

As a beginning point, coercion will be defined as the credible threat of delivering a negative 

consequence for noncompliance. Coercion requires having enough power to punish effectively 

or to withhold a meaningful reward (hereafter both are referred to as “punishment”). Based on 

social learning theory (Bandura, 1986), the contingent threat of both of these negative 

consequences increases the likelihood of compliance. 

The theory of social power—especially coercive and reward power—has clear implications 

for a theory of coercive control in IPV: 

• Coercion in IPV must address the role of motivation to control. A batterer 

may attempt to exert coercive control over his partner generally or within a 

specific situational context or argument. However, theories of coercive 

control in IPV must consider a context of coercion (Fischer, Vidmar, and 

Ellis, 1993) arising from previous physical or sexual IPV, where there is no 

specific overt intent to control in subsequent situations; 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 4 
• Coercive control requires the actual power or ability to control and 

expectations that the partner can and will use that perceived power to punish; 

• Coercion is a contingent relationship, linking the threat behavior of one 

partner with the future behavior of the other, and finally, to the actual 

consequence for noncompliance or the actual cost of compliance. While 

compliance avoids punishment, it does not come without its own cost (e.g., 

doing something which is against one’s values); 

• Surveillance, or the appearance of it, is necessary for coercion to occur; and 

• Coercive dynamics can be “hidden” from direct observation. Understanding 

it requires knowledge of the history of violence and abuse (or other forms of 

punishment) that contributed to the establishment of coercive power. 

1.4 Description of the Study Goals and Objectives 

On October 1, 2001, COSMOS Corporation was awarded a grant to conduct the NIJ-funded 

study, “Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure for Intimate Partner 

Violence,” to examine the issues described above in the development of a measure of 

nonviolence coercive control for use in the measurement of IPV. The study was led by Dr. Mary 

Ann Dutton (Principal Investigator), Dr. Lisa Goodman (Co-Principal Investigator), and a team 

of researchers from COSMOS Corporation, Bethesda, MD, and Boston College (Counseling and 

Developmental Psychology, School of Education). 

Specific objectives of the study were completed in four distinct phases: 

1) Develop a conceptual model of coercive control (study phase 1); 

2) Develop an ecologically and statistically valid instrument to measure coercive 

control (study phase 2); 

3) Evaluate psychometric properties of the coercive control measure (study 

phase 3); and 

4) Conduct a preliminary test of the usefulness of the measure for validating 

Johnson’s (2000) typology of IPV (study phase 4). 

The study objectives are detailed in the next section, Study Design and Methodology. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 5 
Cultural and Social Context

Race/ethnicity, social class, immigration status.

Institutional Response

Tangible and Economic Resources

Employment, economic autonomy, transportation, housing,

health care insurance.

Individual Characteristics

Psychosocial history; medical history and health status;

use of violence, abuse, or control; help -seeking strategies.

Social Networks

Intimate partner relationship characteristics, children, othe r

2. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 

2.1 STUDY DESIGN 

The study incorporated ethnographic and other qualitative methods into the framework of 

standard scale development and psychometric evaluation procedures (Clark and Watson, 1995) 

to adequately capture the experience of nonviolent coercive control in the lives of diverse groups 

of people whose lives span varied contexts and circumstances. A nested ecological model 

(Dutton, 1996; Edleson and Tolman, 1992) of IPV, which accounts for variations at the 

individual, relational, social, cultural, and institutional levels, was used as a framework to guide 

the conceptualization and measurement of coercive control and its associated features (see 

Exhibit 2-1). Finally, a dynamic process method of assessment (Steadman et al., 2000) was 

utilized as a means of incorporating the contingent nature of coercive control in context of 

antecedents and correlates, in which classification at one stage influences classification at a 

subsequent level. This is necessary to address the multiple elements required to define coercive 

control: 1) power or ability to influence; 2) use of control tactics; 3) compliance or resistance; 4) 

anticipated and actual negative consequences of noncompliance; and 5) anticipated and actual 

costs of compliance. 

Exhibit 2-1 

NESTED ECOLOGICAL MODEL1

 OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 

Nested Ecology of Intimate Partner Violence Nested Ecology of Intimate Partner Violence Domains and Specific Factors Within Each Domain for Domains and Specific Factors Within Each Domain for 

the Nested Ecology the Nested Ecology 

Cultural and Social Context 

Race/ethnicity, social class, immigration status. 

Institutional Response 

Community and legal interventions.

Tangible and Economic Resources 

Employment, economic autonomy, transportation, housing, 

health care insurance. 

Social Networks 

Intimate partner relationship characteristics, children, othe r 

social and personal relationships.

Individual Characteristics 

Psychosocial history; medical history and health status; 

use of violence, abuse, or control; help -seeking strategies. 

1

Bronfenbrenner (1979), modified by Dutton (1996); Edelson and Tolman(1992) 1Bronfenbrenner (1979), modified by Dutton (1996); Edelson and Tolman(1992) 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 6 
Using ethnographic methods ensures the ecological validity of the coercive control 

instrument so that it measures coercive control as it is experienced in the real, day-to-day lives of 

the men and women involved in IPV. Ecological validity is different from statistical validity. 

Whereas statistical validity characterizes an instrument that contains items that define a common 

construct and that are related to other constructs in predictable ways, it does not ensure that the 

measure is relevant to the sample for which it is intended to be used. Ecological validity 

characterizes a measure that has been constructed using multiple ethnographic methods; the 

instrument is built from the narratives of the lives of people for whom it is intended to be used. 

Further, using the nested ecological model provided the team with a framework to organize 

information about the social context of the men and women from whose experience the measure 

was constructed. 

The study team developed a conceptual model of coercive control (Objective 1) by 

conducting a comprehensive literature review and refining the model through collaboration with 

an Advisory Panel comprised of experts (n = 16) in the field of IPV research and a consensus 

panel of experts (n = 100). An ecologically and statistically valid measure of nonviolent 

coercive control was developed (Objective 2) by using ethnographic and classical test theory 

methodologies to construct the measure. The psychometric properties of the newly developed 

coercive control measure (Objective 3) were assessed in a total sample (n = 757) that included 

both males (n = 302) and females (n = 448), those reporting IPV victimization only (n = 139), 

IPV perpetration only (n = 39), both IPV victimization and perpetration (n = 245), and neither 

IPV victimization nor perpetration (n = 334) (see Exhibit 2-2). Respondents were recruited from 

community agencies involving identified IPV victims and perpetrators, agencies providing nonIPV services to demographically similar participants, community college settings, and general 

public community settings, e.g., fast food restaurants (see Exhibit 2-3). The sample was a 

convenience, not a representative, sample. Selection criteria included the following: 1) 

involvement in an intimate partner relationship within the past 12 months, and 2) 18 years of age 

or older. Respondents were excluded if they exhibited signs of intoxication or other indications 

of a lack of coherence sufficient to complete the survey. Demographic characteristics of the 

sample are described in Exhibit 2-4. 

The study team then conducted a preliminary test of Johnson’s (2000) typology of IPV 

(Objective 4) using data from the validation groups. A detailed description of the study 

methodology is provided in the remainder of Section 2, and is presented by study phase. Section 

3 of the report contains a brief summary of the results of the study, including a description of the 

new measures. These include measures of demands, coercion, surveillance, and response to 

coercion. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 7 
Exhibit 2-2 

COERCIVE CONTROL SURVEY: 

BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSE BY SITE, GENDER, AND 

VICTIM /PERPETRATOR STATUS 

Site Gender IPVVictim IPVPerpetrator Both1 Neither2 Total 

Boston, MA Male 21 6 36 42 105 

Female 33 7 68 49 157 

Missing 0 0 1 1 2 

Subtotal 54 13 105 92 264 

Washington, Male 27 12 57 101 197 

DC Female 58 13 80 140 291 

Missing 0 1 3 1 5 

Subtotal 85 26 140 242 493 

TOTAL 139 39 245 334 757 

1

The respondent noted that they were both a victim and perpetrator of IPV. 

2

The respondent noted that they are neither a victim, nor perpetrator of IPV. 

Exhibit 2-3 

RESPONDENT RECRUITMENT BY SITE 

Number of Percent of Total 

Site Respondents Respondents 

Washington, DC 

Homestretch 

(transitional living facility) 

64 8.5 

Montgomery College 215 28.4 

District of Columbia Superior 

Court—Family Court Division 

123 16.2 

District of Columbia Superior 

Court—Domestic Violence 

Division 

61 8.1 

 Boston, MA 

Emerge 41 5.4 

(batterer treatment program) 

Community Sample 253 33.4 

(recruitment occurred at a fast 

food restaurant) 

TOTAL 757 100.0 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 8 
Exhibit 2-4 

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS 

Characteristic 

Age 

 Range=17-80 years 

Race/Ethnicity 

Missing 

African-American 

Caucasian 

Latino/Latina 

Asian-American or Pacific Islander 

American Indian 

Other 

Mixed 

Born outside the U.S. 263 34.5 

Years in the U.S. (for those born outside the 

U.S.) 19.4 14.7 

Parents of children 

No 275 37.9 

Number of children 1.6 1.8 

Employment 

Full-time 

Part-time 

Unemployed 

Student 

Stay at home 

Retired 

Blank 

More than one category 

Federal or state public assistance 

No 

Education 

Less than 8th grade 

9th grade 

10th grade 

11th grade 

12th grade 

Trade school 

Some (or in) college 

2-yr degree 

4-yr degree 

Post-BA education 

Currently involved with intimate partner 

Relationship status

Legally married 

Committed relationship 

Dating 

Casual relationship 

Living arrangement 

Living together 

Living together – off and on 

Living separately

N=number 

%=percentage 

M=mean 

SD=standard deviation 

Descriptive Statistics 

N % M SD 

31.0 11.4 

11 1.5 

392 51.8 

177 23.4 

91 12.0 

24 3.2 

5 .7 

29 3.8 

28 3.7 

213 28.1 

125 16.5 

137 18.1 

87 11.5 

42 5.5 

14 1.8 

15 2.0 

100 14.0 

509 71.0 

26 3.5 

21 2.8 

47 6.3 

55 7.4 

189 25.3 

43 5.8 

240 32.2 

36 4.8 

43 5.8 

46 6.2 

461 62.3 

169 23.2 

325 44.5 

131 17.9 

105 14.4 

253 34.7 

74 10.1 

403 55.2 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 9 
2.2 STUDY PHASE 1: DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF 

COERCIVE CONTROL 

2.2.1 Literature Review 

A comprehensive review of the literature concerning the theory and measurement of 

coercion, social power, control, and psychological abuse in intimate partner violence was 

conducted in order to guide the development of a conceptual framework for the model of 

coercive control. The search for relevant literature was conducted within two on-line databases: 

 PsychINFO (operated by the American Psychological Association) and LexisNexis. In addition, 

the project’s Advisory Panel members1 were invited to submit relevant literature (see Appendix 

A for a list of Advisory Panel members and brief biographical sketches for each member). The 

search at PsychINFO was limited to the years 1967 to 2000, and the search was performed using 

specific terms (see Exhibit 2-5) as listed in the article titles (i.e., a title search). In order to select 

the most relevant articles, the review of the title search results focused on articles with 

information on the definition of coercion, manifestations of coercion, studies which might 

describe or provide sample items from a scale related to coercion, information on motivation or 

goals of coercive behavior, and correlates of coercion. 

The broad scope and fewer number of search terms utilized in the search of LexisNexis 

reflect the broad content of that archive. Search terms utilized at LexisNexis included: 

1) coercion, 2) power and control, and 3) Duluth model. 

An in-depth literature overview was created based on the results of the on-line search for 

relevant and targeted literature and the literature provided by the Advisory Panel members, and 

included brief information for each, including author(s), publication year, publication source, 

and abstract (Appendix B). This document categorized the selected literature into specific 

categories to inform the development of the conceptual model of coercive control. The literature 

categories included: 

• Causes and correlates—General; 

• Causes and correlates—Cross-cultural; 

• Causes and correlates—Implications for relationship dynamics; 

• Causes and correlates—Societal dynamics; 

• Causes and correlates—Batterer dynamics; 

• Causes and correlates—Childhood; 

• Causes and correlates—Victim dynamics; 

• Coercive/Reward power; 

1 The Advisory Panel members were selected and agreements to participate were acquired during the grant proposal 

phase. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 10
Exhibit 2-5 

SEARCH TERMS UTILIZED FOR LITERATURE SEARCH AT PSYCHINFO 

Search Terms Utilized in “Title Search” at PsychINFO 

1. Coercion 

2. Duress 

3. Social power (only through 1984) 

4. Power and relationships 

5. Dominance and relationships 

6. Control and relationships (only through 1984) 

7. Authoritarian and relationships 

8. Control and psychological (emotional) abuse 

9. Threat (threaten) and relationships 

10. Restrict (restriction; restrictiveness) and relationships 

11. Controlling behavior 

12. Coercive and behavior 

13. Coercive and relationships 

14. Conflict tactics 

15. Conflict behavior (only through 1984) 

16. Conflict and behavior (only through 1991) 

17. Conflict and tactics 

18. Controlling and behavior 

19. Coercive and power 

20. Coercive power 

21. Reward power 

22. Motivation to control 

23. Duluth and model (title and keyword search) 

24. Power and control 

25. Dominance and control (through 1984) 

• Goals/motivation; 

• Measurement; 

• Elaboration of coercion concept; 

• Theory—General; 

• Theory—Cultural differences; 

• Female perpetrators; and 

• Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues. 

2.2.2 Initial Development of the Conceptual Model of Coercive Control 

Based on the findings of the literature review and the investigators’ previous research, the 

study team developed the initial conceptual model coercive control. The draft model included 

the following components: 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 11 
1) Underlying Assumption/Hypotheses 

2) Working Definition of Coercion 

3) Purpose of Developing a Measure of Coercive Control 

4) Six Elements of Coercive Control in Intimate Relationships 

Initial Discussions of the Conceptual Model with the Advisory Panel. The study team set 

up a project listserv2 for the purpose of discussing the draft model among the study team and 

Advisory Panel members. In early May 2002, the study team mailed copies of the draft model 

and conceptual framework to the Advisory Panel members, and on May 14, 2002, the study team 

issued an invitation to the Advisory Panel members via the listserv to initiate the listserv 

discussion. The Advisory Panel members were invited to comment on the draft and on others’ 

comments as well. In addition to reviewing the draft model, the Advisory Panel members were 

asked to respond to the following outstanding issues: 

1) Does the model make sense?

2) Should a distinction be made in types and levels of coercion?

3) How should justifiable coercion be distinguished from coercive control that 

associated with intimate partner violence? 

4) How should everyday or normative coercion that is part of normal social discourse be 

distinguished from coercive control that is associated with intimate partner violence? 

The listserv discussion concluded in July 2002, and a synopsis of the discussion was 

developed and provided to the Advisory Panel members (see Appendix C). 

Based on the feedback provided during the listserv discussion, the model was revised to 

expand and refine the concept of coercive control. The next step in enhancing the conceptual 

model was to collect ethnographic data in order to incorporate “real world” context, and thus 

ensure the ecological validity of the coercive control measure that would be based on the model. 

2.2.3 Ethnographic Data Collection 

In order to ensure the development of an ecologically valid instrument, the team employed 

ethnographic methods in order to capture the experience of coercive control in the lives of a 

diverse group of people whose lives span varied contexts and circumstances. The methods 

included: 1) ethnographic interviews with individuals who had recent personal experience with 

IPV, 2) participant observation in institutional IPV-related settings such as support groups, and 

3) interviews with people who work with IPV in their professional roles. The data collection 

strategies employed for each of these methods is described below. 

2 A listserv is a public or private electronic mailing list. A listserv can be used to send an e-mail to many different 

people on many different computer systems, and is a popular method of quickly disseminating and sharing 

information via the Internet. For this project, the study team utilized the free service offered by Yahoo 

(http://groups.yahoo.com). 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 12 
 Ethnographic Interviews. In-depth, open-ended interviews were conducted with 18 

individuals (male and female) to gather specific examples or experiences of nonviolent coercive 

control (Exhibit 2-6 provides a breakdown by gender, ethnicity, and victim/batterer status). A 

structured interview protocol was developed by the study team and was used to guide the 

interview process and standardize the data collection. The protocol was intended to explore the 

participants’ experience with coercive control and document how their experience supported or 

contradicted the draft framework and model. The participants were required to sign a consent 

form in order to participate and received a $20 incentive fee for completion of the interview. 

The sole inclusion criterion was that participants had been involved in a violent intimate 

relationship at some point within the previous 12 months. The interviews were conducted during 

the period November 2002-February 2003, at the following sites: 

• Washington, DC—Total Interviews = 7 

Sites: Hannah House (n=6), a transitional housing program for women Ayuda 

(n=1), an advocacy organization for low-income Latino and other 

immigrant communities 

• Boston, MA—Total Interviews = 9 

Site: Emerge (n=9), batterer intervention program

• Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, SD—Total Interviews = 2 

Sites: Cangleska (n=2), domestic violence prevention and intervention program 

Copies of the interview protocol, consent form, and summary of findings can be found in 

Appendix D. 

Exhibit 2-6 

DESCRIPTION OF ETHNOGRAPHIC INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS 

Female 

victims 

Female batterers Male batterers Totals 

African-American 4 (DC) 1 (DC) 1 (MA) * 6 

Gay & Lesbian 1 (DC) 0 3 (MA) 4 

Latina/Latino 1 (DC) 0 3 (MA) 4 

Native American 2 (SD) 0 0 2 

White 0 1 (MA) 1 (MA) * 2 

Totals 8 2 8 18 

* Multiethnic: Latino/African American and Latino/White 

Key for Location of Interviews (shown in parentheses) 

DC – Washington, DC 

MA – Boston, MA 

SD – Pine Ridge Indian Reservation 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 13
Interviews with Professionals. To gather additional examples of coercive control in 

various contexts and settings, interviews were conducted with six individuals who work with 

IPV in their professional roles (Exhibit 2-7 provides a breakdown of the individuals interviewed 

by the populations they serve and the types of services they provide). A structured interview 

protocol was developed by the study team and utilized to guide the interview process and 

standardize the data collection. The protocol was intended to explore the professionals’ 

observations of coercive control as experienced by their clients and how these observations 

supported or contradicted the draft framework and model. The professionals were required to 

sign a consent form in order to participate and received a $20 incentive fee for completion of the 

interview. The interviews were conducted during the period October-December 2002 at the 

following sites: 

• Boston, MA—Total Interviews = 1 

Site: Emerge (n=1), batterer intervention program

• Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, SD—Total Interviews = 5 

Sites: Cangleska (n=5), domestic violence prevention and intervention program 

Copies of the interview protocol, consent form, and summary of findings can be found in 

Appendix E. 

Exhibit 2-7 

NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS WITH PROFESSIONALS 

Populations Served 

Professions 

Service Provider Consultant Totals 

Gay & Lesbian 1 (MA) 0 1 

Native American 2 (SD) 1 (SD) 3 

White 2 (SD) 0 2 

Totals 5 1 6 

Key for Location of Interviews (shown in parentheses) 

MA – Boston, MA 

SD – Pine Ridge Indian Reservation 

Review of Archival Data. The study team gathered further examples of coercive control in 

various contexts and settings via the review of relevant archival data, including 1) police reports 

of incidents of IPV, and 2) transcripts of in-depth interviews with female batterers. The police 

report data were provided by Dr. Ellen Pence, a member of the study’s Advisory Panel, and 

included summaries of suspect and victim accounts of incidents, and separately, descriptions of 

violence within reported incidents of IPV. The study team also reviewed transcripts of in-depth 

interviews with 32 women who were self- or court-referred to treatment groups due to their use 

of violence against their male partners. These women were selected nationally and represent a 

diverse group of African-Americans, Native Americans, Asians, Latinas, and Anglos. The 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 14 
transcripts were provided by Dr. Shamita Das Dasgupta, also a member of the study’s Advisory 

Panel. 

Review of the Ethnographic Data. The ethnographic methods described above were 

implemented in order to capture the experience of coercive control in the lives of a diverse group 

of people whose lives span varied contexts and circumstances. The study team reviewed the data 

from the ethnographic interviews, interviews with professionals, and the archival data to 

document the following: 

• What implications do the data have on the conceptual model of coercive control in 

intimate partner relationships? Do the data support or contradict the model? 

• Do the data provide examples of the six elements of coercive control in intimate 

relationships, as defined in the model at the time of the ethnographic data collection: 

1) Agent’s communication of demand, request, or expectation; 

2) Agent’s communication of the threat of a meaningful negative consequence; 

3) Agent’s surveillance of the target’s response; 

4) Agent’s setting the stage for social influence; 

5) Target’s response to the demand, request, or expectation; and 

6) Relational context surrounding the coercion?

The final conceptual development of the coercive control framework was presented in an 

article published in Sex Roles, Vol. 52, June 2005. 

2.3 STUDY PHASE 2: DEVELOPMENT OF THE COERCIVE CONTROL SURVEY 

2.3.1 Development of the Coercive Control Measure 

The development of a draft measure of coercive control began with the creation of an 

outline of ten potential constructs of coercive control to assess in the measure (see Appendix F). 

The outline also included imbedded constructs, potential questionnaire items and suggested 

scales. The ten constructs presented in the outline represent an expansion of the six elements of 

coercive control described in earlier versions of the conceptual model (and described above). 

The ten potential constructs included: 

1) Communication of demand or expectation; 

2) Communication of threat of meaningful negative consequences; 

3) Perceived threat of contingent meaningful negative consequences for noncompliance 

with a demand, request or expectation; 

4) Compliance or resistance; 

5) Other effects of coercive control process; 

6) Surveillance; 

7) Setting the state for coercive control; 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 15 
8) Social ecology; 

9) Increased vulnerability; and 

10) Motivation, intention, and personal gain. 

Based on this outline, the study team developed a measure containing a broad and 

comprehensive pool of items that reflected each of the constructs. The study team considered 

the following issues in developing the measure: 

• The array of items to be included; 

• The wording of the individual items; 

• The form or scale used to assess each item; 

• The sequence of items within the measure; 

• Instructions to the respondents; and 

• Method of administration. 

All items were repeated in order to assess both the respondent’s coercive control against 

and from their partner. 

Advisory Panel Review of the Revised Conceptual Model and the Draft Measure. On 

March 13-14, 2003, the project Advisory Panel was convened to review the work completed on 

the project and, specifically, to focus on the revised conceptual model of coercive control and the 

draft measure. The feedback provided by the Advisory Panel members was incorporated into the 

conceptual model, and the model was finalized (the final model is provided in Appendix G). 

The feedback on the draft measure was utilized to refine and expand the questionnaire items, and 

the study team then began the work of preparing to share the draft measure among professionals 

working in the field of IPV. Copies of materials from the Advisory Panel meeting, including the 

agenda, participant list, and summary, are provided in Appendix H. 

2.3.2 Consensus Ratings of the Draft Coercive Control Measure 

Prior to finalizing the draft measure of coercive control, the team provided the draft 

measure to 220 professionals who work with IPV in their professional roles to rate the extent to 

which the items on the measure tap the construct of coercive control. The draft measure was 

provided to the targeted professionals via e-mail as the Consensus Rating Survey (Appendix I), 

and they were given the opportunity to submit the questionnaire in one of three different ways: 

1) on-line via the Web, 2) by reply e-mail, or 3) via hard copy, by fax or regular mail. Details 

about development of the list of targeted professionals and development of the survey are 

described below. 

In April 2003, the members of the Advisory Panel were requested to nominate 5-10 IPV 

professionals to rate the draft measure, and the Panel members provided names and e-mail 

addresses for a total of 220 professionals. The names and e-mail addresses of the targeted 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 16 
professionals were loaded into a Microsoft Access database (the other functions of this database 

are described below) and merged into the e-mail cover letter (a copy of the e-mail letter also is 

provided in Appendix I). 

The COSMOS Web development team worked in conjunction with the study team and the 

Advisory Panel to develop an instrument capable of multimedia presentation and submission, 

including paper, interactive e-mail, and Web-based. Development of the questionnaire involved 

ensuring compliance with Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act,3

 and consideration of 

varying browser and e-mail client capabilities. The Microsoft Access database described above 

was expanded to include tables for data receipt, cleaning, and reporting. 

As noted above, the respondents submitted the questionnaire in one of three ways: 1) online via Web, 2), by reply e-mail, or 3) via hard copy, by fax or regular mail. Each of these three 

presentations required separate formatting of the questionnaire, though the draft measure of 

coercive control containing in the questionnaire, which was being rated by the respondents, 

remained the same in each of the formatted versions of the questionnaire. 

The preferred method for completing the questionnaire was via the Web-based (on-line) 

survey. Respondents were urged to respond on-line via the Web-based survey because data 

could be validated at time of entry; data were placed directly into the database thereby reducing 

coding time and transcription errors; and results were immediately available. The Web site used 

Active Server Pages (ASP), Javascript, VBScript, and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) to generate 

the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) for database interaction and automated e-mail 

notifications. To complete and submit the survey on-line, respondents connected to the Webbased survey via a link provided in the e-mail. Sample screen shots from the on-line version of 

the Consensus Rating Survey are provided Exhibits 2-8 and 2-9. 

The e-mail survey was written in HTML using Microsoft VBScript to manage form fields. 

A header for non-HTML e-mail clients was included. The e-mail survey was constructed to 

return ASCII data ready for loading into the database. To complete and submit the survey by email, respondents were directed to the access the e-mail version of the survey that was attached 

to the invitation e-mail. Respondents then completed the survey and clicked the submit button at 

the end of the survey form (which would direct the respondent’s e-mail survey back to 

COSMOS). 

The survey also was converted to Adobe Acrobat’s PDF. The PDF version of the survey 

was attached to the invitation e-mail for those respondents who preferred to print out the survey 

and respond by fax or mail. 

Following extensive internal testing of the on-line and e-mail versions of the consensus 

ratings questionnaire, on August 20, 2003, the request to complete the questionnaire was 

submitted to 20 participants as a pilot test. An additional page was made available during the 

pilot test to capture testers’ comments. Based on the success of these pilot cases, on August 22, 

3

 Section 508 was added to the U.S. Rehabilitation Act in 2002. It requires all government Web sites to follow a set 

of rules that ensure blind, deaf, and other disabled people can use their screen readers to read and navigate the site. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 17 
the consensus ratings survey was submitted to the remaining 200 participants (for a total survey 

universe of 220). The survey period concluded on September 9, 2003, and a total of 94 valid 

responses were received (just 6% less than the anticipated target response rate of 100). Of the 94 

valid responses, 87 percent submitted the survey on-line (Web-based submission), 10 percent 

submitted via e-mail, and the remaining 3 percent submitted the questionnaire via fax or mail. 

All submitted data were loaded into the Access database where validation and cleaning 

routines were applied. The analysis of the consensus ratings began with running statistical 

frequencies to examine the number of responses, mean, median, mode, and standard deviation 

for each individual item. In addition, Cronbach alphas were calculated to check for inter-item 

reliability. The analysis concluded that all of the items included in the measure were rated as 

highly correlated. In addition, the participants suggested additional items to include in the 

measure and edits to the wording of individual items to enhance clarity. These and other openended responses were categorized for review by the study team. 

The draft measure of coercive control was revised utilizing the feedback from the 

consensus ratings. The final measure of coercive control then served as the foundation for the 

development of the Coercive Control Survey, which is described in the next section. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 18 
Exhibit 2-8 

SAMPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM THE ON-LINE VERSION OF THE CONSENSUS 

RATING SURVEY: INSTRUCTION AND DEFINITION PAGES 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 19 
Exhibit 2-9 

SAMPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM THE ON-LINE VERSION OF THE 

CONSENSUS RATING SURVEY: 

SECTION A—PARTNER’S EXPECTATION OR DEMANDS 

2.3.3 Development of the Coercive Control Survey 

Development of the Survey. The Coercive Control Survey (Appendix J-1) was a 28-page 

instrument that consisted of the newly developed measure of coercive control and additional 

measures of correlates and consequences of coercion. The survey was divided into the following 

sections: 

1. Sample Description (demographic variables) 

2. Coercive Control Measure—Target 

a. Partner expectation or demands 

b. Partner surveillance methods 

c. Partner contingent threats/coercion 

d. Third party involvement in threats 

e. Response to partner’s threats 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 20 
3. Coercive Control Measure—Agent 

a. Expectations or demands 

b. Surveillance methods 

c. Contingent threats / coercion 

d. Third party involvement in threats 

4. Additional measures of correlates and consequences of coercion 

DOMAIN MEASURE PURPOSE 

Intimate Partner Violence Conflict Tactics Scale-2 

(Straus et al., 1995) 

Convergent validity 

Psychological 

Maltreatment of Women 

(Tolman, 1989, 1999) 

Convergent validity 

Threat Appraisal (Dutton, 

Goodman, Weinfurt, & 

Vankos, 2001) 

Predictive validity 

Mental Health Center for Epidemiologic 

Studies – Depression 

(CES-D) (Radloff, 1977) 

Predictive validity 

Posttraumatic Stress 

Disorder Checklist (PCLS) 

(Ventureyra, Yao, 

Cottraux, Note, & De MeyGuillard, 2002) 

Predictive validity 

Fear (developed for this 

study) 

Predictive validity 

Dominance Restrictiveness subscale 

(Hamby, 1996) 

Convergent validity 

Social Support Interpersonal Support 

Evaluation List (ISEL) 

(Cohen, Mermelstein, 

Kamarack, & Hoberman, 

1985) 

Correlate 

The Coercive Control Survey was formatted using TeleForm4

 software to enable electronic 

scanning of the survey data, thus avoiding the entry errors and extensive labor associated with 

manual data entry. The study team also developed the underlying databases that would house 

the scanned data and conducted internal testing of the scanning process using “dummy” 

questionnaires to ensure that the database structure and scannable format functioned properly. 

Development of the In-depth Interview Protocol. The In-depth Interview Protocol 

(Appendix J-2) was designed capture additional detail on Section 2a of the Coercive Control 

Survey, which asks the respondent what types of the things their partner has demanded of them 

in the previous 12 months. The data from the in-depth interviews served as part of the 

assessment of construct validity by 1) identifying whether the item adequately captured the 

4 The survey framework was constructed using Verity software’s TeleForm Elite Designer module. TeleForm 

Designer is a powerful application that creates forms for collecting data and then to distribute those forms via FAX, 

mail, by hand or the Internet. Completed forms can be retrieved via FAX, scanner, modem, or Internet, and then are 

read automatically by TeleForm. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 21 
respondents’ actual experience; and 2) determining whether the item had a substantially similar 

meaning, and thus captures similar phenomena for different people. The interviewer randomly 

selected three demands noted by the respondent and for each demand asked ten open-ended 

follow-up questions designed to gather details about the demand, including frequency of the 

demand, examples of specific incidents, and the respondents’ perceptions of what led to the 

demand; how the demand was communicated; the perceived consequences of compliance and 

non-compliance; the respondents’ actual response to the demand; and their feelings about their 

response to the demand. 

Development of Respondent Consent Forms and Administrative Tracking Forms. Due to 

the sensitive and personal nature of the research study, consent forms were developed that 

outlined the purpose of the study, the number of respondents, general plan of the research, 

benefits and risks of participation, inclusion criteria, confidentiality of data, and rights as a 

research participant. Separate consent forms were developed for the Coercive Control Survey 

and the In-depth Interview Protocol. Copies of the consent forms can be found in Appendix J. 

The team also developed a wide array of forms required for the tracking and administration of 

the Coercive Control Survey, including tracking logs and incentive payment receipts. 

Spanish Translation of the Coercive Control Survey. The COSMOS team translated the 

Coercive Control Survey, the In-depth Interview Protocol, and their associated consent forms to 

Spanish by following a back translation methodology (See Appendix J-3 and J-4). Back 

translation is the process of having a document translated by a qualified translator, then 

translated by another translator back to the original language. This methodology significantly 

improves the reliability and validity of data collected by the translated instrument, because an 

independent translator who translates back into the original language is able to verify the work of 

the other. This verification step is important, because translation has many nuances. A word in 

one language, for example, may have no equivalent in another language, or could have a 

completely different meaning or effect in the translated language. Furthermore, individuals who 

speak certain languages, such as Spanish, may adopt different forms of the language, depending 

on their country of origin. Those from Central America, for example, use colloquialisms and 

idioms unknown to those who use a more formal form of Spanish. Moreover, individuals from 

coastal regions of a country may use different words than individuals from interior cities and 

towns. 

Two COSMOS staff members who are native Spanish speakers (one from Puerto Rico and 

the other from Mexico) were involved in the translation of the Coercive Control Survey. One of 

the staff members conducted the original translation, and the second staff member conducted the 

back translation. The original and back-translated documents were then compared, and the 

translators reached consensus on changes. The translators took special care to avoid legal terms, 

jargon, colloquialisms, and idioms. 

Engagement of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The Georgetown University’s 

Institutional Review Board (IRB) served as the IRB of record for the study (the Principal 

Investigator is employed by Georgetown University). In addition, the study was reviewed by the 

IRB at Boston College (the employer of the co-Principal Investigator) as a requirement of her 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 22 
participation in the study. Initial applications were submitted to each IRB along with all 

required documentation including the study protocols, consent forms, etc., and the study received 

approval from both IRBs to conduct data collection. Annual review reports were required and 

submitted each year to the IRBs to provide updates on subject recruitment and progression of the 

study. 

2.4 STUDY PHASE 3: TESTING THE NEW MEASURE OF COERCIVE CONTROL 

The Coercive Control Survey was administered between February and September 2004 in 

Boston, MA and Washington, DC. The surveys were administered at selected sites including 

community-based service programs, a community college, and family and domestic violence 

courts (the sites are described below). A total of 757 surveys and 39 in-depth interviews were 

completed. Exhibit 2-2 provides a breakdown of the completed surveys. 

2.4.1 Recruitment and Training for Survey Administrators 

Survey administrators were required at a minimum to have a bachelor’s degree in social 

science or public policy, though an advanced degree was preferred. Desired experience included 

1) experience in survey research (any field), and 2) knowledge and/or experience of research 

issues related to intimate partner violence. At the Washington, DC site, the data collection was 

led by a senior COSMOS research associate with a master’s degree and over ten years of 

experience conducting data collection for research studies, and the survey administrators held 

either bachelor or master’s degrees; at the Boston site, all survey administrators were graduate 

students in counseling. 

A training manual (Appendix K-1) was developed, and formal training was conducted with 

the survey administrators. The training consisted of the following components: 

• Introduction to the research study; 

• Discussion and description of informed consent and confidentiality 

• Logistics of survey administration; and 

• Pilot test and discussion of the Coercive Control Survey (trainees self-administered 

the survey to acquaint themselves with each survey item, and following the pilot test, 

questions were answered). 

Because of the unique sensitivities required for administering the survey in a court setting, 

a special training was scheduled prior to administration of the survey at the court. The specifics 

of that training are described in the “Family and Domestic Violence Court” section. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 23 
2.4.2 Survey Administration Sites and On-Site Respondent Recruitment 

A description of the administration sites and the recruitment procedures utilized at each site 

is provided. 

Community-Based Data Collection—Boston, MA. At the Boston site, respondents were 

recruited from a variety of settings—including domestic violence programs and shelters, batterer 

treatment programs, GED and ESL classes, and a Burger King restaurant located in a lowincome neighborhood in Cambridge frequented by residents of local shelters—to tap a wide 

range of coercive control experiences. Respondents were recruited several different ways: 1) at 

the program sites, program staff approached their clients who they thought might be interested in 

participating, and if a client expressed interest in participating, he or she was directed to one of 

the survey administrators; 2) individuals who had participated in the ethnographic interviews 

were contacted and recruited to participate in the survey portion of the study; 3) intercept 

methods were used the local fast food restaurant; and 4) at the GED and ESL classes, the team 

members arranged to announce the study in the classes, and they scheduled survey 

administration at a later time. 

Community-Based Data Collection—Washington, DC. At the Washington, DC site, 

respondents were recruited from 1) residents at Homestretch, a transitional housing facility, and 

2) students at Montgomery College’s Germantown campus. At Homestretch, the study team 

worked with the facility director to arrange the administration of the Survey at one of their 

regularly scheduled mandatory evening classes, which is attended—on average—by 

approximately 70 individuals, both male and female, who reside at the facility. A team of five 

survey administrators attended the session to ensure coverage for the large group of respondents. 

At Montgomery College, the study team administered the Survey to students on four 

separate days. Dr. Lucy Laufe, one of the team’s Panel members and a professor at the college, 

assisted in the planning and preparation for administration at the college. Students were 

recruited in one of two ways: 1) via response to survey announcement flyers that were 

distributed by instructors in the classrooms prior to the team’s scheduled administration sessions; 

and 2) via intercept methods on the date of the scheduled administration sessions. The 

administrators were provided a classroom near the campus cafeteria for survey administration, 

and students were intercepted in the hallway outside the classroom. A team of two survey 

administrators was present on campus from approximately 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. on each 

scheduled day. 

Family and Domestic Violence Court—Washington, DC. The Coercive Control Survey 

was administered to litigants at the District of Columbia (DC) Superior Court’s Family and 

Domestic Violence Courts. The Principal Investigator made the initial contact with the Chief 

Judge of DC Superior Court and judges from the Family and Domestic Violence Courts, and 

later, in-person meetings were held between the Principal Investigator, court administrators, and 

a small number of judges to discuss the need for the data collection at the court and to describe 

in detail the plan for recruiting and consenting survey respondents in the court. The team 

provided drafts of recruitment flyers to the judges for their review and approval. The judges 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 24 
agreed to read the recruitment flyers to litigants inside the courtroom (or have it read by the court 

clerk). 

In addition, the team sent information letters to local organizations in the DC metropolitan 

area who work with the litigants who have cases before the Family and Domestic Violence 

Courts, in order to inform the organizations of the purpose of the research study and the specifics 

of the data collection in the court (copies of the information letters are contained in Appendix L). 

 The organizations that were contacted include the District of Columbia Bar; law clinics from 

American University, George Washington University, Georgetown University, and Catholic 

University; and community-based organizations including Ayuda, WEAVE, and the DC 

Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 

As noted above, a special training session was held for team members prior to survey 

administration at the court in order to discuss the directives outlined by the court and to discuss 

the unique challenges of data collection in a court setting. This special training session is 

outlined in the Training Outline for MCC Survey Administration at DC Superior Court found in 

Appendix K-2. Also, at the court’s invitation, the team conducted a tour of the court prior to 

beginning survey administration in order to become acquainted the layout of the court and the 

location of the courtrooms. 

The court allowed a limited number of specific days for data collection and provided the 

team, in advance, with a brief description of the cases being heard before each judge for the 

specified days. The survey was first administered at the Family Court for eight days in July 

2004 and at the Domestic Violence Court for six days in September-October 2004. Between two 

and four team members conducted data collection on each of the specific dates, the number 

depending on the number of relevant cases on the court docket for the specified day. A senior 

member of the team was designated as the team leader for each scheduled day of data collection. 

 The team leader was responsible for making in-person contact with the court clerks each day to 

remind them that team members were present and would be conducting data collection. On the 

specified dates, the team members stationed themselves outside of the courtrooms where the 

family or domestic violence cases were taking place (per the instruction of the judges, team 

members were not permitted inside the courtrooms) according the dockets provided by the court. 

 According to the respondents, some court clerks read the recruitment flyer, while others did not; 

but this did not seem to affect the number of respondents. 

The team used intercept methods to recruit respondents, specifically approaching people 

who waited outside of the designated courtrooms to inquire about their interest in participating in 

the research study. The team utilized scripts provided at the training and in the training manual 

for the specific language to use when approaching potential respondents. The main obstacle to 

respondent recruitment was the time required to distinguish litigants, family and friends of 

litigants, and witnesses. In general, if litigants felt they had the time, most were willing to 

complete the survey, with their main concern being starting the survey and being called for their 

case. The team found that allowing litigants to take the hard copy survey into court for return to 

the team member at the conclusion of their case improved the response rate, though, in general, 

most litigants were not willing to participate after their case. Often respondents approached 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 25 
team members after hearing about the survey from those who were taking or had already taken 

the survey. 

The majority of cases were scheduled in the early part of the day. Between 8:30 and 10:00 

a.m. was the most fruitful time to recruit respondents, as this was the time with the most activity 

in front of the courtrooms. Recruitment dwindled after 11:00 a.m.; after noon, no person wished 

to complete a survey, and very few people remained in the vicinity to approach regarding the 

surveys. 

2.4.3 Administration of the Coercive Control Survey and In-depth Interview Protocol 

Administration of the Survey. The survey was administered by trained project staff at each 

site, all of whom were under the supervision of Dr. Dutton at the Washington, DC, site and Dr. 

Goodman at the Boston site. In the field, survey administrators were required to wear a name tag 

identifying themselves as members of the study team. Respondent eligibility requirements for 

participation in the study included: 1) 18 years of age or older, and 2) involvement in an 

intimate relationship during the past 12 months. Three recruitment incentives were 

implemented: 1) a $20 incentive fee for completion of the Survey; 2) optional entry into a raffle 

for which three drawings would be conducted with three randomly selected winners receiving 

$100 each; and 3) a limited amount of funds were available to compensate respondents for child 

care and transportation. 

Survey administrators were provided the following introduction script to use once a 

potential recruit expressed interest in the study and it was determined that they met the eligibility 

requirements: 

My name is [X]. The Survey will take about an hour to complete. You 

will receive $20 for submission of a completed Survey and a chance to 

win one of three $100 raffles. To participate, you must first read and 

sign a consent form which describes the study, any possible risks and 

benefits to you, and outlines what you are requested to do. 

Prior to administering the survey, the survey administrators conducted detailed consent 

discussions with the respondents to explain the research study, answer questions, assure 

confidentiality, describe the informed consent process and form, and obtain written consent. 

Respondents were offered the choice of reading the consent form themselves or having the 

administrator read the form to them. Respondents were offered a copy of the blank consent form 

to keep. 

At the conclusion of the consent discussion, respondents were offered the choice of 

participating in the raffle. Respondents were told that entry in the raffle was optional and if they 

chose not to enter the raffle, they would still receive the $20 incentive fee. To be entered into 

the raffle, respondents were required to provide their name and telephone number so that they 

could be contacted if their name was drawn. Winners were randomly selected during October 

2005. See Section 2.4.5 for a complete description of the raffle process. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 26 
Prior to administration of the survey, respondents were offered the opportunity to ask any 

questions about the study, the consent form, the survey, etc. Respondents also were offered the 

choice of self-administering the survey or having the survey administered by a study team 

member. Interviews were conducted in privacy whenever possible. Completion of the survey 

required approximately one hour. At the conclusion of the survey, survey administrators were 

required to conduct a quick review of the completed survey to ensure that all items on each page 

were completed and filled out correctly. Following this quality review, respondents received 

their $20 incentive fee and were required to sign or initial a receipt to acknowledge that the fee 

was received. 

Lastly, a debriefing was conducted to ensure that respondents were not in any 

psychological distress, and a list of local and national domestic violence resources was offered. 

Survey administrators used the following debriefing script at the conclusion of the survey: 

Thank you so much for taking the time to participate in this study. We 

hope that the results of this study will help us to gain a deeper 

understanding of the ways in which people in intimate relationships try 

to control each other. If you feel upset or would like to talk with 

someone further about your safety or about the feelings you might have, 

I would be happy to spend a few minutes talking with you. If you think 

you might want to spend more time exploring the feelings brought up by 

this study, there are resources available [provide domestic violence 

resources list]. 

Administration of the In-depth Interviews. Approximately one in every ten respondents 

was recruited to participate in the In-depth Interviews. After receiving the $20 incentive fee for 

completion of the Survey and signing the acknowledgment receipt, respondents were asked 

about their interest in completing a follow-up interview for which they would receive an 

additional $20 incentive fee. Completion of the In-depth Interview required approximately 30 

minutes. At the conclusion of the Interview, respondents received the additional $20 incentive 

fee, were required to sign or initial a receipt to acknowledge that the additional fee was received, 

and at that time, the debriefing (described above) was conducted. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 27 
2.4.4 Tracking and Processing Completed Survey Materials 

Survey administrators were responsible for managing a wide variety of materials at each 

survey administration session, including surveys, survey consent forms, In-depth Interview 

Protocols, interview consent forms, fee receipts, raffle receipts, recruitment flyers, domestic 

violence resource lists, cash money for incentive fees (survey, interview, child care, and 

transportation), and various logs for tracking the forms and fees. For safety reasons, each team 

of survey administrators was allowed to carry only enough cash (and materials) to administer a 

maximum of 25 surveys and two In-depth Interviews for each scheduled session (one exception 

was the administration at Homestretch, for which 70 respondents were expected). Coordinators 

at both the Boston and Washington sites were responsible for compiling, tracking, and 

distributing the materials and funds to survey administrators; tracking, logging, and conducting 

quality reviews of completed surveys and interviews; and tracking outgoing incentive fees and 

receipts. 

The procedures for tracking and processing completed survey materials from the field 

involved a series of quality checks to ensure that all surveys, respondent incentive funds, indepth interviews, tracking logs, consent forms, and raffle receipts were accounted for and 

recorded for tracking purposes. The following quality checks were completed and recorded for 

incoming survey materials from each survey administration session: 

• Count the number of completed surveys and in-depth interviews; 

• Match the incoming survey ID numbers with the master survey log (a log which 

tracks the outcome for each ID number (i.e., survey complete, survey 

incomplete, survey not completed for that ID number); 

• Match the signatures on the consent forms to those on the incentive payment 

logs; 

• Match the number of completed surveys to the number of consent forms; 

• Match the ID number on the in-depth interviews with the associated completed 

surveys; 

• Match signatures on the in-depth interview consent forms with in-depth 

interview incentive payment logs; 

• Match the number of completed in-depth interviews to the number of in-depth 

consent forms; and 

• Complete a thorough reckoning of surveys and in-depth interviews with funds 

disbursed and funds returned. 

2.4.5 Raffle Procedures 

Background. As an incentive to increase participation in the Coercive Control Survey, a 

raffle was utilized (and authorized by the IRB). As part of the subject recruitment procedures, 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 28 
study candidates were informed that raffle participants would be eligible to win one of three 

$100 raffles. For safety reasons, subjects were given the choice to participate in the raffle. 

Those who chose to participate filled out a receipt form with their name, telephone number, and 

alternate contact number, which was kept by the study team. The participant also kept a receipt 

(for safety reasons, the participant’s receipt was non-descript). The participants were informed 

that they would be contacted by telephone if they were randomly selected. For safety reasons, 

the raffle receipts were stored separately, under lock and key, from the study questionnaire and 

consent forms. 

Procedures for Winner Selection. Raffle winners were randomly selected using the 

random number generator in SPSS version 14.0. Alternates were chosen using the same method 

after the initial set of winners were removed from the participant pool. 

Procedures for Winner Contact. The first three randomly selected winners were contacted 

by telephone. Scripts for person-to-person contact and for leaving voice messages were 

developed. The scripts were developed following the study safety protocol, and the scripts were 

reviewed and authorized by the study PI. 

1. Script for Person-to-Person Contact 

My name is X, I'm with COSMOS Corporation, and I'm calling about a survey 

you took back in [month, year] on coercive control in intimate partner 

relationships. You entered a raffle when you signed up to take the survey and I'm 

happy to tell that you've won one of the three raffles. Please tell me an address 

where you would prefer us to mail the check for $100, or if you would rather pick 

up the check at COSMOS’s office which is on the Metro’s Red Line. 

[Obtain address or provide directions to COSMOS]. 

2. Script for Leaving a Voice Message 

I'm calling for [participant name]. My name is [caller name], and I'm calling 

about a raffle you entered back in [month, year] for the COSMOS study 

questionnaire. You have won the raffle and I need to confirm an address where I 

can send your check. Please call me at [phone number]. The deadline to 

responding is [date]; after that time, another winner will be chosen. 

A two-week time period was set for winners to respond in the event that a voice message was 

left for the participant. After that time, the next randomly selected alternates were contacted. 

Raffle Results. Three randomly selected winners were contacted in November and 

December 2005, and each winner received payment of $100 (cash or check). The winners were 

given the option of receiving the $100 raffle in cash or by check, and also were given the option 

of receiving the $100 raffle by U.S. mail (check option only) or picking up the winnings at 

COSMOS’s office (check or cash option). Two of the winners opted to have checks mailed, and 

one winner opted to pick the raffle, in cash, at COSMOS’s office. 

The raffle receipts and list of raffle participants will be destroyed along with the other 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 29 
project materials following the guidelines required by the funding agency (the National Institute 

of Justice). 

2.4.6 Electronic Data Scanning 

All electronic data scanning was conducted by a study team member at COSMOS. After 

processing and tracking all of the incoming survey materials, the Boston site submitted all study 

materials to COSMOS, and data from both sites were electronically scanned to an Access 

database via TeleForm software (a description of the software can be found in Appendix H). 

The procedures for transferring data from paper surveys to the Access database are outlined in 

Exhibit 2-10: 

Exhibit 2-10 

PROCEDURES FOR ELECTRONICALLY SCANNING 

SURVEY DATA VIA TELEFORM 

Teleform Processing Steps 

1. Scan surveys 

2. Batch creation 

3. Batch reading 

4. Batch identification 

5. Batch evaluation 

6. Batch correction 

7. Batch committal 

Description of Processing Steps 

• Scan completed surveys into PDF format 

• Save scanned surveys in a centralized folder on COSMOS’s network 

• Compile scanned surveys into small batches (5-10 surveys) 

• Process surveys by batches using TeleForm 

• Review created batches 

• Reject or accept the individual batches 

• Batch matched with correct form template for purposes of correction 

and data entry 

• Remove duplicates, blank pages, and miscellaneous error pages 

• Conduct manual correction of TeleForm’s reading of the data, where 

necessary: 

- Ex. Correction of misread numbers 

- Ex. Clarification of unreadable responses due to stray marks, 

illegible writing, and scratched-out responses 

• Conduct data cleaning: if multiple responses were checked in a field 

requiring only one response, all responses for that question were 

removed in order to continue batch processing, resulting in a blank 

response. 

• Following evaluation and correction, transfer batches to Microsoft 

Access database 

2.5 STUDY PHASE 4: DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 

Once all of the surveys had been transferred to the Access database, the data were read into 

SPSS (version 13.0) for analysis. The SPSS data file included the survey data for 757 

respondents. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 30 
2.5.1 Item Analysis 

Initial data validation procedures included examination of records for completeness and 

correctness. Missing items were counted across individual records and percent missing was 

calculated. Developing and conducting logic checks for proper adherence to skip patterns and 

assurance of in-range values examined response validity. 

2.5.2 Scale Analysis 

Scales were calculated from items to measure the components outlined in the conceptual 

framework (see Appendix G). The measurement scales were examined for floor and ceiling 

effects and percent missing was calculated for each scale. Chronbach’s alphas were computed, 

along with inter-item and item-total correlations to evaluate the internal consistency of the 

measurement scales. The distributions of the computed scales were examined for normality. 

Additionally, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were run on each scale (using Mplus, 

version 3.13) to validate the proposed factor structure of the components. When a CFA did not 

support a proposed factor structure, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was run to empirically 

determine a more acceptable structure. 

Regression analyses assessed the psychometric validity of the coercion measure, 

specifically its convergent and predictive validity. The regression analyses were run for all 

respondents and for males and females separately. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 31 
3. RESULTS OF THE STUDY 

3.1 Development of Coercion Related Measures 

Scales and sub-scales were constructed from individual survey items to measure coercion 

related constructs. The survey instrument is found in Appendix J. 

The results of an item analysis showed that two respondents were missing more than 60% 

items overall. These cases were excluded from further analyses. Sixty-six cases were missing 

60% or more on at least one section; the largest number of missing on any one section was 15. 

Any respondents missing 60% or more on any section were not used in the scale computations 

for that section. 

A review of the distributions of the scales showed approximation to normality with no floor 

or ceiling effects (based on 80% or more of respondents having either the lowest or highest 

score). 

Internal consistency of the scales was high; all Chronbach’s alphas for the overall coercionrelated constructs (demands, surveillance and coercion) were .86 and higher for both partner as 

coercer and respondent as coercer. 

3.1.1 Demands 

Demands made by partner to respondent and demands made by respondent to partner were 

measured by two separate sets of 48 items. These items comprise 9 subscales: 

1. Personal Activities/Appearance 

2. Support/Social life/Family 

3. Household 

4. Work/Economic/Resources 

5. Health 

6. Intimate relationship 

7. Legal 

8. Immigration 

9. Children/Parenting 

3.1.1.1 By Partner 

Items to measure demands made by partner to respondent are found in Section 2A of the 

survey instrument. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a nine-factor structure 

(CFI = .911, TLI = .955, RMSEA = .053). 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 32 
3.1.1.2 By Respondent 

Items to measure demands made by respondent to partner are found in Section 3A of the 

survey instrument. A CFA confirmed the nine-factor structure (CFI = .919, TLI = .963, 

RMSEA = .049). 

3.1.2 Surveillance 

Respondents were asked how their partners would know whether they did what was 

demanded. Respondents were also asked how they would know if their partner did what they 

demanded. This surveillance construct was measured by two parallel sets of 13 items. No 

subscales were hypothesized a priori. 

3.1.2.1 By Partner 

The items to measure partners’ surveillance are found in Section 2B of the instrument. A 

CFA supported surveillance as a one-factor structure (CFI = .974, TLI = .987, RMSEA = .049). 

3.1.2.2 By Respondent 

The items to measure respondents’ surveillance activities are found in Section 3B of the 

instrument. The results of a CFA also supported surveillance by respondent as a one-factor 

structure (CFI = .966, TLI = .984, RMSEA = .051). 

3.1.3 Coercion 

Items asking about threats of negative consequences or not doing what was demanded make 

up the coercion construct. A parallel set of 31 items comprises the overall construct of 

coercion—threats from the partner as coercer and threats from the respondent as coercer. The 31 

items are further divided into three subscales: 

1) Harm to You 

2) Harm to Partner 

3) Harm to Others 

3.1.3.1 By Partner 

The items that measure partners’ coercion are found in section 2C of the survey instrument. 

The three-factor structure was supported by the results of a CFA (CFI = .967, TLI = .982, 

RMSEA = .048). 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 33 
3.1.3.2 By Respondent 

The 31 items that measure respondents’ coercion of their partners are found in Section 3C 

of the instrument. As with the partners’ coercion, a three-factor construct was supported (CFI = 

.976, TLI = .991, RMSEA = .035). 

3.1.4 Involvement of Third Party 

Respondents were asked if their partners made them think that they would get any one to 

help them enforce a demand. Conversely, respondents were asked if they had made their partner 

think that they would get someone’s help to enforce the respondents’ demands. 

3.1.4.1 By Partner 

Respondents who said that their partners made them think they would get help to enforce 

their demands equaled 12.4 percent. 

3.1.4.2 By Respondent 

Respondents said that they made their partners think they would get help to enforce their 

demands equaled 7.8 percent. 

3.1.5 Response to Coercion—Respondent 

Sixteen items measured respondents’ response or reactions to coercion. No sub-scales were 

hypothesized. A CFA did not support a one-factor structure. The results of an exploratory 

factor analysis (EFA) yielded a good fit with 2 factors (RMSEA =. 043; RMR = .050). The two 

factors are as follows: 

Factor 1 (n=11) Factor 2 (n=5) 

1 Did what your partner wanted, even though you didn't 8 Fought back physically 

want to 

2 Refused to do what he/she said 9 Used/threatened to use a weapon against him/her 

3 Tried to talk your partner out of wanting you to do it 14 Filed for a civil protection order 

4 Lied about having done what your partner wanted 15 Called the police 

5 Sought help from someone else 16 Tried to get criminal charges filed 

6 Tried to distract your partner 

7 Tried to avoid him/her 

10 Left home to get away from him/her 

11 Ended (or tried to end) the relationship 

12 Argued back verbally 

13 Did nothing—just didn't do it 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 34 
3.2 Psychometric Validity of Coercion Measure 

Data analysis provided strong support for convergent validity of the coercion measure by 

examining relationships between coercion and scores and 1) demands, 2) surveillance, and 3) 

levels of IPV (Appendix M). Evidence of predictive validity of the coercion measure was also 

found, based on associations with measures of PTSD, depression, IPV threat appraisal, and fear. 

 When controlling for physical, sexual, and psychological IPV, evidence of predictive validity 

was maintained for PTSD, IPV threat appraisal, and fear, but not for depression, suggesting that 

the newly developed measure of coercion is specific to IPV, and does not reflect general 

emotional distress. These findings held for both males and females. 

3.3 Preliminary Test of Gender and Perpetrator/Victim Differences in Coercion-Related 

Measures 

Further analysis examining gender symmetry and differences between perpetrators and 

victims of IPV will appear in peer-reviewed published reports. 

3.4 Dissemination 

The study team initiated dissemination of results of the study during summer 2005. In July 

2005, the principal investigators presented “Coercion and IPV: Development of a New 

Measure,” at the University of New Hampshire’s Family Violence Conference; and in August 

2005, the article “Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization,” 

was published in the journal Sex Roles (see Appendix M). Additional dissemination will be 

conducted. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 35 
REFERENCES 

Archer, John, “Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic 

Review,” Psychological Bulletin, 2000, 126(5):651-680. 

Bachman, R., “Incidence Rates of Violence Against Women: A Comparison of the Redesigned 

National Crime Victimization Survey and the 1985 National Family Violence Survey,” 1998. 

Bachman, R., and L.E. Saltzman, Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned 

Survey, NCJ 154348, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, 1995. 

Bandura, A., Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1986. 

Brofenbrenner, U., The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design, 

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979. 

Brown, F.G., Principles of Educational and Psychological Testing, Dryden, Hinsdale, Illinois, 

1994. 

Campbell, J., L. Rose, J. Kub, and D. Nedd, “Voices of Strength and Resistance: A Contextual 

and Longitudinal Analysis of Women’s Responses to Battering,” Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 1998, 13(6):743-762. 

Cantos, A.L., P.H. Neidig, and K.D. O’Leary, “Injuries of Women and Men in a Treatment 

Program for Domestic Violence,” Journal of Family Violence, 1994, 9(2):113-124. 

Clark, L.A., and D. Watson, “Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale 

Development,” Psychological Medicine, 1995, 7(3):309-319. 

Cohen, S., R. Merlmelstein, T. Kamarack, and H.M. Hoberman, “Measuring the Functional 

Components of Social Support,” in I.G. Sarason and B.R. Sarason (eds.), Social Support: 

Theory, Research, and Applications, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands ,1985, 

pp. 73-94. 

Collins, N.L., and S.J. Reed, “Adult Attachment, Working Models, and Relationship Quality in 

Dating Couples,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990, 58:644. 

Cromwell, R.E., and D.H. Olson, Power in Families, Wiley, New York, New York, 1975. 

Das Dasgupta, S., “Towards an Understanding of Women’s Use of Non-Lethal Violence in 

Intimate Heterosexual Relationships,” National Online Resource Center on Violence Against 

Women, February 2001. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 36 
DeKeseredy, W.S. and M.D. Schwartz, “Measuring the Extent of Woman Abuse in Intimate 

Heterosexual Relationships: A Critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales,” National Online 

Resource Center on Violence Against Women, February 1998. 

DeKeseredy, W.S., D.G. Saunders, M.D. Schwartz, and S. Alvi, “The Meanings and Motives for 

Women’s Use of Violence in Canadian College Dating Relationships: Results from a 

National Survey,” Sociological Spectrum, 1997, 17:199-222. 

Dutton, M.A., “Battered Women’s Strategic Response to Violence: The Role of Context,” in 

J.L. Edleson and Z.C. Eisikovits (eds.), Future Interventions with Battered Women and Their 

Families, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California, 1996. 

Dutton, M.A., L.A.Goodman, K. Weinfurt, and N. Vankos, “IPV Threat Appraisal,” presented at 

the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, New Orleans, 

LA, 2001. 

Edelson. J.L., and R.M. Tolman, Intervention for Men Who Batter: An Ecological Perspective, 

Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California, 1992. 

Fischer, K., N. Vidmar, and R. Ellis, “The Culture of Battering and the Role of Mediation in 

Domestic Violence Cases,” SMU (Southern Methodist University) Law Review, 1993, 

46:2117. 

Foster, S.L., and J.D. Cone, “Validity Issues in Clinical Assessment,” Psychological Assessment, 

1995, 7(3):248-260 . 

French, J.R.P., and B.H. Raven, “The Bases of Social Power,” in D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in 

Social Power, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1959. 

Gondolf, E.W., “Who Are Those Guys? Towards a Behavioral Typology of Batterers,” Violence 

and Victims, 1988, 3:187-204. 

Gordon, A.D., Classification, Chapman and Hall, London, England, 1981. 

Hair, J.F., and W.C. Black, “Cluster Analysis,” in L. Grimm and P.R. Yarnold (eds.), Reading 

and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics, American Psychological Association, 

Washington, DC, 2000. 

Hamberger, L.K., J.M. Lohr, D. Bonge, and D.F. Tolin, “A Large Sample Empirical Typology of 

Male Spouse Abusers and its Relationship to Dimensions of Abuse,” Violence and Victims, 

1996, 11:277-292. 

Harter, S., P.L. Waters, L.M. Pettitt, and N. Whitesell, “Autonomy and Connectedness as 

Dimensions of Relationship Styles in Men and Women,” Journal of Social and Personal 

Relationships, 1997, 14(2):147-164. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 37 
Haynes, S.N., D.C.S. Richard, and E.S. Kubany, “Content Validity in Psychological Assessment: 

A Functional Approach to Concepts and Methods,” Psychological Assessment, 1995, 

7(3):238-247. 

Hinkin, T.R., and C.A. Schriesheim, “Development and Application of New Scales to Measure 

the French and Raven (1959) Bases of Social Power,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989, 

74:561-567. 

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., and G.L. Stuart, “Typologies of Batterers: 3 Subtypes and the 

Differences among Them,” Psychological Bulletin, 1994, 11:476-497. 

Holtzworth-Monroe, A., G.L. Stuart, and G. Hutchinson, “Violence Versus Nonviolent 

Husbands: Differences in Attachment Patterns, Dependency, and Jealousy,” Journal of 

Family Psychology, 1997, 11:3314-3331. 

Holtzworth-Monroe, A., J.C. Meehan, K. Herron, U. Rehman, and G.L. Stuart, “Testing the 

Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) Batterer Typology,” Journal of Consulting and 

Clinical Psychology, 1994, 2000, 68(6):1000-1019. 

Johnson, M.P., “Conflict and Control: Images of Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic 

Violence,” in Alan Booth, Ann C. Crouter, and Mari Clements (eds.), Couples in Conflict, 

Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 2000. 

Johnson, M.P., “Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence 

Against Women,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1995, 57:283-294. 

Johnson, M.P., and Kathleen J. Ferraro, “Research on Domestic Violence in the 1990s: Making 

Distinctions,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, November 2000, 62(4):948-963. 

Loo, R., and K. Thorpe, “Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the Full and Short Versions of the 

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale,” Journal of Social Psychology, 2000, 

140(5):628-635. 

Molm, L.D., Coerceive Power in Social Exchange, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom, 1997. 

National Institute of Justice, “Workshop on Gender Symmetry: Summary of Workshop 

Discussion,” Violence Victimization Division, Office of Research and Evaluation, November 

20, 2000. 

Nesler, M.S., H. Aguinis, B.M. Quigley, S.J. Lef, and J.T. Tedeschi, “The Development and 

Validation of a Scale Measuring Global Social Power Based on French and Raven’s Power 

Taxonomy,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1999, 29(4):750-771. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 38 
Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, 1978. 

O’Leary, K.D., “Psychological Abuse: A Variable Deserving Critical Attention in Domestic 

Violence,” Violence and Victims, 1999, 14(1):3-23. 

Pence, E., and M. Paymar, Power and Control: Tactics of Men Who Batter, Minnesota Program 

Development, Inc., Duluth, Minnesota, 1986. 

Radloff, L.S. “The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General 

Population,” Applied Psychological Measurement, 1977, 1:385-401. 

Raju, N.S., W.J. van der Linden, and P.F. Fleer, “IRT-based Internal Measures of Differential 

Functioning of Items and Tests,” Applied Psychological Measurement, 1995, 19(4):353-368. 

Raven, B.H., “The Bases of Power: Origins and Recent Developments,” Journal of Social 

Psychology, 1993, 49(4):227-251. 

Raven, B.H., R. Centers, and A. Rodriques, “The Bases of Conjugal Power,” in R.E. Cromwell 

and D.H. Olson (eds.), Power in Families, Wiley, New York, New York, 1975. 

Reynolds, W.M., “Development of Reliable and Valid Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne 

Social Desirability Scale,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1982, 38(1):119-125. 

Saltzman, L.E., and L.A. Fingerhut, “Building Data Systems for Monitoring and Responding to 

Violence Against Women,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2000, 49(RR-11):1-16. 

Saunders, D., “A Typology of Men Who Batter: Three Types Derived from Cluster Analysis,” 

American Orthopsychiatry, 1992, 62:264-275. 

Saunders, D., “When Battered Women Use Violence: Husband-abuse and Self-defense,” 

Violence and Victims, 1986, 1:47-60. 

Schreurs, K.M.G., and B.P. Buunk, “Closeness, Autonomy, Equity, and Relationship 

Satisfaction in Lesbian Couples,” Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1996, 20(4):577-592. 

Smith, P.H., J.B. Smith, and J.A. Earp, “Beyond the Measurement Trap: A Reconstructed 

Conceptualization and Measurement of Woman Battering,” Psychology of Women Quarterly, 

1999, 23(1):177-193. 

Steadman, H.J., E. Silver, J. Monahan, P.S. Appelbaum, P. Clark Robbins, E.P. Mulvey, T. 

Grisso, L.H. Roth, and S. Banks, “A Classification Tree Approach to the Development of 

Actuarial Violence Risk Assessment Tools,” Law & Human Behavior, 2000, 24(1):83-100. 

Straus, M., and R. Gelles, Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions to 

Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, Canada, 1990. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 39 
Straus, M.A. “The Controversy over Domestic Violence by Women: A Methological, 

Theoretical, and Sociology of Science Analysis,” in X. Arriaga and S. Oskamp (eds.), 

Violence in Intimate Relationships, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 1999. 

Straus, M.A., S.L. Hamby, S. Boney-McCoy, and D.B. Sugarman, “The Revised Conflict Tactics 

Scales (CTS2): Development and Preliminary Psychometric Data,” Journal of Family 

Issues, 1996, 17:283-316. 

Stuckless, N., “A Simple Lesson in Item Validity: Qualitative Data Informing Quantitative 

Findings,” Traumatic Stress Points (in press). 

Tabachnick, B., and L. Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics, (3rd ed.), Harper Collins, New 

York, New York, 1996. 

Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of 

Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 2000. 

Tolman, R., “The Development of a Measure of Psychological Maltreatment of Women by Their 

Male Partners,” Violence and Victims, 1989, 4(3):173-189. 

Tolman, R., “The Validation of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory,” Violence 

and Victims, 1999, 14(1):25-37. 

Ventureyra, V.A.G., S. Yao, J. Cottraux, I. Note, and C. De Mey-Guillard, “The Validation of 

the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Scale in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and 

Nonclinical Subjects,” Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 71(1): 47-53. 

Waltz, J., J.C. Babcock, N.S. Jacobson, and J.M. Gottman, “Testing a Typology of Batterers,” 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2001, 68(4):658-669. 

Wright, B.D., and G.N. Masters, Rating Scale Analysis, Mesa Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1982. 

Yoshihama, M., “Reinterpreting Strength and Safety in a Socio-cultural Context: Dynamics of 

Domestic Violence and Experiences of Women of Japanese Descent,” Children and Youth 

Services Review, 2000, 22(3-4):207-229. 

COSMOS Corporation, December 30, 2005 40 
Appendices 
Appendix A 

Advisory Panel and Project Team Members 
Appendix A 

Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure 

for Intimate Partner Violence (MCC) 

ADVISORY PANEL AND PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS 

ADVISORY PANEL 

David Adams, Ed.D. 

Program and Research Director 

Emerge 

2380 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 101 

Cambridge, MA 02140 

Phone: 617-547-9879 

E-mail: dadams9@msn.com 

Dr. Adams co-founded Emerge, the first treatment program in the nation for spouse 

abusers. He coordinates the development and implementation of research projects at 

Emerge including an ongoing study of domestic homicides. In collaboration with a 

battered women’s program, he also co-founded the state’s first preventive education 

program on relationship abuse for middle and high school students. 

Joyce Chung, M.D. 

Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry 

Department of Psychiatry 

Georgetown University Medical Center 

3800 Reservoir Road, NW 

Washington, DC 20007 

Phone: 202-687-8609 

E-mail: chungjy@georgetown.edu 

Dr. Chung, a psychiatrist with postdoctoral training in medical anthropology, is a 

professor, researcher, and medical staff member at Georgetown University Medical 

Center. She has conducted numerous studies on the affect of cultural beliefs on the 

treatment of depression, the prevention and treatment of HIV infection in psychiatric 

patients, and AIDS in special populations. 

COSMOS Corporation 1 
Sarah Cook, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor 

Department of Psychology 

Georgia State University 

140 Decatur Street, 11th Floor 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Phone: 404-651-2283 

E-mail: scook@gsu.edu 

Dr. Cook is the principal investigator on a project to investigate the role of context, 

meaning, and method in the measurement of central violence against women constructs. 

Previously, she conducted research on the role of power and control in women’s intimate 

relationships as a means of enhancing an HIV preventive intervention. 

Shamita Das Dasgupta, Ph.D. 

Co-founder and Development Coordinator 

Manavi 

7 Fletcher Drive 

Montville, NJ 07045 

Phone: 973-334-7356 

E-mail: dasgupta@worldnet.att.net 

Dr. Das Dasgupta is the co-founder of Manavi, an organization for South Asian 

immigrant women. She has published numerous articles on violence in the South Asian 

community and women’s use of violence. She currently serves as a board member of the 

New Jersey Governor’s Domestic Violence Fatalities Review Board, Praxis International, 

the Advisory Committee of National Applied Research on Violence Against Women 

Network, and the Battered Women’s Justice Project. 

Walter DeKeseredy, Ph.D. 

Professor 

Department of Sociology and Anthropology 

Ohio University 

Athens, OH 45701 

Phone: 740-593-1376 

E-mail: dekesere@ohiou.edu 

Dr. DeKeseredy has published extensively on the issues of sexual assault and woman 

abuse on college campuses. He currently is a co-investigator on a three-year longitudinal 

study of marital conflict and resolution in 440 Swiss families and a consultant for a 

national evaluation of the grants to combat violence against women on campus program. 

COSMOS Corporation 2 
Ed Gondolf, Ed.D. 

Associate Director of Research, Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute 

Professor of Sociology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania 

1098 Oakland Avenue 

Indiana, PA 15705 

Phone: 724-357-4749 

E-mail: egondolf@grove.iup.edu 

Dr. Gondolf has conducted research on the response of the courts, mental health 

practitioners, alcohol treatment clinicians, and batterer programs to domestic violence. 

He currently is the principal investigator of a multi-site, seven-year evaluation of batterer 

intervention programs that have tracked over 800 batterers and their female partners in 

four cities. He is the founding president of the Domestic Abuse Counseling Center in 

Pittsburgh and has authored eight books on woman abuse. 

Michael Johnson, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor of Sociology, Women’s Studies and 

African & African American Studies 

Associate Head, Department of Sociology 

The Pennsylvania State University 

211 Oswald Tower 

University Park, PA 16802 

Phone: 814-865-2527 

E-mail: mpj@psu.edu 

Dr. Johnson has conducted extensive research on violence against women in the family 

and has conceptualized a typology of violence in intimate partner relationships. He has 

published extensively and is a frequent speaker on the issues of violence against women, 

men’s use of violence, conflict in family relationships, and making distinctions between 

the different types of family violence. 

Lucy Laufe, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology and Sociology 

Montgomery College 

20200 Observation Drive 

Germantown, MD 20876 

Phone: 301-353-1965 

E-mail: llaufe@mc.cc.md.us 

Dr. Laufe has conducted numerous field-based studies in Latin America. She recently 

was awarded a fellowship by the Department of Education to teach an international 

education seminar on culture change, cultural diversity, and ethnicity in the U.S. 

COSMOS Corporation 3 
Charles Lidz, Ph.D. 

Director, Center for Research on Mental Health Services 

Department of Psychiatry 

University of Massachusetts Medical Center 

55 Lake Avenue North 

Worcester, MA 01655 

Phone: 508-856-5498 

E-mail: chuck.lidz@umassmed.edu 

Dr. Lidz is currently the principal investigator on a study of violent incidents and recently 

served as the principal investigator on a project to study informed consent and therapeutic 

misconception. He is a co-investigator on a study that has focused on developing a 

measure of perceived coercion surrounding in-patient admission decisions. He has 

published extensively on the issue of coercion and the provision of mental health 

services. 

Leslye Orloff, J.D. 

Senior Staff Attorney and Program Director 

Immigrant Women Program 

NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund 

1522 K Street, NW, Suite 550 

Washington, DC 20005 

Phone: 202-326-0040 

E-mail: lorloff@nowldef.org 

Ms. Orloff is the founding director of the Immigrant Women Program, which undertakes 

policy advocacy, education, and training on issues affecting immigrant women’s legal 

rights. The work of the program also includes the co-coordination of the National 

Network on Behalf of Battered Immigrant Women. 

Sue Osthoff 

Director 

National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women 

125 S. 9th Street, Suite 302 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Phone: 215-351-0010 

E-mail: sueo@ncdbw.org 

Ms. Osthoff co-founded and currently directs the National Clearinghouse for the Defense 

of Battered Women, an organization that provides resources and information to battered 

women charged with crimes and to members of their defense teams. The organization 

works closely with other national, state, and local battered women’s, criminal defense, 

and incarcerated women’s organizations to form a more cohesive and comprehensive 

response to battered women charged with crimes. 

COSMOS Corporation 4 
Ellen Pence, Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

Praxis International 

202 East Superior Street 

Duluth, MN 55802 

Phone: 218-722-4820 

E-mail: praxisep@aol.com 

Dr. Pence is a co-founder of the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project and has been active 

in institutional change work for battered women since 1975. She is the author of two 

books and several educational manuals and curricula for classes for battered women, men 

who batter, and developing a coordinated community response to domestic violence. 

Rose Pulliam, M.S.W. 

Statewide Coordinator 

Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 

P.O. Box 405 

Montpelier, VT 05601 

Phone: 802-223-1302 

E-mail: rose@vtnetwork.org 

Ms. Pulliam has extensive experience providing technical assistance to communities 

starting coordinated community task forces to address domestic violence. She has 

participated in state-level policy and curriculum development and is a public speaker and 

trainer at the state and local level for law enforcement, court officials, victims’ advocates, 

mental health professionals, and medical personnel. 

Rachel Rodriguez, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor, School of Nursing 

University of Wisconsin 

600 Highland Avenue 

Madison, WI 53792 

Phone: 608-262-0051 

E-mail: rarodri1@facstaff.wisc.edu 

Dr. Rodriguez’s research is focused on developing knowledge that will be used for social 

and system change in the area of domestic violence programming and policy in the Latina 

immigrant and migrant farmworker women communities. She currently is working on 

developing the Institute for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Research and Policy at the 

School of Nursing. 

COSMOS Corporation 5 
Beverly Wilkins 

Owner and Consultant 

Peaceful Nations 

1208 San Pedro, N.E., #212 

Albuquerque, NM 87110 

Phone: 505-268-5863 

E-mail: bjwilkins@qwest.edu 

Ms. Wilkins is the owner of Peaceful Nations, a consulting firm providing expertise on 

issues surrounding violence against women, children, and families; cultural diversity; and 

program development and implementation. She has more than 20 years of experience in 

the field of domestic violence and has published and presented numerous papers on the 

issues of violence against Native American women. 

Oliver Williams, Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community 

School of Social Work 

University of Minnesota 

290 Peters Hall 

1404 Gortner Avenue 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

Phone: 612-624-5357 

E-mail: owilliam@tc.umn.edu 

Dr. Williams has published extensively and is an internationally recognized speaker on 

domestic violence in the African American community. His work has included research 

and curriculum development on such topics as treatment for African American men who 

batter, partner abuse programs and cultural competency, and elder maltreatment and 

violence. 

COSMOS Corporation 6 
PROJECT TEAM 

Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D. 

Professor 

Department of Psychiatry 

Georgetown University Medical Center 

620 Kober Cogan Hall 

Washington, DC 20007 

Phone: 202-687-1997 

E-mail: mad27@georgetown.edu 

Dr. Dutton, principal investigator for this project, is a clinical psychologist and forensic 

expert with extensive experience in the area of domestic violence. She is the principal 

investigator for the National Evaluation of the Rural Domestic Violence and Child 

Victimization Enforcement Grant Program and two longitudinal studies investigating the 

developmental trajectory of domestic violence among battered women, funded by NIJ 

and CDC. 

Lisa Goodman, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor 

Department of Counseling Psychology 

Boston College 

140 Commonwealth Avenue 

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 

Phone: 617-552-1725 

E-mail: goodmalc@bc.edu 

Dr. Goodman, co-investigator for this project, has focused her research on community 

responses to domestic violence and the prevalence and effects of violence against 

underserved women including homeless, low-income, and severely mentally ill 

populations. She is the principal investigator on an evaluation of the Targeted Offender 

Program in Washington, DC, a program that will create a specialized multidisciplinary 

team to provide intensive services to victims of the most serious, high-risk, non-fatal 

domestic violence cases in the District of Columbia. 

COSMOS Corporation 7 
Aileen Worrell, M.S.W. 

Manager 

COSMOS Corporation 

3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 950 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Phone: 301-215-9100 ext 294 

E-mail: aworrell@cosmoscorp.com 

Ms. Worrell, the coordinator for this project, also serves as the coordinator for the 

National Evaluation of the Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization 

Enforcement Grant Program. Ms Worrell recently completed an evaluation of an 

initiative that provided violence prevention programs for youth in violent and 

impoverished urban neighborhoods. 

Leora Rosen, Ph.D., M.P.H. 

Senior Social Science Analyst 

National Institute of Justice 

Office of Research and Evaluation 

Violence and Victimization Division 

810 Seventh Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20531 

Phone: 202-616-2452 

E-mail: rosenl@ojp.usdoj.gov 

Dr. Rosen, NIJ program manager for this project, plans, manages, and evaluates NIJfunded research, and provides scientific guidance to NIJ in the development of its 

research agenda on Violence Against Women and Family Violence. Her research has 

included a study on sexual harassment of women in the military, the effects of childhood 

physical and sexual abuse on soldiers’ readiness and psychological well-being, and a 

study on intimate partner violence and its relationship to military organizational climate. 

COSMOS Corporation 8 
Appendix B 

What The Literature (And Categories Of Literature) Tell Us: The In-Depth Overview 
Appendix B 

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A 

COERCIVE CONTROL MEASURE FOR 

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 

WHAT THE LITERATURE (AND CATEGORIES OF LITERATURE) TELL US: 

THE IN-DEPTH OVERVIEW 

TABLE OF CONTENTS: 

p.2 Causes and correlates: General 

p.5 Causes and correlates: Cross-cultural 

p.7 Causes and correlates: Implications for relationship dynamics 

p.11 Causes and correlates: Societal dynamics 

p.13 Causes and correlates: Batterer dynamics 

p.21 Causes and correlates: Childhood 

p.23 Causes and correlates: Victim dynamics 

p.26 Coercive/reward power 

p.42 Goals/motivation 

p.46 Measurement 

p.62 Elaboration of coercion concept 

p.73 Theory: General 

p.81 Theory: Cultural differences 

p.84 Female perpetrators 

p.98 LGBT 

**Indicates the article which follows is also categorized in another category 

1 
Causes and correlates: General 

TI: Title 

 Sexual violence and coercion in close relationships 

AU: Author 

 Muehlenhard, Charlene L; Goggins, Mary F; Jones, Jayme M; 

Satterfield, Arthur T 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Kansas, Lawrence, KS, US 

SO: Source 

 McKinney, Kathleen (Ed); Sprecher, Susan (Ed). (1991). Sexuality 

 in close relationships (pp. 155-175). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence 

 Erlbaum Associates, Inc. xiii, 224 pp. 

IB: ISBN 

0805807195 (hardcover) 

PB: Publisher 

 Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the chapter) covers sexual violence and coercion in close 

 relationships / discussion includes sexual coercion of both 

 females and males in both heterosexual and homosexual 

 relationships / discussion will be limited to adult relationships 

 / sexual coercion will be construed broadly, including nonviolent, 

 as well as violent, sexual coercion / includes the prevalence, 

 causes, and consequences of sexual violence and coercion in close 

 relationships (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights 

reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1991 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Chapter 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Aggressive Behavior; *Partner Abuse; *Psychosexual Behavior; 

Sexual Abuse; Violence 

ID: Identifiers 

 discusses sexual coercion of males & females in heterosexual & 

 homosexual relationships 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

TA: Target Audience 

2 
 Psychology: Professional & Research 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1991-98536-008 

TI: Title 

 Jealousy induction as a predictor of power and the use of other 

 control methods in heterosexual relationships 

AU: Author 

 Brainerd, Edwin G; Hunter, Patricia A; Moore, DeWayne; Thompson, 

Tisha R 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Clemson U, Psychology Dept, SC, US 

SO: Source 

 Psychological Reports. Vol 79(3, Pt 2), Dec 1996, pp. 1319-1325 

IS: ISSN 

0033-2941 

PB: Publisher 

Psychological Reports, US 

AB: Abstract 

 113 university students completed the Psychological Aggression 

 Scale for Men and Women, the Interpersonal Control Scale for Men 

 and Women, a measure of physical violence (the Conflict Tactics 

 Scale), and a scale assessing use and approval of 

 jealousy-inducing behaviors (JIBs). Use and approval of JIBs were 

 good predictors of high need for interpersonal control and use of 

 psychological aggression. Use of JIBs, but not approval of JIBs, 

 was a strong predictor of physical aggression toward one's

 partner. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights 

reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1996 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Aggressive Behavior; *Emotional Control; *Interpersonal 

Interaction; *Jealousy 

ID: Identifiers 

use & approval of jealousy inducing behaviors & need for 

 interpersonal control & use of physical &/or psychological 

 aggression toward partner; college students 

CL: Classification 

3020 Group & Interpersonal Processes 

3
PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

TI: Title 

 Parental attitudes, stress and nonattentiveness as predictors of 

 coercion in family systems 

AU: Author 

 Kamin, Edward M 

AF: Author Affiliation 

Catholic U of America 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 44(10-B), Apr 1984, pp. 

3199 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4217 

PB: Publisher 

 US: Univ. Microfilms International 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1984 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Behavior Problems; *Childrearing Attitudes; *Family Relations; 

 *Marital Conflict; *Stress 

ID: Identifiers 

 parental childrearing attitudes & marital & other stresses & 

 nonattentive behavior; coercion in family systems; families with 

 7-10 yr olds with behavior problems 

CL: Classification 

2956 Childrearing & Child Care 

PO: Population 

 Human; Childhood (birth-12 yrs); School Age (6-12 yrs); Adulthood 

(18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19840901 

AN: Accession Number 

1984-54757-00 

4 
Causes and correlates: Cross-cultural 

TI: Title 

 Male dominance and sexual coercion 

AU: Author 

 Gregor, Thomas A 

AF: Author Affiliation 

Vanderbilt U, Nashville, TN, US 

SO: Source 

 Stigler, James W. (Ed); Shweder, Richard A. (Ed); et al. (1990). 

 Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 

 477-495). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press; New York, 

 NY, US: Cambridge University Press. ix, 625 pp. 

IB: ISBN 

0521371546 (hardcover); 0521378044 (paperback) 

PB: Publisher 

 New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press; New York, NY, US: 

 Cambridge University Press 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the chapter) the entire matter of gender relationship is so 

 caught up in the politics of social change that it is hard to look 

 at issues such as "dominance" or "sexual coercion" dispassionately 

 / I will try to do so, using information from a variety of 

 societies and focusing on one culture, that of the Mehinaku

 Indians of Brazil / my intention is to explore the ways in which 

 sexual coercion functions as both symbol and substance of male 

 dominance 

 men's cults and sexuality / coercion, sexual arousal and the 

 dissociative nature of male sexuality / why men rape / 

 cross-cultural studies and the correlates of coercion / "dragging 

 women off": individual rape / motivation and meaning / gang rape: 

 being sexed by many persons / symbolism and meanings / rape and 

 fear / moral ambivalence (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, 

all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1990 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Chapter 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Dominance; *Rape; *Sex Roles; American Indians; Cross Cultural 

 Differences; Human Males; Motivation 

CL: Classification 

2980 Sexual Behavior & Sexual Orientation 

PO: Population 

5 
 Human; Male 

FE: Features 

References 

TA: Target Audience 

Psychology: Professional & Research 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1990-97306-015 

6
Causes and correlates: Implications for relationship dynamics 

TI: Title 

 Power and problem appraisal: Perceptual foundations of the 

chilling effect in dating relationships 

AU: Author 

 Solomon, Denise Haunani; Samp, Jennifer Anne 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U Wisconsin, Dept of Communication Arts, Madison, WI, US 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Social & Personal Relationships. Vol 15(2), Apr 1998, 

pp. 191-209 

IS: ISSN 

0265-4075 

PB: Publisher 

Sage Publications, Ltd., England 

AB: Abstract 

 Investigated the extent to which perceptions of a partner's power 

influenced the appraised severity of hypothetical problem

 scenarios and the likelihood that individuals would avoid 

 confrontation in those situations. 64 male and 146 female 18-45 yr 

 olds in dating relationships completed questionnaires assessing 

 punitive and dependence power, aggression, and relational 

 alternatives. Hypothetical situations were also presented in which 

 Ss rated how likely they would be to confront or avoid their 

 partners when they were engaging in potentially problematic 

 behavior. Results indicate that attributing either dependence or 

 punitive power to dating partners corresponded with less severe 

 appraisals of problems and plans to avoid confrontation. Problem

 severity appraisals did not mediate associations between 

 perceptions of a partner's power and plans to avoid confrontation. 

 (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1998 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Adult Attitudes; *Conflict; *Couples; *Interpersonal Influences; 

 *Social Dating; Avoidance 

ID: Identifiers 

 perceptions of partner's influence; appraisal of problems & 

 confrontation & avoidance plans; dating couples 

CL: Classification 

3020 Group & Interpersonal Processes 

7 
PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood 

 (18-29 yrs); Thirties (30-39 yrs); Middle Age (40-64 yrs); US 

TI: Title 

 The effects of power on the use of heavy contending and 

problem-solving in intimate relationships 

AU: Author 

Miller, Jeanine Courtney 

AF: Author Affiliation 

Vanderbilt U, US 

AV: Availability 

 UMI Dissertation Order Number AAM9915103 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & 

Engineering. Vol 59(12-B), Jun 1999, pp. 6492 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4217 

PB: Publisher 

 US: Univ. Microfilms International 

AB: Abstract 

 A model of conflicts tactics use in intimate relationships is 

 proposed that utilizes interdependence theory to make predictions 

 about the effects of marital power on individual's use of 

 punishing, and non-punishing conflict tactics. The interdependence 

 model asserts that the primary issue in understanding whether men 

 and women will respond with punitive tactics during conflict with 

 a loved one is to examine the distribution of felt dependence in 

 the relationship. Dependence is a better definition of marital 

 power, and a more accurate predictor of contentiousness than 

 status differences between spouses. Specifically, the model 

 proposed that couples in which both partners are mutually high in 

 dependence represent mutually high power couples, who were 

 expected to engage in the highest levels of punishing tactics. Men 

 and women, comprising sixty married and cohabiting couples, 

 provided retrospective accounts of their own, and their partner's 

 use of tactics during two specific, highly salient conflicts. 

 Couple members also provided information concerning their 

 dependence upon and satisfaction with the relationship, as well as 

 demographic characteristics and sex role identity. The study 

 provided support for interdependence theory assertions, but not in 

 the direction expected. Women were more punitive with their 

 partners when women were high in dependence (high male power) and 

 men were low in dependence (low female power). Status differences 

 in favor of women were associated with a significantly higher use 

 of punitive tactics by men. In general, the members of couples 

8 
 tended to reciprocate their partner's problem solving tactics. The 

 study uncovered a bias in observations made about the partner. Men 

 and women distorted their reports of the partner's conflict 

 behavior so that factors which predicted self-reported tactics 

 also predicted the subject's reports of their partner's tactics.

 The results were discussed in terms of gender differences in the 

 relative importance men and women place on status hierarchy versus

 interpersonal closeness. Finally, various methodological 

 implications of biases in couple's reports and directions for 

 future research were discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1999 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Conflict; *Intimacy; *Marital Relations; *Power; *Problem

 Solving; Interpersonal Interaction 

ID: Identifiers 

 power; use of heavy contending & problem-solving in intimate 

 relationships; married persons; application of interdependence 

theory 

CL: Classification 

 3300 Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention; 3000 Social 

Psychology 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

TI: Title 

 Relational control and physical aggression in satisfying marital 

relationships 

AU: Author 

Rogers, L Edna; Castleton, Anne; Lloyd, Sally A 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, US 

SO: Source 

 Cahn, Dudley D. (Ed); Lloyd, Sally A. (Ed). (1996). Family 

 violence from a communication perspective (pp. 218-239). Thousand 

 Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage 

Publications, Inc. xi, 284 pp. 

IB: ISBN 

0803959826 (hardcover); 0803959834 (paperback) 

PB: Publisher 

 Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; Thousand Oaks, CA, 

9
 US: Sage Publications, Inc 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the chapter) examines the relationship between patterns of 

 relational control and physical aggression in couples who report 

 different levels of satisfaction [either moderate or high] but 

 relatively happy marital relationships / offer a descriptive 

 analysis of communication patterns that differentiates among 

 physically agrressive and nonaggressive couples as a way to gain 

 more understanding of control dynamics that may lead to or hold at 

 bay nonconstructive patterns of conflict interaction / 25 couples 

 [participated in the study] (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1996 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Chapter; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Interpersonal Communication; *Interpersonal Influences; *Physical 

 Abuse; Marital Satisfaction; Partner Abuse; Spouses 

ID: Identifiers 

 communication patterns & physical aggression & relational control 

 & marital satisfaction; spouses 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

FE: Features 

References 

TA: Target Audience 

Psychology: Professional & Research 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1996-98088-011 

10
Causes and correlates: Societal dynamics 

TI: Title 

 Feminist explanations: Male power, hostility, and sexual coercion 

AU: Author 

Stock, Wendy E 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Texas A & M U, Assistant Professor in Psychology, College Station, 

TX, US 

SO: Source 

 Grauerholz, Elizabeth (Ed); Koralewski, Mary A. (Ed). (1991). 

 Sexual coercion: A sourcebook on its nature, causes, and 

 prevention (pp. 61-73). Lexington, MA, US: Lexington Books/D. C. 

 Heath and Company. xii, 240 pp. 

IB: ISBN 

0669217867 (hardcover) 

PB: Publisher 

 Lexington, MA, US: Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Company 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the chapter) applies a feminist analysis to explain the 

 ubiquitous presence of sexual coercion in our society / this

 analysis defines sexual coercion as power motivated, upholding a 

 system of male dominance / feminist theory provides a theoretical 

 basis for the understanding of sexual coercion as a means by which 

 male dominance and power is established and maintained 

 rape as a power-motivated crime / male dominance and sexual 

 coercion / sexual coercion: the social control of women / the role 

 of socialization / pornography: the cultural eroticization of 

 sexual aggression (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all 

 rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1991 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Chapter 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Feminism; *Sex Offenses; *Sexual Abuse; Dominance; Human Males; 

 Pornography; Power; Rape; Social Control; Socialization; Theories 

ID: Identifiers 

 presents a feminist analysis of the sexual coercion of women by 

 men 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior; 2970 Sex Roles & 

 Women's Issues 

PO: Population 

11 
 Human; Male 

FE: Features 

References 

TA: Target Audience 

Psychology: Professional & Research 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1991-97408-005 

12
Causes and correlates: Batterer dynamics 

TI: Title 

 The influence of sex and sex role orientation on sexual coercion 

AU: Author 

Poppen, Paul J; Segal, Nina J 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 George Washington U, Washington, DC, US 

SO: Source 

Sex Roles. Vol 19(11-12), Dec 1988, pp. 689-701 

IS: ISSN 

0360-0025 

PB: Publisher 

 Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, US, [URL:http://www.plenum.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 100 female and 77 male college students completed a questionnaire 

 in which they indicated whether they had ever used physical or 

 verbal coercive strategies to initiate sexual behavior with a 

 partner, or had ever engaged in sexual behavior in response to a 

 partner's coercive initiatives. Results show that males are far 

 more likely than females to initiate coerced sexual behavior and 

 females are more likely to be victimized. In addition, masculine 

 persons reported using coercive strategies more than other sex 

 role orientation types. However, this was due principally to the 

 fact that males were masculine types much more frequently than 

 females. Therefore, sex (that is, being male or female) seems a 

 more critical factor in determining, initiating, or responding to 

 sexual coercion than sex role orientation. (PsycINFO Database 

 Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1988 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Aggressive Behavior; *Human Sex Differences; *Psychosexual 

Behavior; *Sex Roles 

ID: Identifiers 

 sex & sex role orientation; use of physical vs verbal coercive 

 strategies to initiate sexual behavior; college students 

CL: Classification 

 2970 Sex Roles & Women's Issues 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

13 
 19891101 

AN: Accession Number 

1989-36358-001 

TI: Title 

 Sexual coercion among college males: Assessing three theoretical 

 models of coercive sexual behavior 

AU: Author 

Boeringer, Scot Bradley 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Florida, US 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 54(1-A), Jul 1993, pp. 

331 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4217 

PB: Publisher 

 US: Univ. Microfilms International 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1993 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Human Males; *Perpetrators; *Rape; *Theory Verification; Social 

Learning 

ID: Identifiers 

 sexual coercion; male college students; test of social learning vs 

social bonding vs relative deprivation theories 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19950401 

AN: Accession Number 

1995-71717-001 

TI: Title 

Sexual coercion in high school dating 

AU: Author 

Patton, Wendy; Mannison, Mary 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Queensland U of Technology, School of Learning & Development, 

 Kelvin Grove Campus, Australia 

14
SO: Source 

Sex Roles. Vol 33(5-6), Sep 1995, pp. 447-457 

IS: ISSN 

0360-0025 

PB: Publisher 

 Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, US, [URL:http://www.plenum.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Examined the existence of coercion in sexual activities (sex play 

 and sexual intercourse) during high school, using 217 female and 

 72 male Australian undergraduates (aged 17-22 yrs) who completed 

 the Intergender Relationships Questionnaire and 2 expanded 

 versions of the Sexual Experiences Survey. 53% of females reported 

 some form of overestimation by male partners of the level of 

 sexual intimacy desired, and 45% of males reported that female 

 partners underestimated the level of sexual intimacy desired. Data 

 illustrate sexual coercion leading to both sex play and 

 intercourse, with a number of factors being implicated in its 

 occurrence, including alcohol and drugs. (PsycINFO Database Record 

(c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1995 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Human Sex Differences; *Psychosexual Behavior; *Sexual 

 Intercourse (Human) 

ID: Identifiers 

 sex; coercion in sex play & intercourse during high school; 17-22 

 yr olds; Australia 

CL: Classification 

2980 Sexual Behavior & Sexual Orientation 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adolescence (13-17 yrs); Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19960901 

AN: Accession Number 

1996-26409-001 

TI: Title 

 Assessing the validity of a multidimensional model of sexual 

coercion in college men 

AU: Author 

 Hamburger, Merle Edward 

AF: Author Affiliation 

15 
 State U New York at Albany, US 

AV: Availability 

 UMI Dissertation Order Number AAM9529111 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & 

Engineering. Vol 56(5-B), Nov 1995, pp. 2940 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4217 

PB: Publisher 

 US: Univ. Microfilms International 

AB: Abstract 

 Two of the most consistently cited frameworks used to explain why 

 people engage in coercive sexual behaviors are the social control 

 (Brownmiller, 1975) and the psychopathology perspectives (Rada, 

 1978; Groth & Birnbaum, 1979). While these perspectives were once 

 thought to be mutually exclusive, recent research and theoretical 

 conceptualizations indicate that an integration of multiple 

 frameworks may best identify the factors associated with sexual 

 coercion. Participants' responses to 28 self-report measures of 

hypothesized risk factors for sexual aggression were examined and 

 a structural equation model depicting the interrelations among 

 these constructs was tested. Results supported the contention that 

 factors from both the social control and psychopathological 

 perspectives are essential to interpret the motivation underlying 

 individuals' use of sexually aggressive behaviors. According to 

 the results of the current study, the two focal constructs 

 associated with sexual aggression are traditional sex-role 

 socialization and psychopathy (i.e., having an underlying 

 psychopathic personality). Traditional sex-role socialization 

 influenced the development of rape supportive beliefs, which in 

 turn influenced individuals' rape proclivity as well as their use 

 of sexual aggression. Having an underlying psychopathic 

 personality, on the other hand, influenced individuals' alcohol 

 consumption and coercive sexual fantasies. Results further 

 indicated that alcohol consumption influenced individuals' use of 

 sexually aggressive behavior, while coercive sexual fantasies 

 influenced their rape proclivity. These results underscore the 

 importance of incorporating multiple dimensions when attempting to 

 explain sexually aggressive behaviors. Implications of these 

 results regarding future research, as well as treatment and 

 prevention programs, are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 

2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1995 

16
PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Psychopathology; *Psychosexual Behavior; *Rape; *Sex 

 Roles; Human Males 

ID: Identifiers 

 factors associated with sexually aggressive behaviors; college 

 men; application of multidimensional model of sexual coercion 

CL: Classification 

3000 Social Psychology; 3100 Personality Psychology 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood (18-29 

yrs) 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1995-95021-074 

TI: Title 

 The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate 

relationships 

AU: Author 

Dutton, Donald G 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada 

SO: Source 

1998. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press. ix, 214 pp. 

IB: ISBN 

1572303700 (hardcover) 

PB: Publisher 

 New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the jacket) Demonstrates that male abusiveness is more than 

 just a learned pattern of behavior; it is the outgrowth of a 

 particular personality configuration. Findings from the author's

 research with over 400 batterers are integrated with the 

 literature on object relations, attachment, and psychological 

 trauma to trace the development of the abusive personality from

 early childhood to adulthood. The author evaluates the strengths 

 and limitations of psychiatric, sociobiological, and feminist 

 approaches, with particular attention to how well they explain the 

 psychological profile of abusers that emerges from his research. 

 The book points out that abusive men are in general easily 

 threatened, jealous, and fearful, and mask these emotions with 

 anger and demands for control. What is less well known is that 

 these subjects also show borderline personality characteristics 

17 
 and high, chronic levels of trauma symptoms. Linking this 

 symptomatology to elements of childhood experience including 

 physical abuse, rejection and shaming by fathers and insecure 

 attachment, the author delineates the process by which young boys 

 are primed for violence on every level. An overview of a 16-wk 

 group treatment program for abusive men is given, and the efficacy 

 of various intervention approaches is considered. (PsycINFO 

 Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1998 

PT: Publication Type 

Print (Paper); Authored Book 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Attachment Behavior; *Human Males; *Object Relations; *Partner 

 Abuse; *Personality Development; Emotional Trauma; Physical Abuse 

ID: Identifiers 

 object relations & attachment theory & psychological trauma in 

 development of abusive personality from early childhood to 

 adulthood; male batterers 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Childhood (birth-12 yrs); Adolescence (13-17 yrs); 

Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

FE: Features 

Index; References 

TA: Target Audience 

Psychology: Professional & Research 

TB: Table of Contents 

Introduction 

Early explanations 

Learning of abusiveness 

The psychology of the cycle of violence 

The structure of the abusive personality 

 The primitive origins of rage 

 An anger born of fear: Attachment rage 

 The early antecedents studies 

 The treatment of assaultiveness 

Notes 

References 

Index 

UD: Update 

19981001 

AN: Accession Number 

18
 1998-06084-000 

TI: Title 

 Frustration, fantasy aggression, and the exercise of coercive 

 power 

AU: Author 

 Tedeschi, James T 

AF: Author Affiliation 

State U New York, Albany 

SO: Source 

 Perceptual & Motor Skills. Vol 48(1), Feb 1979, pp. 215-219 

IS: ISSN 

0031-5125 

PB: Publisher 

 Perceptual & Motor Skills, US 

AB: Abstract 

 Investigated the influence of frustration and aggression in 

 fantasy on a source's exercise of coercive power. Half of the 

 46 female undergraduate Ss were frustrated and half were not; 

 further, half of the Ss in each group were given the 

 opportunity to express aggression in fantasy via a TAT, and half were not. 

 All Ss were then given coercive power in an interaction with a 

 defiant target in a Prisoner's Dilemma game. Frustration caused Ss to 

 establish higher credibility for their threats, and the 

 opportunity to express aggression in fantasy had an 

 accommodative effect on the use of coercive power. (4 ref) (PsycINFO 

Database 

 Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1979 

PT: Publication Type 

Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Frustration; *Imagination; *Interpersonal Interaction; 

*Power; 

 *Prisoners Dilemma Game; Aggressiveness 

ID: Identifiers 

 frustration & aggressive expression in fantasy; exercise of 

 coercive power against defiant opponent in Prisoner's Dilemma 

 game; college females 

CL: Classification 

 3020 Group & Interpersonal Processes 

PO: Population 

 Human 

19
FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19800801 

AN: Accession Number 

1980-23264-001 

20 
Causes and correlates: Childhood 

TI: Title 

 Coercive family processes: A replication and extension of

 Patterson's Coercion Model 

AU: Author 

 Eddy, J Mark; Leve, Leslie D; Fagot, Beverly I 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Oregon Social Learning Ctr, Inc, Eugene, OR, US 

SO: Source 

 Aggressive Behavior. Vol 27(1), 2001, pp. 14-25 

IS: ISSN 

0096-140X 

PB: Publisher 

 Wiley-Liss Inc, US 

AB: Abstract 

G. R. Patterson (1976) hypothesized that aggressive behavior 

 develops in families when parents use coercion as the primary mode 

 for controlling their children. The model has been tested with 

 boys and older children. In this paper, through confirmatory 

 factor analysis, the authors examine how well the coercion model 

 generalizes to 5-yr-old children (boys and girls). Results from 

 407 Ss suggest that the model fits the data similarly for boys and 

 girls. Few sex differences in child antisocial behavior were found 

 on observed or parent-rated measures, nor were differences found 

 in observed parent aversive responses to child behavior. This 

 implies that similar coercion processes apply to both boys and 

 girls. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights 

reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

2001 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Aggressive Behavior; *Childrearing Practices; *Coercion;

 *Parental Characteristics 

ID: Identifiers 

 coercive parenting style; child aggressive behavior; 5 yr olds 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Female; Childhood (birth-12 yrs); Preschool Age (2-5 

yrs); US 

FE: Features 

21 
 References 

UD: Update 

20010207 

AN: Accession Number 

2001-16436-002 

22
Causes and correlates: Victim dynamics 

TI: Title 

 The differential correlates of sexual coercion and rape 

AU: Author 

 Testa, Maria; Dermen, Kurt H 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Research Inst on Addictions, Buffalo, NY, US 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Vol 14(5), May 1999, pp. 

548-561 

IS: ISSN 

0886-2605 

PB: Publisher 

 Sage Publications Inc, US, [URL:http://www.sagepub.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Examined the correlates of sexual coercion and rape/attempted rape 

 experiences separately among a sample of 190 women (aged 20-35 

 yrs) who were at increased risk of sexual victimization as a 

result of their high levels of sexual activity and alcohol 

 consumption. We hypothesized that personality variables would be 

 associated with sexual coercion but not rape experiences. We found 

 that low self-esteem, low assertiveness, and high sex-related 

 alcohol expectancies were associated with sexual coercion 

 experiences but not with rape or attempted rape. Higher levels of 

 casual sexual activity and alcohol consumption were associated 

 with both types of experiences. Findings suggest that sexual 

 coercion may be prevented by improving sexual assertiveness and 

 weakening alcohol expectancies to emphasize personal control. 

 (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1999 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Psychosexual Behavior; *Rape; *Sexual Abuse; 

 *Victimization; Alcohol Drinking Patterns; At Risk Populations; 

 Human Females 

ID: Identifiers 

 correlates of sexual coercion vs rape; 20-35 yr old females at 

 increased risk for sexual victimization due to sexual activity & 

 alcohol consumption 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

23 
PO: Population 

 Human; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood (18-29 

yrs); Thirties (30-39 yrs) 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19990701 

AN: Accession Number 

1999-13263-006 

TI: Title 

 Power and problem appraisal: Perceptual foundations of the 

chilling effect in dating relationships 

AU: Author 

 Solomon, Denise Haunani; Samp, Jennifer Anne 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U Wisconsin, Dept of Communication Arts, Madison, WI, US 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Social & Personal Relationships. Vol 15(2), Apr 1998, 

pp. 191-209 

IS: ISSN 

0265-4075 

PB: Publisher 

Sage Publications, Ltd., England 

AB: Abstract 

 Investigated the extent to which perceptions of a partner's power 

influenced the appraised severity of hypothetical problem

 scenarios and the likelihood that individuals would avoid 

 confrontation in those situations. 64 male and 146 female 18-45 yr 

 olds in dating relationships completed questionnaires assessing 

 punitive and dependence power, aggression, and relational 

 alternatives. Hypothetical situations were also presented in which 

 Ss rated how likely they would be to confront or avoid their 

 partners when they were engaging in potentially problematic 

 behavior. Results indicate that attributing either dependence or 

 punitive power to dating partners corresponded with less severe 

 appraisals of problems and plans to avoid confrontation. Problem

 severity appraisals did not mediate associations between 

 perceptions of a partner's power and plans to avoid confrontation. 

 (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1998 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

24 
DE: Descriptors 

 *Adult Attitudes; *Conflict; *Couples; *Interpersonal Influences; 

 *Social Dating; Avoidance 

ID: Identifiers 

 perceptions of partner's influence; appraisal of problems & 

 confrontation & avoidance plans; dating couples 

CL: Classification 

3020 Group & Interpersonal Processes 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood 

 (18-29 yrs); Thirties (30-39 yrs); Middle Age (40-64 yrs); US 

25 
Coercive/reward power 

TI: Title 

 Social power and compliance in health care 

AU: Author 

Raven, B H 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U California, Dept of Psychology, Los Angeles, CA, US 

SO: Source 

 Maes, S. (Ed); Spielberger, C. D. (Ed); et al. (1988). Topics in 

 health psychology (pp. 229-244). New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons. 

xvi, 314 pp. 

IB: ISBN 

0471919756 (hardcover) 

PB: Publisher 

 New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the chapter) the degree and forms of compliance and 

 non-compliance are very much affected by the strategies of 

 influence and by the sources of power used by the health 

practitioner 

 bases of power and interpersonal influence / coercive power and 

 reward power / contingency contracting / secondary changes 

 following compliance / legitimate and expert power / referent 

 power / informational power / successful influence and its 

 aftermath / training social influence for health practitioners 

 (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

TI: Title 

 Factors affecting the effectiveness of reward power 

AU: Author 

 Lindskold, Svenn; Bonoma, Thomas V; Schlenker, Barry R; 

Tedeschi, 

 James T 

AF: Author Affiliation 

Ohio U 

SO: Source 

 Psychonomic Science. Vol. 26(2), Jan 1972, pp. 68-70 

IS: ISSN 

0033-3131 

PB: Publisher 

 Psychonomic Society Inc, US 

AB: Abstract 

 Gave a simulated promisor the capability of sending promises 

 And providing rewards to 180 male and female undergraduates during 

 the course of a mixed-motive conflict interaction. Promises were 

26 
 of either high or low reward value and were fulfilled 10, 50, or 

 90% of the time; the promisor behaved totally, partially, or not 

 at all accommodatively. When the promisor used his power 

 exploitatively, Ss complied more often to promises of high 

 than to promises of low reward values; but when the promisor was 

 totally accommodative, the magnitude of the reward did not affect 

 compliance, suggesting that normative considerations overrode 

 expected value considerations in the latter conditions.

 Postgame impressions of the promisor were affected by all of the 

 independent variable manipulations. (PsycINFO Database Record 

(c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1972 

PT: Publication Type 

Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Conflict; *Expectations; *Reinforcement Schedules; *Rewards; 

*Social Influences 

ID: Identifiers 

 compliance to promise of reward during mixed-motive conflict 

 interaction; high vs. low reward value & reward fulfillment & 

 total vs. partial vs. no accommodative behavior 

TI: Title 

 Reactions to coercive and reward power: The effects of 

 switching influence modes on target compliance 

AU: Author 

 Schlenker, Barry R; Nacci, Peter; Helm, Bob; Tedeschi, James T 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Florida 

SO: Source 

 Sociometry. Vol 39(4), Dec 1976, pp. 316-323 

AB: Abstract 

 Two experiments examined a target's reactions to an influencer 

 who began a conflict-of-interests interaction by using one type of 

 influence mode and then switched to another. In Exp I with 40 

 female undergraduates, when threat credibility initially was 

 low rather than high, Ss cooperated more with subsequent promises, 

 cooperated more throughout the interaction, and perceived the 

 influencer to be more benevolent and less stingy. These 

 effects were obtained irrespective of subsequent promise credibility, 

 although promise credibility did produce additional effects. 

 In Exp II with a new group of 40 female undergraduates, the 

 credibility of the initial influence mode marginally affected 

27
 compliance to the later influence mode. When promises were of 

 high rather than low credibility, Ss tended to comply more to the 

 threats, took longer before first noncomplying, and more

 frequently announced their own compliant intentions. Findings 

 suggest that credibility does not generalize directly across 

 influence modes to affect compliance. Rather, the type and 

 credibility of the initial influence mode sets the tone for 

 the interaction and prompts targets to reciprocate benevolence 

 with compliance and malevolence with resistance. (PsycINFO Database 

 Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1976 

PT: Publication Type 

Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Compliance; *Credibility; *Interpersonal Influences; 

*Persuasive 

 Communication; *Threat 

ID: Identifiers 

 switch from threat to promise influence mode during 

 conflict-of-interest interaction & credibility of modes; 

target 

 compliance; college students 

CL: Classification 

3040 Social Perception & Cognition 

TI: Title 

 Response to sexual coercion: A comparison of traditional and 

non-traditional females 

AU: Author 

Sadd, Dianne Louise 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Mississippi, US 

AV: Availability 

 UMI Dissertation Order Number AAM9640329 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & 

Engineering. Vol 57(7-B), Jan 1997, pp. 4723 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4217 

PB: Publisher 

 US: Univ. Microfilms International 

AB: Abstract 

 The purpose of the present study was twofold: to develop a sound 

28
 measure of response to sexual coercion and to compare traditional 

 and non-traditional women on their responses to sexual coercion. 

 The development of the Response to Sexual Coercion Scale followed 

 the behavior-analytic approach to test construction put forth by 

 Goldfried and D'Zurilla (1969). The scale was presented to 54 

 female college students at the University of Mississippi; 26 of 

 whom met criteria for a traditional feminine sex-role orientation 

 and 28 of whom met criteria for a non-traditional feminine 

 sex-role orientation. These women were selected and classified on 

 the basis of their responses to the Sex-Role Ideology Scale (Kalin 

 & Tilby, 1978). The women were then compared in terms of their 

 responses to the sexual coercion situations. It was hypothesized 

 that non-traditional women would respond in a manner that was more 

 likely to lead to successful resistance than would traditional 

 women. Results of the study were consistent with the hypothesis in 

 that non-traditional women responded in a significantly more 

 effective manner than did traditional women. When the items were 

 broken into subgroups, the differences between the traditional and 

 non-traditional groups were illuminated. Non-traditional women 

 responded more effectively than traditional women on scenarios 

 involving authority figures, but no differences between the groups 

 emerged in terms of the effectiveness of their responding to 

 situations involving peers. Three possible explanations for the 

 present findings include the following: (1) traditional women held 

 attitudes and expectations regarding sex-roles that prevented them

 from feeling justified in standing up for themselves, (2) 

 traditional women did not identify certain scenarios as sexually 

 coercive, and (3) traditional women did not have the knowledge or 

 skills to respond effectively to coercion in these situations. 

 Whether each of these factors or a combination of them are respons 

 (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1997 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Human Females; *Psychosexual Behavior; *Rating Scales; 

*Test Construction; Conservatism; Responses; Sex Role Attitudes 

ID: Identifiers 

 development of Response to Sexual Coercion Scale; traditional vs 

 non-traditional female college students 

CL: Classification 

 3300 Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention; 3000 Social 

Psychology 

29
PO: Population 

 Human; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood (18-29 

yrs); US 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-95002-481 

TI: Title 

 Social power and compliance in health care 

AU: Author 

Raven, B H 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U California, Dept of Psychology, Los Angeles, CA, US 

SO: Source 

 Maes, S. (Ed); Spielberger, C. D. (Ed); et al. (1988). Topics in 

 health psychology (pp. 229-244). New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons. 

xvi, 314 pp. 

IB: ISBN 

0471919756 (hardcover) 

PB: Publisher 

 New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the chapter) the degree and forms of compliance and 

 non-compliance are very much affected by the strategies of 

 influence and by the sources of power used by the health 

 practitioner bases of power and interpersonal influence / coercive power and 

 reward power / contingency contracting / secondary changes 

 following compliance / legitimate and expert power / referent 

 power / informational power / successful influence and its 

 aftermath / training social influence for health practitioners 

 (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

TI: Title 

 Power strategy use in the intimate relationships of women and men 

from Mexico and the United States 

AU: Author 

 Belk, Sharyn S; Snell, William E; Garcia-Falconi, Renan; 

Hernandez-Sanchez, Julita E 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Texas, Austin, US 

SO: Source 

 Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol 14(3), Sep 1988, pp. 

439-447 

IS: ISSN 

0146-1672 

30 
PB: Publisher 

Sage Publications, Inc., US 

AB: Abstract 

 Examined the types of power strategies that 30 undergraduates from

 Mexico (15 males, 15 females) and 28 male and 79 female 

 undergraduates from the US used with their intimate partners. 

 Power strategy use refers to the tactics and techniques that men 

 and women use to persuade others to do something for them. Results 

 indicate that Ss from both Mexico and the US reported using a 

 number of different power strategies, although Mexican women and 

 men tended to use more bilateral types of power strategies with 

 their intimate partners. Results are interpreted in terms of I. 

 Falbo and L. A. Peplau's (see record 1981-10374-001) 2-dimensional 

 model of power strategy use. Falbo and Peplau showed that the use 

 of power strategies in intimate relationships varies along 2 

 separate dimensions: bilateral (vs unilateral) and direct (vs 

 indirect) power strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1988 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Cross Cultural Differences; *Human Sex Differences; *Intimacy; 

 *Male Female Relations; *Power 

ID: Identifiers 

 power strategies in intimate relationships; male vs female college 

students; Mexico vs US 

CL: Classification 

2980 Sexual Behavior & Sexual Orientation 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Mexico; US 

UD: Update 

19890701 

AN: Accession Number 

1989-22259-001 

TI: Title 

 Risk and power use: Constraints on the use of coercion in exchange 

AU: Author 

 Molm, Linda D 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Arizona, Dept of Sociology, Tucson, AZ, US 

SO: Source 

31 
 American Sociological Review. Vol 62(1), Feb 1997, pp. 113-133 

IS: ISSN 

0003-1224 

PB: Publisher 

 American Sociological Assn, US 

AB: Abstract 

 Developed and tested a theory arguing that risk and fear of loss 

 constrain the use of coercion in social exchange. An experiment 

 was conducted in which 160 college students participated in 1 of 4 

 possible exchange networks, each composed of 4 actors. The risk of 

 power use was manipulated within a basic network structure in 

 which actors B and D were highly dependent on A and C, 

respectively, for rewards, reward power was imbalanced in the A-B 

 and C-D relations in favor of A and C, and coercive power was 

 imbalanced in these relations in favor of B and D. A 2nd 

 experiment was conducted to determine the effects of coercive 

 power under low risk. Both experiments show that when risk is 

 reduced, particularly the risk of reward loss, both the use of 

 coercion and the effects of variations in the structure of 

 coercive power increase. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, 

all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1997 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Power; *Risk Perception; *Social Interaction; *Social 

Structure 

ID: Identifiers 

 risk & fear of loss; coercive power in nonnegociated social 

exchange relations; adults 

CL: Classification 

2910 Social Structure & Organization 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-03103-004 

TI: Title 

 Crisis rhetoric: Coercion vs. force 

32
AU: Author 

Burgess, Parke G 

AF: Author Affiliation 

Queens Coll., City U. New York 

SO: Source 

 Quarterly Journal of Speech. Vol. 59(1), Feb 1973, pp. 61-73 

IS: ISSN 

0033-5630 

PB: Publisher 

 Speech Communication Assn., US 

AB: Abstract 

 Presents a view of coercion that attempts to avoid the conceptual 

 shortcomings of available models by deriving the nature and 

 significant effects of a coercive strategy from the uniquely human 

 ground of symbolic action and capacities appropriate to it. The 

 implications avoided include (a) identification of coercion with 

 physical force, (b) identification of symbols and symbol systems 

 with signals and signal systems, (c) treatment of coercion as an 

 act of force and not of communication, (d) denial of the ambiguity 

 and creation of meaning present in coercion, and (e) denial of 

 audience capacity and responsibility for its own creative response 

 to coercive address. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all 

rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1973 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Persuasive Communication; *Symbolism 

ID: Identifiers 

 symbolic action & appropriate capacities; coercive strategy

 effects 

CL: Classification 

 2700 Communication Systems 

PO: Population 

 Human 

UD: Update 

19741001 

AN: Accession Number 

1974-27591-001 

TI: Title 

Coercion: Legal and behavioral issues 

AU: Author 

33 
 Hayes, Steven C; Maley, Roger F 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U North Carolina, Greensboro 

SO: Source 

 Behaviorism. Vol 5(2), Fal 1977, pp. 87-95 

IS: ISSN 

0090-4155 

PB: Publisher 

 Cambridge Ctr for Behavioral Studies, US 

AB: Abstract 

 Defines coercion in behavioral terms and distinguishes between 

 coercive and noncoercive control. While the legal definition of 

 coercion uses mentalistic and circular language, emphasizing 

 absence of free, voluntary action, the behavioral definition 

 specifies the conditions under which the term is used and the 

 function it serves. Control is labeled coercive when the 

 controlling contingencies are salient, i.e., when they elicit 

 behavior discordant with the individual's reinforcement history. 

 Coercion is frequently characterized by aversive control. Positive 

 reinforcement can be coercive if it (a) depends on deprivation to 

 be effective and the controller determines the state of 

 deprivation, and (b) occurs in an environment relatively barren of 

 positive reinforcements. Controls are termed coercive if the 

 probability of compliance is extraordinarily high and the range of 

behaviors available for reinforcement is narrow. Socially, 

 coercion functions to decrease adaptive behavior variability and 

 countercontrol. Coercion can be regarded as a sign of societal 

 failure to design more effective noncoercive environments 

 prompting cultural practices. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record 

(c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1977 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Behaviorism; *Compliance; *Freedom; *Legal Processes 

ID: Identifiers 

legal vs behavioral definition of coercion 

CL: Classification 

2900 Social Processes & Social Issues 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

34
UD: Update 

19790801 

AN: Accession Number 

1979-23441-001 

TI: Title 

 Coercive power and aggression 

AU: Author 

 Tedeschi, James T 

AF: Author Affiliation 

State U New York, Albany 

SO: Source 

 International Journal of Group Tensions. Vol 3(3-4), 1973, pp. 

20-29 

IS: ISSN 

0047-0732 

PB: Publisher 

 Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, US, 

 [URL:http://www.plenum.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Presents a theoretical analysis of coercive power. It is 

 stated that coercive can only be identified when the value system of 

 the perceiver is understood. There is a need to rationalize 

 coercive action since, if such action is labeled aggressive, it is more 

 likely to be resisted. It is hypothesized that coercive power 

 theories have more explanatory power than frustration-aggression 

 theory. (23 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all 

rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1973 

PT: Publication Type 

Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

*Aggressive Behavior; *Frustration; *Power 

ID: Identifiers 

 coercive power vs frustration-aggression theory 

CL: Classification 

3100 Personality Psychology 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19750801 

35 
AN: Accession Number 

1975-23169-001 

TI: Title 

 A paradigm for the study of coercive power 

AU: Author 

 Tedeschi, James T; Bonoma, Thomas V; Brown, Robert C 

AF: Author Affiliation 

State U. New York, Albany 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 15(2), Jun 1971, pp. 

197-223 

IS: ISSN 

0022-0027 

PB: Publisher 

 Sage Publications Inc, US, [URL:http://www.sagepub.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Although a number of experimental paradigms have been 

 developed to study coercive power, the results of the empirical 

 studies to date indicate conceptual and methodological inadequacies 

 with regard to the hypotheses tested. A critique of experimental 

 investigations of coercive power which employ the trucking game

 (M. Deutsch and R. Krauss), the communication game (G. Shure, 

R. Meeker, and E. Hansford), the real estate game (H. Hornstein), 

 and a modified Prisoner's Dilemma game, is proffered. A threat 

 paradigm is examined which permits flexible evaluations of theoretically 

 generated predictions and focuses on behavioral compliance by 

 target individuals to contingent threats. Research completed 

 to date was used to evaluate the internal validity, external

 validity, and experimental realism of the threat paradigm. It 

 is concluded that each of the other paradigms examined could be 

 strengthened by adding the controls introduced in the threat 

paradigm. (82 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, 

all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1971 

PT: Publication Type 

Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Dominance; *Games; *Social Influences; *Statistical Validity; 

*Threat; Validity (Statistical) 

ID: Identifiers 

 coercive power; trucking & communication & real estate & 

 modified 

36 
 Prisoner's Dilemma games; internal & external validity & 

 experimental realism of threat paradigm

CL: Classification 

3000 Social Psychology 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19720901 

AN: Accession Number 

1972-24931-001 

TI: Title 

 Aggression and the use of coercive power 

AU: Author 

 Tedeschi, James T; Gaes, Gerald G; Rivera, Alba N 

AF: Author Affiliation 

State U New York, Albany 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Social Issues. Vol 33(1), Win 1977, pp. 101-125 

IS: ISSN 

0022-4537 

PB: Publisher 

Blackwell Publishers, US 

AB: Abstract 

 That body of social psychological literature typically subsumed 

 under the concept of aggression is reinterpreted as a compendium

 of different processes and functional relationships including 

 equity, reciprocity, and self-defense. An evaluation of this 

 literature, it is suggested, leads to the conclusion that social 

 psychological researchers have concentrated their efforts in 

 studying retaliatory behaviors, whereas "aggression" commonly 

 refers to harm-doing initiated by some transgressor. A 

 reconceptualization based on the concept of coercive power leads 

 to a clearer understanding of harm-doing actions and allows 

 researchers to classify and distinguish initiated harm-doing 

 actions from those that are retaliatory. Having made this 

 distinction, a set of propositions related to the initiation of 

 harm-doing is spelled out, and the implications for the social 

 control of such behavior are considered. (21/2 p ref) 

 (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

(unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

37
 1977 

PT: Publication Type 

Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Aggressive Behavior; *Motivation; *Power; *Reciprocity 

ID: Identifiers 

 coercive power concept; initiation vs retaliation in 

aggressive 

behavior 

CL: Classification 

 2900 Social Processes & Social Issues 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19790101 

AN: Accession Number 

1979-00824-001 

TI: Title 

 Coercive sexuality in dating relationships: A situational model 

AU: Author 

Craig, Mary E 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Veterans Administration Medical Ctr, Psychology Service, Bay 

Pines, FL, US 

SO: Source 

 Clinical Psychology Review. Vol 10(4), 1990, pp. 395-423 

IS: ISSN 

0272-7358 

PB: Publisher 

 Elsevier Science Inc/Pergamon, US 

AB: Abstract 

 Reviews the literature on coercive sexuality in dating 

 relationships and identifies methodological issues, including 

 problems of definition and measurement, a lack of experimental 

 studies, and a base that is largely atheoretical. A situation

 model of social behavior (M. Snyder and W. Ickes, 1985) is applied 

 to sexual coercion. This model offers a more complete explanation 

 of the occurrence of coercive sex than either a trait or an 

 interactional approach. The utility of the model and directions 

 for future research are included. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 

2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

38
PY: Publication Year 

1990 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Literature Review/Research Review 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Literature Review; *Psychosexual Behavior; *Social Dating 

ID: Identifiers 

 coercive sexuality in dating relationships; literature review 

CL: Classification 

2980 Sexual Behavior & Sexual Orientation 

PO: Population 

 Human 

UD: Update 

19910101 

AN: Accession Number 

1991-01108-001 

TI: Title 

 Coercive power in social exchange 

AU: Author 

 Molm, Linda D 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Arizona, Tucson, AZ, US 

SO: Source 

 1997. Studies in rationality and social change. New York, NY, 

US: 

 Cambridge University Press. xii, 316 pp. 

IB: ISBN 

0521562902 (hardcover); 0521574617 (paperback) 

PB: Publisher 

 New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the preface) The author had 2 different, but related, 

 objectives. One was to compare reward-based and coercive forms 

of power in social exchange relations: how they are different, 

 why they are different, and the implications of those differences 

 for both theory and social relationships. Results of this analysis 

 offer insights and challenges for social exchange theory 

 (which traditionally has ignored the role of punishment and coercion 

 in social relationships) and theories of coercive power (which 

 traditionally have ignored the capacities of actors, in most 

 relations, to reward as well as to punish each other). The 2nd 

 objective was to show how a cumulative program of experimental 

 research can be used to build and test theory. The author 

 wanted to show the process, not merely the product, of theory 

 development, and to convey the sense of discovery and puzzle 

39 
 solving that accompanies this kind of work. 

The book is intended for sociologists, psycholologists, 

 economists and political scientists. 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the book) The book describes the progression and results 

 of a decade-long program of experimental research on power in 

social exchange relations. 

 The actors in all the experiments are individual persons: 

 undergraduate students. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1997 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Authored Book; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Power; *Rewards; *Social Interaction; *Theory 

 Formulation 

ID: Identifiers 

 research on development of theory of reward-based vs coercive 

 forms of power in social exchange relations; college students 

CL: Classification 

3020 Group & Interpersonal Processes 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

FE: Features 

Index; References 

TA: Target Audience 

Psychology: Professional & Research 

TB: Table of Contents 

List of figures and tables 

 Preface and acknowledgments 

Introduction and overview 

Social exchange and power 

 Punishment and coercion 

 An experimental setting for studying power in exchange relations 

 The early research: Experimental tests and theoretical puzzles 

 The structural determination of power use 

 Dependence and risk: Structural constraints on strategic power use 

 Injustice and risk: Normative constraints on strategic power use 

 The effects of coercion: Compliance or conflict? 

A theory of coercion in social exchange 

 Conclusions and implications 

 Appendix I: Definitions of basic concepts of social exchange 

 Appendix II: The experimental instructions for standardized setting 

40
 References 

 Name index 

Subject index 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-08307-000 

41
Goals/Motivation 

TI: Title 

 Motives for sexual coercion 

AU: Author 

Felson, Richard B 

AF: Author Affiliation 

State U New York, Professor of Sociology, Albany, NY, US 

SO: Source 

 Felson, Richard B. (Ed); Tedeschi, James T. (Ed). (1993). 

 Aggression and violence: Social interactionist perspectives (pp. 

 233-253). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. 

 xiii, 265 pp. 

IB: ISBN 

1557981906 (hardcover) 

PB: Publisher 

 Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the chapter) use a social interactionist approach to 

 aggression to examine the possible motives for rape and other 

 forms of sexual coercion / following social learning theory (from

 social psychology) and control theory (from criminology), I also 

 discuss the role of inhibitions (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1993 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Chapter 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Rape; *Theories; Social Control; Social Learning 

ID: Identifiers 

 discusses motivations for rape & other forms of sexual coercion 

 from various theoretical perspectives 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

TA: Target Audience 

Psychology: Professional & Research 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

42 
 1993-97742-010 

TI: Title 

 Verbal coercive sexual behavior among college students 

AU: Author 

 Craig, Mary E; Kalichman, Seth C; Follingstad, Diane R 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U South Carolina, Barnwell Coll, Columbia, US 

SO: Source 

 Archives of Sexual Behavior. Vol 18(5), Oct 1989, pp. 421-434 

IS: ISSN 

0004-0002 

PB: Publisher 

 Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, US, [URL:http://www.wkap.nl] 

AB: Abstract 

 Investigated the prevalence of verbal sexual coercion, the beliefs 

 and attitudes of sexually coercive and noncoercive men, and the 

 differences in affective states between groups and at different 

 stages of relationship development. 194 male undergraduates 

 completed a battery of measures, including the Sexual Attitudes 

 Scale (M. Craig et al, 1988), the Rape Arousal Inventory (J. 

 Briere et al, 1984), and the Sexual Experience Checklist (M. Craig 

 et al, 1988). 42% of Ss have had coercive sexual relationships in 

 which the S was the coercing partner. Examining the feeling states 

experienced by coercive Ss reveals differences in their 

 motivations for being sexually coercive in different relationship 

 contexts. Results are discussed using the situational model in 

 which the coercive male plays an active role in shaping his 

 environment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights 

reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1989 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Deception; *Human Males; *Persuasive Communication; *Rape; Oral 

 Communication 

ID: Identifiers 

 verbal coercive sexual behavior; male college students 

CL: Classification 

 3236 Criminal Behavior & Juvenile Delinquency 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

43
 19900301 

AN: Accession Number 

1990-07721-001 

TI: Title 

 Assessing the validity of a multidimensional model of sexual 

coercion in college men 

AU: Author 

 Hamburger, Merle Edward 

AF: Author Affiliation 

State U New York at Albany, US 

AV: Availability 

 UMI Dissertation Order Number AAM9529111 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & 

Engineering. Vol 56(5-B), Nov 1995, pp. 2940 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4217 

PB: Publisher 

 US: Univ. Microfilms International 

AB: Abstract 

 Two of the most consistently cited frameworks used to explain why 

 people engage in coercive sexual behaviors are the social control 

 (Brownmiller, 1975) and the psychopathology perspectives (Rada, 

 1978; Groth & Birnbaum, 1979). While these perspectives were once 

 thought to be mutually exclusive, recent research and theoretical 

 conceptualizations indicate that an integration of multiple 

 frameworks may best identify the factors associated with sexual 

 coercion. Participants' responses to 28 self-report measures of 

hypothesized risk factors for sexual aggression were examined and 

 a structural equation model depicting the interrelations among 

 these constructs was tested. Results supported the contention that 

 factors from both the social control and psychopathological 

 perspectives are essential to interpret the motivation underlying 

 individuals' use of sexually aggressive behaviors. According to 

 the results of the current study, the two focal constructs 

 associated with sexual aggression are traditional sex-role 

 socialization and psychopathy (i.e., having an underlying 

 psychopathic personality). Traditional sex-role socialization 

 influenced the development of rape supportive beliefs, which in 

 turn influenced individuals' rape proclivity as well as their use 

 of sexual aggression. Having an underlying psychopathic 

 personality, on the other hand, influenced individuals' alcohol 

 consumption and coercive sexual fantasies. Results further 

 indicated that alcohol consumption influenced individuals' use of 

 sexually aggressive behavior, while coercive sexual fantasies 

44
 influenced their rape proclivity. These results underscore the 

 importance of incorporating multiple dimensions when attempting to 

 explain sexually aggressive behaviors. Implications of these 

 results regarding future research, as well as treatment and 

 prevention programs, are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 

2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1995 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Psychopathology; *Psychosexual Behavior; *Rape; *Sex 

 Roles; Human Males 

ID: Identifiers 

 factors associated with sexually aggressive behaviors; college 

 men; application of multidimensional model of sexual coercion 

CL: Classification 

3000 Social Psychology; 3100 Personality Psychology 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood (18-29 

yrs) 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1995-95021-074 

45
Measurement 

TI: Title 

 Understanding domestic violence: An examination of power and 

control in couple relationships 

AU: Author 

 Malik, Neena Marlene 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Denver, US 

AV: Availability 

 UMI Dissertation Order Number AAM9730339 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & 

Engineering. Vol 58(4-B), Oct 1997, pp. 2128 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4217 

PB: Publisher 

US: Univ. Microfilms International 

AB: Abstract 

 It has become clear to social scientists and policymakers alike 

 that violence within the family is all too common and carries 

 enormous costs to society. Physical assaults occur in millions of

 intimate partnerships every year (Straus & Gelles, 1990). When 

 domestic violence is present in a relationship, interpersonal 

 power is a construct that is plainly involved, to the extent that 

 violence is an extreme expression of power (Murphy & Meyer, 1991), 

 and yet a notoriously problematic concept to empirically 

 investigate (Huston, 1983). The goal of this study was to explore 

 the role of relationship power in violence, examining how power, 

 other dyadic, and individual factors are associated with domestic 

 violence. In a sample of 22 aggressive and 18 non-violent couples, 

 the unique roles of individual and dyadic factors, particularly 

 relationship power, were examined in relation to domestic 

 violence. It was found that power can be measured validly, and 

 that across theoretical domains of power, many associations with 

 domestic violence exist. Family of origin violence and dyadic 

 negative escalation moderated the relations between power and 

 violence, and relationship satisfaction was a partial mediator. 

 Individual factors were less related to violence than dyadic ones. 

 This study indicates the need to examine and understand the role 

 of relationship power and other dyadic factors in the etiology and 

 treatment of domestic violence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

46 
 1997 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Couples; *Family Violence; *Power; *Social Control 

ID: Identifiers 

 relationship power & control & dyadic & individual factors 

 associated with domestic violence; aggressive couples 

CL: Classification 

 3300 Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention; 3000 Social 

Psychology 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-95020-284 

TI: Title 

 Rethinking power in interpersonal relationships: The development 

 of the Power Scale and a test of a model. (condoms, gender roles) 

AU: Author 

Mazurek, Bozena Teresa 

AF: Author Affiliation 

City U New York, US 

AV: Availability 

 UMI Dissertation Order Number AAM9909402 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & 

Engineering. Vol 59(10-B), May 1999, pp. 5622 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4217 

PB: Publisher 

 US: Univ. Microfilms International 

AB: Abstract 

 The current study focuses on the role of power in intimate 

heterosexual relationships. A sample of 166 young, urban, 

 heterosexual college women from four colleges volunteered to 

 participate in this questionnaire study. A new instrument to 

 assess power in close relationships was constructed. The study 

 examined relationships between the amount of power, attitudes 

 toward condoms, gender roles, power strategies and condom use. A 

 model was proposed to describe those relationships. Falbo and 

 Peplau's (1980) two-dimensional model of power strategies provided 

 the initial framework for examining the influence strategies used 

 to negotiate condom use. The current study did not find support 

47
 for this model. Instead, two independent categories of strategies 

 emerged, i.e., the Interactive and Autonomous categories. It was 

 hypothesized that amount of power, attitudes toward condoms, and 

 gender roles are predictive of condom use. It was also 

 hypothesized that women's use of power strategies mediates the 

 relationship between the amount of power and condom use and the 

 relationship between gender roles and condom use. The present 

 study did not find support for the mediational model. 

 Interpersonal power was examined from the societal perspective of 

 control of one person over another person i.e., 'power-over' and 

 the feminist perspective of control over one's own behaviors i.e., 

 'power-to'. A new measure of power was developed and consisted of 

 two scales: the Power-over Scale and the Power-to Scale. This 

 measure was a reliable predictor of condom use i.e., Power-over 

 was a negative predictor and Power-to was a positive predictor of

 condom use. The Power Scale in its entirety was a predictor of the 

 Autonomous influence strategies. Women who received high scores on 

 the Power-over Scale were most likely to use the Autonomous power 

strategies, while women who scored high on the Power-to Scale, 

 tended to use all available strategies. There was a positive 

 association between attitudes toward condoms and condom use. The 

 relationship between gender roles and condom use was more

 difficult to interpret. The participants high in masculinity held 

 the most positive attitudes toward condoms. (PsycINFO Database 

 Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1999 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Condoms; *Power; *Rating Scales; *Sexual Attitudes; *Test 

 Construction; Human Females; Sex Roles 

ID: Identifiers 

 development & evaluation of Power Scale; measure for predicting 

 condom use; heterosexual undergraduate women 

CL: Classification 

3000 Social Psychology 

PO: Population 

 Human; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood (18-29 

yrs) 

TI: Title 

 Psychological aggression in dating relationships: The role of 

 interpersonal control 

48
AU: Author 

Stets, Jan E 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Washington State U, Pullman, US 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Family Violence. Vol 6(1), Mar 1991, pp. 97-114 

IS: ISSN 

0885-7482 

PB: Publisher 

 Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, US, [URL:http://www.plenum.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Examined psychological aggression in dating relationships, 

 focusing on interpersonal control (i.e., the degree to which one 

 person controls another in a relationship). Complete questionnaire 

 data for analysis of inflicting aggression was available for 378 

 relationships for male and 510 relationships for female university 

 students. For analysis of sustaining aggression, there was 

 complete data on 367 relationships for male and 499 relationships 

 for female university students. Results show that interpersonal 

 control was an important predictor of psychological aggression. 

 (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

(unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1991 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Aggressive Behavior; *Interpersonal Influences; *Psychodynamics; 

 *Social Dating 

ID: Identifiers 

 interpersonal control & psychological aggression in dating 

relationships; college students 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19910901 

AN: Accession Number 

1991-24652-001 

TI: Title 

 Sexual aggression and control in dating relationships 

AU: Author 

49 
 Stets, Jan E; Pirog-Good, Maureen A 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Washington State U, Pullman, US 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol 19(16, Pt 2), Nov 1989, 

pp. 1392-1412 

IS: ISSN 

0021-9029 

PB: Publisher 

Bellwether Publishing, US 

AB: Abstract 

 Examined the effect of interpersonal control on sexual aggression 

 (SA) while dating in 583 university students. Data were collected 

 on men and women who inflict and sustain SA. Results indicate that 

 interpersonal control is a significant predictor of both men and 

 women inflicting and women sustaining SA. Future research should 

 examine interaction patterns among couples rather than viewing SA 

 as the result of men demonstrating their masculinity. (PsycINFO 

 Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1989 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Aggressive Behavior; *Male Female Relations; *Psychosexual 

Behavior; *Social Dating 

ID: Identifiers 

 interpersonal control; sexual aggression while dating; college 

students 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19900301 

AN: Accession Number 

1990-07770-001 

** 

TI: Title 

 Understanding domestic violence: An examination of power and 

control in couple relationships 

AU: Author 

Malik, Neena Marlene 

50
AF: Author Affiliation 

U Denver, US 

AV: Availability 

 UMI Dissertation Order Number AAM9730339 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & 

Engineering. Vol 58(4-B), Oct 1997, pp. 2128 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4217 

PB: Publisher 

US: Univ. Microfilms International 

AB: Abstract 

 It has become clear to social scientists and policymakers alike 

 that violence within the family is all too common and carries 

 enormous costs to society. Physical assaults occur in millions of

 intimate partnerships every year (Straus & Gelles, 1990). When 

 domestic violence is present in a relationship, interpersonal 

 power is a construct that is plainly involved, to the extent that 

 violence is an extreme expression of power (Murphy & Meyer, 1991), 

 and yet a notoriously problematic concept to empirically 

 investigate (Huston, 1983). The goal of this study was to explore 

 the role of relationship power in violence, examining how power, 

 other dyadic, and individual factors are associated with domestic 

 violence. In a sample of 22 aggressive and 18 non-violent couples, 

 the unique roles of individual and dyadic factors, particularly 

 relationship power, were examined in relation to domestic 

 violence. It was found that power can be measured validly, and 

 that across theoretical domains of power, many associations with 

 domestic violence exist. Family of origin violence and dyadic 

 negative escalation moderated the relations between power and 

 violence, and relationship satisfaction was a partial mediator. 

 Individual factors were less related to violence than dyadic ones. 

 This study indicates the need to examine and understand the role 

 of relationship power and other dyadic factors in the etiology and 

 treatment of domestic violence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1997 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Couples; *Family Violence; *Power; *Social Control 

ID: Identifiers 

 relationship power & control & dyadic & individual factors 

51 
 associated with domestic violence; aggressive couples 

CL: Classification 

 3300 Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention; 3000 Social 

Psychology 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-95020-284 

TI: Title 

 Two scales for measuring patients' perceptions for coercion during 

 mental hospital admission 

AU: Author 

 Gardner, William; Hoge, Steven K; Bennett, Nancy; Roth, Loren H; 

et al 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U Pittsburgh School of Medicine, PA, US 

SO: Source 

 Behavioral Sciences & the Law. Special Issue: Coercion in mental 

 health care. Vol 11(3), Sum 1993, pp. 307-321 

IS: ISSN 

0735-3936 

IT: Issue Title 

 Special Issue: Coercion in mental health care 

PB: Publisher 

 John Wiley & Sons Inc, US, [URL:http://www.wiley.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 The authors measured 161 mental hospital patients' (aged 17-81 

 yrs) perceptions of coercion by asking questions, in both an 

 interview and a questionnaire format, about their experience of 

 lack of control, choice, influence, and freedom in hospital 

 admission. A 2nd sample of 49 adult mental hospital patients 

 answered a revised version of the questionnaire format only. 

 Patients' responses to questions about their perceptions of 

 coercion were highly internally consistent. Internal consistency 

 of the interview and questionnaire scales was robust with respect 

 to variation in site, instrument format, patient population, and 

 interview procedure. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all 

rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1993 

PT: Publication Type 

52
 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Interviews; *Psychiatric Hospital Admission; *Surveys; 

 *Test Reliability; Client Attitudes; Psychiatric Patients; 

Questionnaires 

ID: Identifiers 

 internal consistency of MacArthur Admission Experience Interview & 

 MacArthur Admission Experience Survey; assessment of perceptions 

 of coercion during mental hospital admission; 17-81 yr old 

patients 

CL: Classification 

 2224 Clinical Psychological Testing; 3379 Inpatient & Hospital 

Services 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adolescence (13-17 yrs); Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Aged 

(65 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19940301 

AN: Accession Number 

1994-08040-001 

TI: Title 

 Family, clinician, and patient perceptions of coercion in mental 

 hospital admission: A comparative study 

AU: Author 

 Hoge, Steven K; Lidz, Charles W; Eisenberg, Marlene; Monahan, 

John; Bennett, Nancy; Gardner, William; Mulvey, Edward P; Roth, 

Loren 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Virginia School of Law, Charlotte, VA, US 

SO: Source 

 International Journal of Law & Psychiatry. Vol 21(2), Spr 1998, 

pp. 131-146 

IS: ISSN 

0160-2527 

DO: DOI 

10.1016/S0160-2527(98)00002-8 

PB: Publisher 

 William S Hein & Co Inc, US, [URL:http://www.wshein.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Investigated perceptions of coercion in the mental hospital 

 admission in patients, family (including friends and significant 

 others), and clinicians in an attempt to understand 2 related 

 questions. The 1st question asks how do family and clinician 

 perceptions of coercion compare with the perceptions of patients. 

 The 2nd question asks are the determinants of family and clinician 

53
 perceptions of coercion the same as the determinants of patient

 perceptions of coercion. 433 psychiatric patients, clinicians, and 

 family members were administered the MacArthur Admission 

 Experience Interview (AEI), an interview that generates data on 

 Ss' perceptions of coercion of patients in the decision to be 

 admitted. It appears that patients, family, and clinicians share a 

 common understanding of some aspects of coercion in the admission 

 process. Family members report that involuntary patients had less 

 coercion. Family were less likely to report negative pressures as 

 well. Patients reported that they had been given less procedural 

 justice in the hospital admission process than family members of 

 clinicians. Overall, family and clinicians believe patients have 

 been given maximum opportunity to voice their preferences about 

 hospitalization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all 

 rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1998 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Clinicians; *Coercion; *Family Members; *Psychiatric Hospital 

 Admission; *Psychiatric Patients; Perception 

ID: Identifiers 

 determinants of perceptions of coercion in mental hospital 

 admission; patient vs family vs clinicians 

CL: Classification 

3379 Inpatient & Hospital Services 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19980701 

AN: Accession Number 

1998-02775-001 

TI: Title 

 Power and attitudes in relationships (PAIR) among a sample of 

 low-income, African-American women: Implications for HIV/AIDS 

 prevention 

AU: Author 

 Sherman, Susan G; Gielen, Andrea C; McDonnell, Karen A 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Johns Hopkins U, School of Hygiene & Public Health, Dept of Health 

54
 Policy & Management, Baltimore, MD, US 

SO: Source 

Sex Roles. Vol 42(3-4), Feb 2000, pp. 283-294 

IS: ISSN 

0360-0025 

PB: Publisher 

 Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, US, [URL:http://www.plenum.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 This study describes a scale that was designed to measure 

 low-income urban, heterosexual women's perception of Power and 

 Attitudes in Relationships (PAIR). Although frequently mentioned 

 in the literature as an important aspect of women's risk for HIV, 

 there are few described scales which measure such attitudes among 

 this population. PAIR was based in part on R. W. Connell's (1987) 

 theory of gender and power. PAIR was found to be reliable among a 

 cross-sectional sample of inner-city women (n = 417), half of whom 

 were HIV-negative and half were HIV-positive. Findings suggest 

 that PAIR is reliable among both HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected 

 inner-city women. The scale can be a useful tool in understanding 

 the interpersonal context of women's risk of HIV. (PsycINFO 

 Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

2000 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Adult Attitudes; *Human Immunodeficiency Virus; *Interpersonal 

 Interaction; *Power; *Rating Scales; AIDS Prevention; At Risk 

 Populations; Male Female Relations; Sex Role Attitudes; Test 

Reliability 

ID: Identifiers 

 reliability of Power & Attitudes in Relationships; assessment of

 attitudes toward gender; HIV positive vs negative low income

 heterosexual Black females; implications for AIDS prevention 

CL: Classification 

 2226 Health Psychology Testing; 3020 Group & Interpersonal 

Processes 

PO: Population 

 Human; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Thirties (30-39 yrs); 

US 

TI: Title 

 The development and validation of a scale measuring global social 

 power based on French and Raven's power taxonomy 

55
AU: Author 

 Nesler, Mitchell S; Aguinis, Herman; Quigley, Brian M; Lee, 

 Suk-Jae; Tedeschi, James T 

AF: Author Affiliation 

Regents Coll, Albany, NY, US 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol 29(4), Apr 1999, pp. 

750-771 

IS: ISSN 

0021-9029 

PB: Publisher 

Bellwether Publishing, US 

AB: Abstract 

 A measure of global power was developed based on J. R. P. French 

 and B. H. Raven's (1959) definition of social power as the 

 potential of an agent to influence a target. A sample of 346 

 graduate students responded to a questionnaire assessing their 

 perceptions of the power of their supervising professors in paid 

 assistantship duties. Power was measured using established scales 

 of the French and Raven 5 power bases (legitimate, research 

 coercive, expert, and referent power) in addition to the newly 

 developed global power measure. Results indicate that the global 

 power scale (a) has strong internal consistency, (b) is 

 significantly related to each of the 5 individual power bases, and 

(c) significantly accounts for additional variance in compliance 

 beyond the measures of the 5 power bases, beyond the sum of the 

 bases, and beyond a measure of resistance and control. (PsycINFO 

 Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

TI: Title 

 Power and control in interpersonal relationships: An empirical 

study of the control attitude scale 

AU: Author 

Strauss, Judith B 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Temple U 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 44(5-A), Nov 1983, pp. 

1395 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4217 

PB: Publisher 

 US: Univ. Microfilms International 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

56 
 1983 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Attitude Measures; *Authority; *Power; *Test Reliability 

ID: Identifiers 

 reliability of Control Attitude Scale & its revised version; 

 measurement of attitudes toward power & control & authority; 

college students 

CL: Classification 

 2223 Personality Scales & Inventories; 3120 Personality Traits & 

Processes 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19840401 

AN: Accession Number 

1984-52200-001 

TI: Title 

 Patient, family, and staff perceptions of coercion in mental 

 hospital admission: An exploratory study 

AU: Author 

 Hoge, Steven K; Lidz, Charles; Mulvey, Edward; Roth, Loren; et al 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, US 

SO: Source 

 Behavioral Sciences & the Law. Special Issue: Coercion in mental 

 health care. Vol 11(3), Sum 1993, pp. 281-293 

IS: ISSN 

0735-3936 

IT: Issue Title 

 Special Issue: Coercion in mental health care 

PB: Publisher 

 John Wiley & Sons Inc, US, [URL:http://www.wiley.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Summarizes the findings of a study designed to gather data needed 

 to refine the conceptualization and measurement of coercion. 

 Multiple perspectives on admission incidents for 43 adult patients 

 (26% of whom were involuntarily hospitalized) were obtained. 

 Patients were administered research interviews and completed a 

 self-administered inventory shortly after the admission decision. 

 The admitting clinician and a family member involved in the 

 admission were administered parallel interviews. In addition, 

 focus groups comprised of outpatients, former patients, family 

 members, and clinical staff were conducted to uncover the 

57
 terminology and description of coercion commonly used. (PsycINFO 

 Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1993 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Psychiatric Hospital Admission; *Psychiatric Patients; 

 Adult Attitudes; Client Attitudes; Family Members; Health

 Personnel Attitudes; Health Personnel 

ID: Identifiers 

 perceptions of coercion in mental hospital admission; adult 

 patients vs family members vs staff 

CL: Classification 

3379 Inpatient & Hospital Services 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19940301 

AN: Accession Number 

1994-11160-001 

TI: Title 

Personality predictors of the Minnesota Power and Control Wheel 

AU: Author 

 Dutton, Donald G; Starzomski, Andrew J 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U British Columbia, Dept of Psychology, Vancouver, BC, Canada 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Vol 12(1), Feb 1997, pp. 70-82 

IS: ISSN 

0886-2605 

PB: Publisher 

 Sage Publications Inc, US, [URL:http://www.sagepub.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Tests were conducted to determine whether the Minnesota Power and 

Control Wheel (MPCW), which describes 8 forms of power and control 

 tactics, constituted a syndrome of intercorrelated actions. 

 Criterion items for the MPCW octants were derived from Tolman's

 Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PUWI) completed by 

 120 assaultive and 45 nonassaultive men (aged 17-65 yrs). Ss'

 partners were also assessed. Tests were conducted of whether 

 certain features of the abusive personality could accurately 

 predict various octants of the MPCW. With the exception of "using 

58
 the children as pawns," all MPCW dimensions of the abuse of power 

 and control were significantly intercorrelated suggesting the 

 existence of a syndrome of abuse of power and control. Personality 

 disturbance was significantly correlated with all octants except 

 using the children. These findings argue for a comprehensive model 

 of abusive uses of power and control tactics integrating both 

 social and psychological influences, rather than one that relies 

 exclusively on either one. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, 

all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1997 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Abuse of Power; *Aggressive Behavior; *Partner Abuse; 

 *Personality Traits; *Violence; Human Males; Personality Measures 

ID: Identifiers 

 relationship between abusive personality traits & use of power & 

 control tactics in Minnesota Power & Control Wheel; 17-65 yr old 

 assaultive vs nonassaultive males & partners 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Female; Adolescence (13-17 yrs); Adulthood (18 yrs & 

 older); Young Adulthood (18-29 yrs); Thirties (30-39 yrs); Middle 

Age (40-64 yrs); Aged (65 yrs & older); Canada 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-08105-005 

** 

TI: Title 

 Sex, power, and influence tactics in intimate relationships 

AU: Author 

 Howard, Judith A; Blumstein, Philip; Schwartz, Pepper 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U Washington, Seattle 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Vol 51(1), Jul 1986, 

pp. 102-109 

IS: ISSN 

59
 0022-3514 

DO: DOI 

10.1037//0022-3514.51.1.102 

PB: Publisher 

 American Psychological Assn., US, [URL:http://www.apa.org] 

AB: Abstract 

 Examined the influence of sex, sex-role orientation, structural 

 power, and interpersonal dependence on the use of influence 

 tactics in 75 homosexual couples, 62 lesbian couples, and 98 

 heterosexual couples. Ss rated the frequency of 24 influence 

 tactics on a 9-point scale, from which 6 dimensions of influence 

 tactics were identified: manipulation, supplication, bullying, 

 autocracy, disengagement, and bargaining. Several patterns of the 

 effect of interpersonal power on influence tactics were found: 

 Positions of weakness increased the use of supplication and 

 manipulation, both "weak" strategies. Positions of strength 

 somewhat increased the likelihood of bullying and the use of 

 autocratic tactics, both "strong" strategies. Patterns of 

 bargaining and the use of disengagement were more complex and 

 varied across couple types. Both sex and sex-role orientation had 

 consistent effects on influence dynamics, but these effects were 

 limited primarily to the use of weak tactics. These effects of sex 

do not appear to be mediated either by interpersonal dependence or 

 by structural power. (33 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1986 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Interpersonal Interaction; *Lesbianism; *Male Homosexuality; 

 *Power; *Sex Roles; Couples; Human Sex Differences; Social 

Influences 

ID: Identifiers 

 sex role orientation & structure power & interpersonal dependence; 

 use of influence tactics; homosexual vs lesbian vs heterosexual 

couples 

CL: Classification 

 2970 Sex Roles & Women's Issues; 3020 Group & Interpersonal 

Processes 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

FE: Features 

References 

60
UD: Update 

19861101 

AN: Accession Number 

1986-27096-001 

61 
Elaboration of coercion concept 

TI: Title 

Personality predictors of the Minnesota Power and Control Wheel 

AU: Author 

 Dutton, Donald G; Starzomski, Andrew J 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U British Columbia, Dept of Psychology, Vancouver, BC, Canada 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Vol 12(1), Feb 1997, pp. 70-82 

IS: ISSN 

0886-2605 

PB: Publisher 

 Sage Publications Inc, US, [URL:http://www.sagepub.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Tests were conducted to determine whether the Minnesota Power and 

Control Wheel (MPCW), which describes 8 forms of power and control 

 tactics, constituted a syndrome of intercorrelated actions. 

 Criterion items for the MPCW octants were derived from Tolman's

 Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PUWI) completed by 

 120 assaultive and 45 nonassaultive men (aged 17-65 yrs). Ss'

 partners were also assessed. Tests were conducted of whether 

 certain features of the abusive personality could accurately 

 predict various octants of the MPCW. With the exception of "using 

 the children as pawns," all MPCW dimensions of the abuse of power 

 and control were significantly intercorrelated suggesting the 

 existence of a syndrome of abuse of power and control. Personality 

 disturbance was significantly correlated with all octants except 

 using the children. These findings argue for a comprehensive model 

 of abusive uses of power and control tactics integrating both 

 social and psychological influences, rather than one that relies 

 exclusively on either one. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, 

all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1997 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Abuse of Power; *Aggressive Behavior; *Partner Abuse; 

 *Personality Traits; *Violence; Human Males; Personality Measures 

ID: Identifiers 

 relationship between abusive personality traits & use of power & 

 control tactics in Minnesota Power & Control Wheel; 17-65 yr old 

 assaultive vs nonassaultive males & partners 

62 
CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Female; Adolescence (13-17 yrs); Adulthood (18 yrs & 

 older); Young Adulthood (18-29 yrs); Thirties (30-39 yrs); Middle 

Age (40-64 yrs); Aged (65 yrs & older); Canada 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-08105-005 

TI: Title 

 Jealousy induction as a predictor of power and the use of other 

 control methods in heterosexual relationships 

AU: Author 

 Brainerd, Edwin G; Hunter, Patricia A; Moore, DeWayne; Thompson, 

Tisha R 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Clemson U, Psychology Dept, SC, US 

SO: Source 

 Psychological Reports. Vol 79(3, Pt 2), Dec 1996, pp. 1319-1325 

IS: ISSN 

0033-2941 

PB: Publisher 

Psychological Reports, US 

AB: Abstract 

 113 university students completed the Psychological Aggression 

 Scale for Men and Women, the Interpersonal Control Scale for Men 

 and Women, a measure of physical violence (the Conflict Tactics 

 Scale), and a scale assessing use and approval of 

 jealousy-inducing behaviors (JIBs). Use and approval of JIBs were 

 good predictors of high need for interpersonal control and use of 

 psychological aggression. Use of JIBs, but not approval of JIBs, 

 was a strong predictor of physical aggression toward one's

 partner. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights 

reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1996 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Aggressive Behavior; *Emotional Control; *Interpersonal 

63 
 Interaction; *Jealousy 

ID: Identifiers 

use & approval of jealousy inducing behaviors & need for 

 interpersonal control & use of physical &/or psychological 

 aggression toward partner; college students 

CL: Classification 

3020 Group & Interpersonal Processes 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-02572-047 

TI: Title 

 Power, control, and communication: An analysis of aggressive, 

violent, and abusive couples 

AU: Author 

Olson, Loreen Nyla 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Nebraska - Lincoln, US 

AV: Availability 

 UMI Dissertation Order Number AAI9962065 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & 

Social Sciences. Vol 61(2-A), Aug 2000, pp. 427 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4209 

PB: Publisher 

US: Univ Microfilms International 

AB: Abstract 

 Various theoretical orientations and methodological perspectives 

 have yielded mixed results regarding the phenomenon of domestic 

 violence. Sociologist, Michael Johnson (1995) argued that the 

 reason for contradictory findings was because researchers are 

 studying divergent phenomena. Johnson labeled two of these 

 perspectives, 'the family violence perspective,' and the 'feminist 

 perspective.' He also labeled the types of violence researchers 

 within these perspectives were examining, 'common couple 

 violence,' and 'patriarchal terrorism,' respectively. The present 

 study focused on 'common couple violence.' More specifically, the 

 purpose of this analysis was (a) to create a general profile of

 'common couple violence,' taking into account its defining 

 features, general communication patterns used by individuals 

 experiencing 'common couple violence,' and the communication 

 correlates of power and control used by the individuals, and (b) 

64
 to determine if multiple forms of 'common couple violence'

 existed. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with thirty-one 

 individuals (5 males, 26 females) who had experienced 

 interpersonal aggression with their romantic, heterosexual 

 partners. The 967 pages of data were analyzed to determine how 

 violence issues related to gender symmetry/asymmetry, per couple 

 frequency, reciprocity, and escalation contributed to a general 

 profile of 'common couple violence.' In addition, communication 

 frameworks were used to assess the individuals' communication 

 patterns. The specific patterns examined included conflict 

 tactics, compliance-gaining tactics, and communication competence. 

 Five trajectories of aggression were identified and labeled: 

 chaotic, declining, stable, increasing, and cyclical. In addition, 

 a new typology of violent couples was developed which consisted of 

 four different types of violent couples: Aggressive, Episodically 

 Violent, Systemically Violent, and Abusive. Theoretical and 

 practical implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record 

(c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

2000 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Aggressive Behavior; *Interpersonal Communication; *Partner 

Abuse; *Power; *Violence; Couples 

ID: Identifiers 

 power & control & communication; individuals who had experienced 

 interpersonal aggression with their romantic heterosexual partners 

CL: Classification 

3000 Social Psychology 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

20010328 

AN: Accession Number 

2000-95015-061 

TI: Title 

 On the borders of persuasion: A psychoanalytic look at coercion 

AU: Author 

 Gaylin, Willard 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Inst of Society, Ethics & the Life Sciences, Hastings-on-Hudson, 

NY 

65
SO: Source 

 Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes. Vol 

37(1), Feb 1974, pp. 1-9 

IS: ISSN 

0033-2747 

PB: Publisher 

 Guilford Publications, US, [URL:http://www.guilford.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Presents a psychoanalytic evaluation of the nature of coercion and 

 its antithesis, freedom. Biological developments have necessitated 

 a re-evaluation of coercion, particularly in the area of 

 "voluntary" consent. Coercion is generally thought of as physical 

 force, but unconscious coercion is a far more pernicious threat 

 because it both hides the coercion from the victim and exempts the 

 attacker from responsibility. Various overt and covert forces of 

 unconscious coercion are analyzed. (34 ref) (PsycINFO Database 

 Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1974 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Interpersonal Influences; *Persuasive Communication; 

*Psychoanalytic Theory 

ID: Identifiers 

psychoanalytic evaluation of coercion vs freedom 

CL: Classification 

3000 Social Psychology 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19750701 

AN: Accession Number 

1975-21001-001 

TI: Title 

Coercion, deterrence, and authority 

AU: Author 

 Airaksinen, Timo 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Helsinki, Finland 

SO: Source 

66 
 Theory & Decision. Vol 17(2), Sep 1984, pp. 105-117 

IS: ISSN 

0040-5833 

PB: Publisher 

 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, [URL:http://www.wkap.nl] 

AB: Abstract 

 Examines coercion and authority in a relatively just society. The 

 strict concept of coercion and deterrence together is called 

 coercion. Strict coercion is an event that always implies an 

 occurrent event as the threat. Deterrence need not involve any 

 explicit threats. Strict coercion is always an occurrent form of 

 power exercise, and deterrence is a functionally effective, often 

 latent form, of social power. There are 2 main types of social 

 power: coercive and noncoercive (authority). Authority is a 

 consensus-based idea rather than a consent-based idea. Authority 

 is a social notion. If authority is called a form of social power, 

 it is radically different from any coercive power proper. 

 Authority does not allow A to break B's stubborn resistance, 

 should it occur. The way an irrational person adopts authorities 

is unpredictable. Authority has a moral as well as a 

 psychologically motivating function. It is suggested that coercive 

 authority means that certain coercive methods are legitimized; in 

 this case authority is not a power-notion, although normally 

 authority implies power. It is further suggested that the explicit 

 acceptance or denial of the legitimacy and authority of the police 

 and army has not much to do with the actual fact of finding 

 oneself under their coercive power. (9 ref) (PsycINFO Database 

 Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1984 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Authority; *Power; *Social Influences; *Society 

ID: Identifiers 

 coercion & authority & deterrence in society 

CL: Classification 

2900 Social Processes & Social Issues 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19851001 

67
AN: Accession Number 

1985-25244-001 

TI: Title 

 Consent to mental health treatment: A theoretical analysis of 

 coercion, freedom, and control 

AU: Author 

Carroll, John S 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Massachusetts Inst of Technology, Sloan School of Management, 

 Cambridge, US 

SO: Source 

 Behavioral Sciences & the Law. Special Issue: Legal and policy 

 issues in mental health services. Vol 9(2), Spr 1991, pp. 129-142 

IS: ISSN 

0735-3936 

IT: Issue Title 

 Special Issue: Legal and policy issues in mental health services 

PB: Publisher 

 John Wiley & Sons Inc, US, [URL:http://www.wiley.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Examines the concept of coercion to address the concerns of social 

 scientists, mental health treatment providers, and policy makers 

 over the question of when coercion into treatment has occurred. 

 This logically takes precedence over the question of whether or 

 not coercion is desirable in some situations. A review of the 

 scientific research on coercion and related topics of freedom, 

 control, and choice leads to a theoretical framework in which 

 coercion is defined in terms of opportunities to choose among 

 courses of action. Implications of this analysis are drawn for 

 mental health service delivery, mental health policy, and mental 

 health research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all 

rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1991 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Choice Behavior; *Client Rights; *Mental Health Services; *Power; 

 Experimentation; Health Care Delivery; Policy Making 

ID: Identifiers 

 coercion in mental health treatment & issues of freedom & control 

 & choice; implications for service delivery & policy & research 

CL: Classification 

68 
 3300 Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention 

PO: Population 

 Human 

UD: Update 

19911201 

AN: Accession Number 

1991-33825-001 

TI: Title 

 Distal coercion: Case studies 

AU: Author 

 Loring, Marti T; Smith, Roger W; Bolden, Tamara 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Ctr for Mental Health & Human Services, Decatur, GA, US 

SO: Source 

 Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior. Vol 34(1), 1997, pp. 

10-14 

IS: ISSN 

0033-3077 

PB: Publisher 

 Institute for Leadership and Organization Effectiveness, US 

AB: Abstract 

 Distal coercion is a process in which an abused woman fears a 

 batterer who is not geographically present. The victim experiences 

 trauma in a hostage-type relationship even in the absence of the 

 batterer. Subsequent trauma symptoms account for the victim's 

 unusual behavior, such as involvement with a batterer who kills 

 her child engaging in conspiracy to murder the batterer, and 

 bizarre behavior (of the victim) following her killing the 

 batterer. Identification of these unusual behaviors among battered 

 women is noted as critical in the prevention and treatment of 

 battered women, as well as in forensic testimony. (PsycINFO 

 Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (journal 

abstract) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1997 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study; Case Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Battered Females; *Behavior Disorders; *Coercion; Human Females 

ID: Identifiers 

 impact of distal coercion & behavior; battered women; case studies 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

69
PO: Population 

 Human; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19980401 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-38784-002 

TI: Title 

 Challenging ethnocentric explanations of domestic violence: Let us 

 decide, then value our decisions--A Samoan response. 

AU: Author 

 Crichton-Hill, Yvonne 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U Canterbury, Dept of Social Work, Christchurch, New Zealand 

SO: Source 

 Trauma Violence & Abuse. Special Issue:. Vol 2(3), Jul 2001, pp. 

203-214 

IS: ISSN 

1524-8380 

IT: Issue Title 

 Special Issue: 

PB: Publisher 

 SAGE Publications, US 

AB: Abstract 

 Theories describing domestic violence toward women are 

 predominantly ethnocentric in that they are largely based on 

 western notions of family and of family life. Invariably, 

 strategies responding to domestic violence are also based on 

 values that are reflective of their cultural origin. The Duluth 

 power and control wheel, a model that has been adopted universally 

 as a tractable strategy for managing male aggression, is 

 identified as having significant gaps within the analysis when 

 reviewed from a Samoan perspective. This article provides a 

 critique of the Duluth model and explores the knowledge 

 requirements for social workers working with Samoan women who have 

 been abused by Samoan men. Suggestions for working with Samoan 

 women and their communities are offered at the service, legal, and 

 educational levels. This article argues that further research is 

 required to ascertain the nature of domestic violence for Samoan 

 women in New Zealand and more work is required with Samoan 

 communities to determine the nature of service provision. It 

 further argues that a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics 

 of domestic violence as well as an understanding of the unique 

 dynamics of Samoan culture are necessary. (PsycINFO Database 

70 
 Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

2001 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Etiology; *Family Violence; *Power; *Sociocultural Factors; 

*Theories; Ethnic Values; Ethnocentrism; Male Female Relations; 

Social Casework 

ID: Identifiers 

 domestic violence; etiology; ethnocentric interventions; cross 

 cultural criticism; Duluth power and control wheel; Samoan women 

in New Zealand; social casework 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Female; New Zealand 

FE: Features 

References; Peer Reviewed 

UD: Update 

20010725 

AN: Accession Number 

2001-07619-001 

TI: Title 

 Social cognitive processes in women's and men's divergent 

 perspectives of sexual coercion 

AU: Author 

Harney, Patricia Ann 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Kansas, KS, US 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & 

Engineering. Vol 55(5-B), 1994, pp. 2008 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4217 

PB: Publisher 

 US: Univ. Microfilms International 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1994 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

71
DE: Descriptors 

 *Awareness; *Human Sex Differences; *Rape; *Social Cognition;

 Judgment; Social Issues 

ID: Identifiers 

 Social cognitive processes in women's and men's divergent 

 perspectives of sexual coercion (rape). 

CL: Classification 

 3300 Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19970801 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-72354-001 

72 
Theory: General 

TI: Title 

 Predictors of domestic violence: Power-and-control versus 

 imbalance-of-power and related factors 

AU: Author 

 Germain, Jacquelin L 

AF: Author Affiliation 

Private Practice, Minneapolis, MN, US 

SO: Source 

 Sandhu, Daya Singh (Ed). (2001). Faces of violence: Psychological 

 correlates, concepts, and intervention strategies (pp. 337-353). 

 Huntington, NY, US: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. xxviii, 470 pp. 

IB: ISBN 

1560728353 (hardcover) 

PB: Publisher 

 Huntington, NY, US: Nova Science Publishers, Inc 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the chapter) Discusses how the concept of power-and-control 

 has been offered as the cause of domestic violence. More 

 specifically, the power and control men have over women has been 

 named as the primary cause of the abuse of women by men. This 

 chapter examines this concept along with some surprising results 

 of its use, including controversies in the field. An alternate 

 concept, imbalance-of-power and related factors, will be presented 

 as a way to expand ideas about domestic abuse. As a more

 comprehensive predictor, this new view will address the complexity 

 of the issue and show how treatment can become more comprehensive 

 and be more widely applied. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

2001 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Chapter 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Family Violence; *Partner Abuse; *Power 

ID: Identifiers 

 power-and-control; imbalance-of-power; domestic violence; partner 

abuse 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

73 
 References 

TA: Target Audience 

Psychology: Professional & Research 

UD: Update 

20010808 

AN: Accession Number 

2001-01487-019 

TI: Title 

 Gender, power, and communication in human relationships 

AU: Author 

 Kalbfleisch, Pamela J (Ed); Cody, Michael J (Ed) 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U Wyoming, Dept of Communication & Mass Media, Laramie, WY, US 

SO: Source 

 1995. LEA's communication series. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence 

 Erlbaum Associates, Inc. xiv, 366 pp. 

IB: ISBN 

0805814035 (hardcover); 0805814043 (paperback) 

PB: Publisher 

 Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the preface) This edited book establishes a . . . 

 perspective on theory and research on gender, power, and 

 communication in human relationships. In one volume are both 

 theoretical essays and review chapters that address issues 

 relevant to female and male differences in power, dominance, 

 communication, equality, and expectations/beliefs. 

 This volume . . . incorporates a multidisciplinary approach to the 

 study of gender and the communication of power in human 

 relationships. This book provides both breadth and centralized 

 treatment of issues that form the very foundation of social and 

 personal relationships. This edited work [is intended for] 

 scholars working in the disciplines of communication and

 psychology, as well as other areas of social science research. 

 (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1995 

PT: Publication Type 

Print (Paper); Edited Book 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Human Sex Differences; *Interpersonal Interaction; *Power 

ID: Identifiers 

 multidisciplinary approach to gender & communication of power in 

74
 relationships; human males vs females 

CL: Classification 

3020 Group & Interpersonal Processes 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

TA: Target Audience 

Psychology: Professional & Research 

TB: Table of Contents 

Contributors 

Preface 

Part I: Introduction and overview 

 Power and communication in the relationships of women and men / 

 Pamela J. Kalbfleisch and Michael J. Cody 

 Part II: Gender-based expectations and beliefs 

 Body politics revisited: What do we know today? / Nancy M. Henley 

 Gender, immediacy, and nonverbal communication / Judee K. Burgoon 

 and Leesa Dillman 

 Women's style in problem solving interaction: Powerless, or simply 

 feminine? / Anthony Mulac and James J. Bradac 

 Masculinity and femininity: Defining the undefinable / Janet T. 

 Spence and Camille Buckner 

 Part III: Women and men together 

 Sexual discourse and sexual intercourse: How the way we 

communicate affects the way we think about sexual coercion / 

 Rhonda K. Reinholtz, Charlene L. Muehlenhard, Joi L. Phelps and 

 Arthur T. Satterfield 

 Negotiating safer sex: The dynamics of African-American 

 relationships / Lynn Carol Miller, Diane M. Burns and Sadina 

Rothspan 

 Power and equality in mentoring relationships / Pamela J. 

Kalbfleisch and Joann Keyton 

 Relating to spouse and stranger: Gender preferential language use 

/ Mary Anne Fitzpatrick and Anthony Mulac 

 Managing conflict and anger: Investigating the sex stereotype 

 hypothesis / William R. Cupach and Daniel J. Canary 

 The dynamics of power: Money and sex in intimate relationships / 

 Pepper Schwartz, Davis Patterson and Sara Steen 

 Part IV: Women and men in society 

 Television promotion of gender equality in societies / Everett M. 

 Rogers, Thomas M. Hirata, Ankila S. Chandran and Jeffery D. 

Robinson 

 Men and women in the market place / Michael J. Cody, John Seiter 

and Yvette Montagne-Miller 

Gender and power / Judy C. Pearson and Leda Cooks 

75
 Author index 

Subject index 

TI: Title 

 A theory of power relationships in marriage 

AU: Author 

 Rollins, Boyd C; Bahr, Stephen J 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Brigham Young U 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Marriage & the Family. Vol 38(4), Nov 1976, pp. 619-627 

IS: ISSN 

0022-2445 

PB: Publisher 

 Allen Press Inc/National Council on Family Relations, US, 

 [URL:http://www.allenpress.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Attempts to clarify conceptualizations in the general area of

 marital power. The concept of power is differentiated from control 

 attempt, control, resources, and authority. A theory is developed 

 which specifies the relationships among these 5 variables. It is 

 assumed that (a) power and control are social interaction 

 constructs rather than attributes of individual persons; (b) power 

 and control are relevant constructs only when a conflict exists 

 between the goals of marriage partners; and (c) authority, 

 resources, and power do not exist independently of perceptions. 

 The theory clarifies a number of conceptual ambiguities and 

 appears to be useful for integrating empirical research in this 

 area. (40 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights 

reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1976 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

*Marital Relations; *Power 

ID: Identifiers 

 theory of power relationships in marriage 

CL: Classification 

2950 Marriage & Family 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

76
UD: Update 

19770601 

AN: Accession Number 

1977-12650-001 

** 

TI: Title 

 Understanding domestic violence: An examination of power and 

control in couple relationships 

AU: Author 

Malik, Neena Marlene 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Denver, US 

AV: Availability 

 UMI Dissertation Order Number AAM9730339 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & 

Engineering. Vol 58(4-B), Oct 1997, pp. 2128 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4217 

PB: Publisher 

 US: Univ. Microfilms International 

AB: Abstract 

 It has become clear to social scientists and policymakers alike 

 that violence within the family is all too common and carries 

 enormous costs to society. Physical assaults occur in millions of

 intimate partnerships every year (Straus & Gelles, 1990). When 

 domestic violence is present in a relationship, interpersonal 

 power is a construct that is plainly involved, to the extent that 

 violence is an extreme expression of power (Murphy & Meyer, 1991), 

 and yet a notoriously problematic concept to empirically 

 investigate (Huston, 1983). The goal of this study was to explore 

 the role of relationship power in violence, examining how power, 

 other dyadic, and individual factors are associated with domestic 

 violence. In a sample of 22 aggressive and 18 non-violent couples, 

 the unique roles of individual and dyadic factors, particularly 

 relationship power, were examined in relation to domestic 

 violence. It was found that power can be measured validly, and 

 that across theoretical domains of power, many associations with 

 domestic violence exist. Family of origin violence and dyadic 

 negative escalation moderated the relations between power and 

 violence, and relationship satisfaction was a partial mediator. 

 Individual factors were less related to violence than dyadic ones. 

 This study indicates the need to examine and understand the role 

 of relationship power and other dyadic factors in the etiology and 

 treatment of domestic violence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

77 
 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1997 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Couples; *Family Violence; *Power; *Social Control 

ID: Identifiers 

 relationship power & control & dyadic & individual factors 

 associated with domestic violence; aggressive couples 

CL: Classification 

 3300 Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention; 3000 Social 

Psychology 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-95020-284 

TI: Title 

 A cognitive ecological model of women's response to male sexual 

coercion in dating 

AU: Author 

Nurius, Paula S; Norris, Jeanette 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U Washington, US 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality. Vol 8(1-2), 1995, pp. 

117-139 

IS: ISSN 

0890-7064 

PB: Publisher 

 Haworth Press Inc, US, [URL:http://www.haworthpressinc.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Examines a theoretical model that consolidates background, 

 environmental, and intrapersonal variables related to women's 

 experience of sexual coercion in dating into a coherent ecological 

 framework and present for the first time a cognitive analysis of

 the processes women use to formulate responses to sexual coercion. 

 An underlying premise for this model is that a woman's coping 

 response to sexual coercion by an acquaintance is mediated through 

 cognitive processing of background and situational influences. 

 Because women encounter this form of sexual coercion in the 

78
 context of relationships and situations that they presume will 

 follow normative expectations (e.g., about making friends, 

 socializing and dating), it is essential to consider normative 

 processes of learning, cognitive mediation, and coping guiding 

 their efforts to interpret and respond to this form of personal 

 threat. Although acts of coercion unquestionably remain the 

 responsibility of the perpetrator, a more complete understanding 

 of the multilevel factors shaping women's perception of and 

 response to threats can strengthen future inquiry and prevention 

efforts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights 

reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1995 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Human Females; *Models; *Sexual Abuse; *Social Dating; 

 Psychosexual Behavior; Responses; Victimization; Violence 

ID: Identifiers 

 cognitive ecological model of response to sexual coercion by 

 dating partner; females 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human; Female 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1996-05421-008 

TI: Title 

 Who's on top? Power in romantic relationships 

AU: Author 

 Felmlee, Diane H 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U California, Davis, US 

SO: Source 

Sex Roles. Vol 31(5-6), Sep 1994, pp. 275-295 

IS: ISSN 

0360-0025 

PB: Publisher 

 Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, US, [URL:http://www.plenum.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Investigated perceptions among 413 heterosexual-dating 

79
 undergraduates of male-female power balances in romantic dyads. 

 Fewer than half perceived their relationships to be equal in the 

 distribution of power, and men were over twice as likely as women 

 to be viewed as the partners having more power. Imbalances were 

 also evident in 3 related measures: decision-making, emotional 

 involvement, and equity. A higher proportion of both women and men 

 said that the male partner, rather than the female partner, made 

 more of the decisions, was less emotionally involved, and in 

 general was "getting a better deal." Finally, male dominance, but 

 not equality of power between the genders, was associated with 

 greater romantic relationship longevity. More specifically, the 

 higher the relative degree of power attributed by respondents to 

 the male, rather than the female, partner of a dyad, the lower was 

 the subsequent rate of relationship dissolution. (PsycINFO 

 Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1994 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Male Female Relations; *Power; *Social Dating; Heterosexuality 

ID: Identifiers 

 perceptions of male vs female power balances in romantic dyads; 

heterosexual dating college students 

CL: Classification 

 2970 Sex Roles & Women's Issues 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

80
Theory: Cultural differences 

TI: Title 

 Domestic violence and Detroit: An ethnic group study (Michigan) 

AU: Author 

Kirt, Edward Alfred 

AF: Author Affiliation 

The Union Inst., US 

AV: Availability 

 UMI Dissertation Order Number AAI9958866 

SO: Source 

 Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & 

Social Sciences. Vol 61(1-A), Jul 2000, pp. 379 

IS: ISSN 

0419-4209 

PB: Publisher 

 US: Univ Microfilms International 

AB: Abstract 

 This study is a cross-cultural ethnic group study using some

 quantitative methods to examine the Duluth model of intervention 

 for 'men who batter' in Detroit, Michigan. The Duluth model is an 

 attempt to profile abusive men by their presumed use of coercive 

 tactics against women. The logic is simple: men analyze their use 

 of these tactics, and in the process they change their abusive 

 behavior. But using such a model assumes that the population being 

 serviced is homogeneous and subscribes to an ideology that fosters 

 a sense of fair play in interpersonal relationships. To determine 

 the feasibility of using the Duluth model in Detroit, Michigan, an 

 ethnic group study of relationship behaviors was undertaken. Data 

 for this study were gathered using the Conflict Tactics Scale 

 developed by Murray Straus and his associates to survey national 

 levels of relationship behaviors. The survey was restricted to 

 fifty persons from the African American, American Indian, Asian 

 Indian, Jewish, Chinese, and Chaldean communities in Detroit, 

 Michigan. The survey was also restricted to those who had a listed 

 phone number. The data were grouped into five major categories 

 reasoning, verbal abuse, physical abuse, violence, and severe 

 violence. The results were presented in tables and charts by rates 

 per thousand and percentages. These results indicated that not all 

 ethnic groups were alike in the way they view interpersonal abuse 

and violence. Their use of violence varied from 20 per thousand to 

 312 per thousand respondents In the different ethnic groups in 

 this study. Although there were certain levels of violence 

 recorded for each ethnic group, there was no universal acceptance 

 of violence in the communities surveyed. These results suggest 

 that in addition to personal interests, the use of violence in 

81 
 intimate relationships is also dependent upon a person's ethnic 

 group affiliation (belief system). Treatment centers that overlook 

 ethnic group differences are insensitive to their client

 population and ineffective in addressing the issue of intimate 

 violence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights 

reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

2000 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Dissertation Abstract; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Family Violence; *Partner Abuse; *Physical Abuse; *Racial and 

 Ethnic Differences; *Reasoning; Cross Cultural Differences; Human 

Males 

ID: Identifiers 

 ethnicity group affiliation; reasoning & verbal & physical abuse & 

 violence; men 

CL: Classification 

3000 Social Psychology 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); US 

UD: Update 

20010314 

AN: Accession Number 

2000-95013-044 

TI: Title 

 Power strategy use in the intimate relationships of women and men 

from Mexico and the United States 

AU: Author 

 Belk, Sharyn S; Snell, William E; Garcia-Falconi, Renan; 

Hernandez-Sanchez, Julita E 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Texas, Austin, US 

SO: Source 

 Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol 14(3), Sep 1988, pp. 

439-447 

IS: ISSN 

0146-1672 

PB: Publisher 

Sage Publications, Inc., US 

AB: Abstract 

 Examined the types of power strategies that 30 undergraduates from

 Mexico (15 males, 15 females) and 28 male and 79 female 

82
 undergraduates from the US used with their intimate partners. 

 Power strategy use refers to the tactics and techniques that men 

 and women use to persuade others to do something for them. Results 

 indicate that Ss from both Mexico and the US reported using a 

 number of different power strategies, although Mexican women and 

 men tended to use more bilateral types of power strategies with 

 their intimate partners. Results are interpreted in terms of I. 

 Falbo and L. A. Peplau's (see record 1981-10374-001) 2-dimensional 

 model of power strategy use. Falbo and Peplau showed that the use 

 of power strategies in intimate relationships varies along 2 

 separate dimensions: bilateral (vs unilateral) and direct (vs 

 indirect) power strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1988 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Cross Cultural Differences; *Human Sex Differences; *Intimacy; 

 *Male Female Relations; *Power 

ID: Identifiers 

 power strategies in intimate relationships; male vs female college 

students; Mexico vs US 

CL: Classification 

2980 Sexual Behavior & Sexual Orientation 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Mexico; US 

UD: Update 

19890701 

AN: Accession Number 

1989-22259-001 

83
Female perpetrators 

TI: Title 

 When the tables are turned: Verbal sexual coercion among college 

 women 

AU: Author 

Shea, Mary E Craig 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Private Practice, Columbia, SC, US 

SO: Source 

 Anderson, Peter B. (Ed); Struckman-Johnson, Cindy (Ed). (1998). 

 Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies 

(pp. 94-104). New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press. xii, 244 pp. 

IB: ISBN 

1572301651 (hardcover) 

PB: Publisher 

 New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press 

AB: Abstract 

 (From the chapter) This chapter describes 2 studies: The first is 

 an investigation of the prevalence of sexual coercion of men by 

 women and an initial investigation of the characteristics, 

 feelings, and motivations of coercive women; the second is a 

 further investigation of the histories, beliefs, arousal patterns, 

 and social behavior of identified coercive women. (PsycINFO 

 Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1998 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Chapter; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Human Females; *Psychosexual Behavior; *Verbal 

 Communication; Attitudes; College Students; Emotions; 

 Epidemiology; Motivation; Sexual Arousal; Social Behavior 

ID: Identifiers 

 prevalence & characteristics & feelings & motivations & histories 

 & beliefs & arousal patterns & social behavior; verbally sexually 

 coercive college females 

CL: Classification 

2980 Sexual Behavior & Sexual Orientation 

PO: Population 

 Human; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

FE: Features 

References 

TA: Target Audience 

84 
 Psychology: Professional & Research 

UD: Update 

19980901 

AN: Accession Number 

1998-07926-005 

TI: Title 

 Patterns of sexual coercion in adult heterosexual relationships: 

 An exploration of male victimization 

AU: Author 

Busby, Dean M; Compton, Susan V 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 Syracuse U, Marriage & Family Therapy, Syracuse, NY, US 

SO: Source 

 Family Process. Vol 36(1), Mar 1997, pp. 81-94 

IS: ISSN 

0014-7370 

PB: Publisher 

 Family Process Inc, US 

AB: Abstract 

 Identified and described sexual coercion of adult males by females 

 in heterosexual relationships in comparison with relationships 

 involving the sexual coercion of females, of both males and 

 females, and of neither. The data for 3,032 couples that completed 

 the Preparation for Marriage instrument (T. B. Holman et al, 1989) 

was collected and analyzed. Current individual and couple 

 characteristics were investigated for male Ss and their partners. 

 Findings show greater deficiencies in relational resources and 

 commitment in coercive vs noncoercive couples. In addition, gender 

 differences were noted among results for different victim/offender 

 configurations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights 

reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1997 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Couples; *Male Female Relations; Heterosexuality 

ID: Identifiers 

 Colorado Parental Child Rearing Scale & initial development & 

 validation & reliability; college students & parents & siblings 

CL: Classification 

2220 Tests & Testing; 2956 Childrearing & Child Care 

PO: Population 

85
 Human; Male; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19970101 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-04770-007 

TI: Title 

 References examining men as victims of women's sexual coercion. 

AU: Author 

Fiebert, Martin S 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 California State U, Dept of Psychology, Long Beach, CA, US 

SO: Source 

 Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly. Special 

 Issue:. Vol 4(3), Sum 2000, pp. 81-88 

IS: ISSN 

1095-5143 

IT: Issue Title 

 Special Issue: 

PB: Publisher 

Transaction Periodicals Consortium, US, 

[URL:http://www.transactionpub.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Presents a bibliography of 42 annotated references (book chapters 

 and journal articles) examining men as victims of women's sexual 

 coercion. In parallel to women's concerns regarding sexual 

 coercion, a number of investigators have recently examined the 

 issue of men as victims. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, 

all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

2000 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Bibliography 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Sexual Abuse; *Victimization; Human Males 

ID: Identifiers 

 male victims; sexual coercion 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

86
 Peer Reviewed 

UD: Update 

20010822 

AN: Accession Number 

2001-01908-003 

87
LGBT 

TI: Title 

 Power strategies in intimate relationships 

AU: Author 

Falbo, Toni; Peplau, Letitia A 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U Texas, Austin 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Vol 38(4), Apr 1980, 

pp. 618-628 

IS: ISSN 

0022-3514 

DO: DOI 

10.1037//0022-3514.38.4.618 

PB: Publisher 

 American Psychological Assn., US, [URL:http://www.apa.org] 

AB: Abstract 

 A study was conducted to generate (a) a model of power strategies 

 used in intimate relationships and (b) information regarding the 

 associations between gender, sexual orientation, egalitarianism, 

 and power strategy use. Ss were 200 university students (100 

 homosexuals and 100 heterosexuals) evenly divided by gender. A 

 2-dimensional model was devised based on the strategies written in 

 open-ended essays. These 2 dimensions concerned the extent to 

 which the strategies were (a) direct (ranging from direct to 

 indirect) and (b) interactive (ranging from bilateral to 

 unilateral). Gender differences were found only among 

 heterosexuals, with males more likely than females to report using 

 bilateral and direct strategies. The effects of gender among 

 heterosexuals paralleled findings concerning the balance of power 

 in the relationship: Ss who preferred and perceived themselves as 

 having more power than their partner, such as heterosexual men, 

 were also more likely to use bilateral and direct strategies. No 

 differences in power strategy use were found between homosexuals 

 and heterosexuals. These and other results are interpreted in 

 terms of the aforementioned model and general gender differences 

 in power. (18 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all 

rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1980 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article 

DE: Descriptors 

88 
 *Heterosexuality; *Homosexuality; *Human Sex Differences; 

 *Interpersonal Interaction; *Power; Intimacy 

ID: Identifiers 

 sex & sexual orientation; power balance & interactive & direct

 strategies in intimate relationships; heterosexual vs homosexual 

college students 

CL: Classification 

3020 Group & Interpersonal Processes 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19810501 

AN: Accession Number 

1981-10374-001 

** 

TI: Title 

 Heterosexual and homosexual coercion, sexual orientation and 

sexual roles in medical students 

AU: Author 

 McConaghy, Nathaniel; Zamir, Ruth 

AF: Author Affiliation 

Prince of Wales Hosp, Dept of Psychiatry, NSW, Australia 

SO: Source 

 Archives of Sexual Behavior. Vol 24(5), Oct 1995, pp. 489-502 

IS: ISSN 

0004-0002 

PB: Publisher 

 Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, US, [URL:http://www.wkap.nl] 

AB: Abstract 

 Investigated heterosexual and homosexual coercion, sexual 

 orientation and sexual roles in 101 male (mean age 19.9 yrs) and 

 81 female (mean age 19.5 yrs) Australian medical students. All Ss 

 completed the modified Sexual Experience Survey and the Sex-Linked 

 Behaviors questionnaire. On the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, they rated 

 how well each of 20 masculine, feminine, and neutral personality 

 traits described themselves. Comparable proportions of men and 

 women were victims of coercive experiences. Forms of coercion not 

 involving threat or use of force were more common, more 

 exclusively heterosexual, and carried out by more equivalent 

 percentages of men and women. The ratio of homosexual/heterosexual 

 feelings reported by male, but not female Ss, correlated with the 

 degree of the homosexual coercion they both carried out and 

 experienced. The degree of sexual coercion correlated with 

89
 masculinity, rather than with male behavior. (PsycINFO Database 

 Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1995 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Human Sex Differences; *Psychosexual Behavior; *Sex 

Roles; Medical Students; Rape 

ID: Identifiers 

 sexual orientation & sex roles; heterosexual vs homosexual 

 coercion; male vs female medical students; Australia 

CL: Classification 

2980 Sexual Behavior & Sexual Orientation 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19960801 

AN: Accession Number 

1996-22802-001 

TI: Title 

 Sexual coercion in gay/lesbian relationships: Descriptives and 

gender differences 

AU: Author 

 Waldner-Haugrud, Lisa K; Gratch, Linda Valden 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U Houston, Dept of Social Sciences, Houston, TX, US 

SO: Source 

 Violence & Victims. Vol 12(1), Spr 1997, pp. 87-98 

IS: ISSN 

0886-6708 

PB: Publisher 

Springer Publishing Co., US 

AB: Abstract 

 A sample of 162 gay males and 111 lesbians (aged 18-79 yrs) 

 completed a survey measuring the frequency of sexually coercive 

 acts occurring within gay and lesbian relationships. Several 

 hypotheses were proposed to clarify earlier findings and to 

 explore gender differences in the data. Contradicting earlier 

 studies' findings that lesbians experience sexual coercion at 

 higher rates than gay men, the results of this study suggest 

 lesbians are not more likely than gay men to be classified as 

 victims of sexual coercion. Gay men also were found to experience 

90
 a significantly higher mean number of coercive experiences. Other 

 analyses specific to the type of coercion experienced and the 

 severity of the sexual coercion outcomes (penetration) revealed no 

 gender differences, however. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1997 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

*Lesbianism; *Male Homosexuality; *Partner Abuse; *Sex Offenses; 

 *Victimization; Human Sex Differences 

ID: Identifiers 

 frequency of sexually coercive victimization occurring within 

 relationships; 18-79 yr old gay males vs lesbians 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior; 2980 Sexual 

Behavior & Sexual Orientation 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood 

 (18-29 yrs); Thirties (30-39 yrs); Middle Age (40-64 yrs); Aged 

(65 yrs & older); US 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19980301 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-43627-006 

TI: Title 

 The balance of power in lesbian relationships 

AU: Author 

 Caldwell, Mayta A; Peplau, Letitia A 

AF: Author Affiliation 

U California, Los Angeles 

SO: Source 

Sex Roles. Vol 10(7-8), Apr 1984, pp. 587-599 

IS: ISSN 

0360-0025 

PB: Publisher 

 Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, US, [URL:http://www.plenum.com] 

AB: Abstract 

 Investigated the balance of power in lesbian relationships and 

 factors that affect it using 77 19-59 yr old lesbians who were 

91
 currently involved in a romantic/sexual relationship. About 55% of 

 the Ss worked full-time, and 40% were students. Ss completed a 

 23-page questionnaire that was based on extensive 2-hr interviews 

with 12 lesbians about their relationships and on group 

 discussions held with lesbian students. Findings show that 

 although Ss strongly endorsed an egalitarian ideal of equal power 

 in love relationships, nearly 40% reported an unequal balance of 

power in their relationship. As social exchange theory predicts, 

 the partner who is relatively less dependent on the relationship 

 and who has greater personal resources tends to have greater 

 power. Compared to Ss in equal power relationships, those in 

 unequal power relationships reported less satisfaction and 

 anticipated more problems in their relationships. No evidence of 

 "butch^femme" role playing was found. It is suggested that the 

 determinants of the balance of power go beyond attitudes and 

 reflect processes of social exchange that can occur regardless of 

 ideology or sexual orientation. (25 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record 

(c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1984 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

*Lesbianism; *Power; Egalitarianism 

ID: Identifiers 

 balance of power; romantic/sexual relationships; 19-59 yr old 

lesbians 

CL: Classification 

2980 Sexual Behavior & Sexual Orientation 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19850401 

AN: Accession Number 

1985-09457-001 

** 

TI: Title 

 Sex, power, and influence tactics in intimate relationships 

AU: Author 

 Howard, Judith A; Blumstein, Philip; Schwartz, Pepper 

AF: Author Affiliation 

92
 U Washington, Seattle 

SO: Source 

 Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Vol 51(1), Jul 1986, 

pp. 102-109 

IS: ISSN 

0022-3514 

DO: DOI 

10.1037//0022-3514.51.1.102 

PB: Publisher 

 American Psychological Assn., US, [URL:http://www.apa.org] 

AB: Abstract 

 Examined the influence of sex, sex-role orientation, structural 

 power, and interpersonal dependence on the use of influence 

 tactics in 75 homosexual couples, 62 lesbian couples, and 98 

 heterosexual couples. Ss rated the frequency of 24 influence 

 tactics on a 9-point scale, from which 6 dimensions of influence 

 tactics were identified: manipulation, supplication, bullying, 

 autocracy, disengagement, and bargaining. Several patterns of the 

 effect of interpersonal power on influence tactics were found: 

 Positions of weakness increased the use of supplication and 

 manipulation, both "weak" strategies. Positions of strength 

 somewhat increased the likelihood of bullying and the use of 

 autocratic tactics, both "strong" strategies. Patterns of 

 bargaining and the use of disengagement were more complex and 

 varied across couple types. Both sex and sex-role orientation had 

 consistent effects on influence dynamics, but these effects were 

 limited primarily to the use of weak tactics. These effects of sex 

do not appear to be mediated either by interpersonal dependence or 

 by structural power. (33 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1986 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Interpersonal Interaction; *Lesbianism; *Male Homosexuality; 

 *Power; *Sex Roles; Couples; Human Sex Differences; Social 

Influences 

ID: Identifiers 

 sex role orientation & structure power & interpersonal dependence; 

 use of influence tactics; homosexual vs lesbian vs heterosexual 

couples 

CL: Classification 

 2970 Sex Roles & Women's Issues; 3020 Group & Interpersonal 

93
 Processes 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19861101 

AN: Accession Number 

1986-27096-001 

TI: Title 

 Heterosexual and homosexual coercion, sexual orientation and 

sexual roles in medical students 

AU: Author 

 McConaghy, Nathaniel; Zamir, Ruth 

AF: Author Affiliation 

Prince of Wales Hosp, Dept of Psychiatry, NSW, Australia 

SO: Source 

 Archives of Sexual Behavior. Vol 24(5), Oct 1995, pp. 489-502 

IS: ISSN 

0004-0002 

PB: Publisher 

 Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, US, [URL:http://www.wkap.nl] 

AB: Abstract 

 Investigated heterosexual and homosexual coercion, sexual 

 orientation and sexual roles in 101 male (mean age 19.9 yrs) and 

 81 female (mean age 19.5 yrs) Australian medical students. All Ss 

 completed the modified Sexual Experience Survey and the Sex-Linked 

 Behaviors questionnaire. On the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, they rated 

 how well each of 20 masculine, feminine, and neutral personality 

 traits described themselves. Comparable proportions of men and 

 women were victims of coercive experiences. Forms of coercion not 

 involving threat or use of force were more common, more 

 exclusively heterosexual, and carried out by more equivalent 

 percentages of men and women. The ratio of homosexual/heterosexual 

 feelings reported by male, but not female Ss, correlated with the 

 degree of the homosexual coercion they both carried out and 

 experienced. The degree of sexual coercion correlated with

 masculinity, rather than with male behavior. (PsycINFO Database 

 Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1995 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

94
DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Human Sex Differences; *Psychosexual Behavior; *Sex 

Roles; Medical Students; Rape 

ID: Identifiers 

 sexual orientation & sex roles; heterosexual vs homosexual 

 coercion; male vs female medical students; Australia 

CL: Classification 

2980 Sexual Behavior & Sexual Orientation 

PO: Population 

 Human; Adulthood (18 yrs & older) 

UD: Update 

19960801 

AN: Accession Number 

1996-22802-001 

TI: Title 

 Sexual coercion in gay/lesbian relationships: Descriptives and 

gender differences 

AU: Author 

 Waldner-Haugrud, Lisa K; Gratch, Linda Valden 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U Houston, Dept of Social Sciences, Houston, TX, US 

SO: Source 

 Violence & Victims. Vol 12(1), Spr 1997, pp. 87-98 

IS: ISSN 

0886-6708 

PB: Publisher 

Springer Publishing Co., US 

AB: Abstract 

 A sample of 162 gay males and 111 lesbians (aged 18-79 yrs) 

 completed a survey measuring the frequency of sexually coercive 

 acts occurring within gay and lesbian relationships. Several 

 hypotheses were proposed to clarify earlier findings and to 

 explore gender differences in the data. Contradicting earlier 

 studies' findings that lesbians experience sexual coercion at 

 higher rates than gay men, the results of this study suggest 

 lesbians are not more likely than gay men to be classified as 

 victims of sexual coercion. Gay men also were found to experience 

 a significantly higher mean number of coercive experiences. Other 

 analyses specific to the type of coercion experienced and the 

 severity of the sexual coercion outcomes (penetration) revealed no 

 gender differences, however. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 

APA, all rights reserved) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

95 
 1997 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Empirical Study 

DE: Descriptors 

*Lesbianism; *Male Homosexuality; *Partner Abuse; *Sex Offenses; 

 *Victimization; Human Sex Differences 

ID: Identifiers 

 frequency of sexually coercive victimization occurring within 

 relationships; 18-79 yr old gay males vs lesbians 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior; 2980 Sexual 

Behavior & Sexual Orientation 

PO: Population 

 Human; Male; Female; Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood 

 (18-29 yrs); Thirties (30-39 yrs); Middle Age (40-64 yrs); Aged 

(65 yrs & older); US 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19980301 

AN: Accession Number 

1997-43627-006 

TI: Title 

 Sexual coercion in lesbian and gay relationships: A review and 

critique 

AU: Author 

 Waldner-Haugrud, Lisa K 

AF: Author Affiliation 

 U Houston, Dept of Social Sciences, Houston, TX, US 

SO: Source 

 Aggression & Violent Behavior. Vol 4(2), Sum 1999, pp. 139-149 

IS: ISSN 

1359-1789 

PB: Publisher 

 Pergamon/Elsevier Science Ltd, England 

AB: Abstract 

 Sexual coercion, or pressure to engage in unwanted sexual 

 behavior, has been a popular research topic for social scientists 

 interested in heterosexual relationships Only recently have 

 researchers turned their attention to lesbian and gay couples. 

 Several research studies are reviewed to assess rates, causes, and 

effects of sexual coercion in lesbian and gay relationships. 

 Several methodological issues that limit usefulness of findings on 

 homosexual sexual coercion are discussed as well as reasons why 

 social scientists have been reluctant to investigate sexual 

96
 coercion in lesbian and gay relationships. (PsycINFO Database 

 Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract) 

LA: Language 

English 

PY: Publication Year 

1999 

PT: Publication Type 

 Print (Paper); Journal Article; Literature Review/Research Review 

DE: Descriptors 

 *Coercion; *Homosexuality; *Lesbianism; *Psychosexual Behavior; 

*Sex Offenses 

ID: Identifiers 

 sexual coercion; lesbian & gay couples 

CL: Classification 

 3230 Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 

PO: Population 

 Human 

FE: Features 

References 

UD: Update 

19990801 

AN: Accession Number 

1999-05803-002 

97
Appendix C 

Synopsis of Listserv Discussion on the Conceptual Framework for the Development 

Of a Coercive Control Measure 
Appendix C 

SYNOPSIS OF LISTSERV DISCUSSION ON THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 

FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COERCIVE CONTROL MEASURE 

The synopsis is organized by the sections used in the conceptual framework for the 

development of a coercive control measure. A description of each section within the framework 

is presented first and is followed by the discussion generated by each section. 

I. Underlying Assumptions/Hypotheses 

Assumption 1: Social power plays a role in all interpersonal relationships, including 

intimate partner relationships (French and Raven, 1959). 

Assumption 2: Coercion is one of several forms of social power found in most intimate 

partner relationships, although there is a great deal of variance in forms and severity of 

coercion (Molm, 1997; Raven, 1993; Raven, Center, and Rodriguez, 1975). 

Assumption 3: The construct of control encompasses coercion, as well as force and 

persuasion. Control is neither positive nor negative; it is the product of inevitable 

social power in relationships. It is coercion—or control that results from abuses of 

power—that is problematic. 

Assumption 4: Coercion is a fluid process. An individual can be both a “target” and an 

“agent” of coercion—sometimes within the same interaction. The level or severity of 

coercion between the two partners may or may not differ dramatically. 

Discussion 

The Reference of “Most” to Coercion or Social Power. It was suggested that the word 

“most” in assumption 2 should be moved to make its reference clearer. As it currently reads, it is 

unclear whether “most” means that coercion is found in most intimate relationships, or whether it 

refers to social power. If the latter, it is not only a reasonable assumption but essentially true by 

definition. Beginning with Max Weber’s definition of a relationship in terms of mutual 

influence, then through the more recent developments derived from the “close relationship 

framework” of Kelley, et al., social influence (and thus by implication social power) is involved 

in all relationships, and especially so in close relationships. If the “most” refers more 

specifically to coercion, then perhaps this assumption requires some elaboration. [Response from 

project team: “Most” refers to coercion, not social power. Editing should make the point 

clearer.] 

Definition of Control. The need for a definition of control was noted. Currently, control 

seems to be defined only by example, when noted in assumption 3 that it includes coercion, 

force, and persuasion. This definition raised the question: Which forms of influence are included 

1
in control? A definition that would allow one to understand why some forms of influence are 

included while others are not was suggested. For example, persuasion seems quite different from 

coercion and force. Why are they covered by the concept of control while Kelman’s 

“identification” is not? 

The American Heritage Dictionary defines control as: verb form 1) to exercise 

authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. 2) to hold in restraint; check, 3) to verify or 

regulate (a scientific experiment) by conducting a parallel experiment or by comparing with 

another standard. The same dictionary’s definition for coerce reads: 1) to force to act or think in 

a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel, 2) to dominate, restrain, or 

control forcefully: e.g., coerced the strikers into compliance, 3) to bring about by force or threat: 

efforts to coerce agreement. These definitions support the conception of control as neither good 

nor bad, as well as the view of coercion as a ‘specific mechanism’ of control. The distinction 

between force and coercion makes sense. Was it Hannah Arendt who said that force represents 

the failure of coercion? 

One discussant stated that persuasion and coercion need to be separated. From TV 

commercials to religious gurus to political leaders, everyone tries to persuade the public to act in 

a particular way. The way to distinguish “good” (persuasion?) from “bad” coercion may be to 

check it against standards of social norms. 

The Definition of Control as Outcome or Process. Whether to define control as outcome 

or process was discussed. It was noted that if one defines control as an outcome (i.e., the product 

of inevitable social power in relationships, as stated in assumption 3) then it is a power outcome. 

It is more difficult to define controlling behavior or control as a process. 

The distinction between process and outcome was described as critical by several 

discussants. A project dealing with several parallel matters in revising the SES was cited. As 

part of the project, investigators have been dealing with the measurement of sexual assault where 

there are strategies (processes) like obtaining nonconsensual sex by taking advantage of an 

intoxicated woman, deliberately getting a woman intoxicated so that she cannot consent, 

threatening harm to her, or using physical force. And, there are also outcomes like assault, 

attempted rape, or rape. Both need to be captured in some way. Is the same true with coercion 

and control? Is it important to identify the “how it is accomplished” and what the “it” is? Does 

one use coercion to obtain control? 

In coercion, process and outcome may be inseparable. The process the agent engages in will 

lead to a particular outcome. May it be ‘I will get my dinner at 6:00 o’clock’, ‘she will not waste 

time gossiping with the neighbors’, or ‘she will be forever subservient to me’. Whether the agent 

has visualized and articulated this outcome clearly is not important. The outcome is there and 

will occur if coercion is successful. 

To be successful, coercion has to be based on social power differential - power that is 

ascribed or gained. Also, the target must perceive coercion (and power differential) clearly. 

‘Dominance’ might be the operative word here rather than control. 

2
The question of whether it is important to articulate coercion and control in the same way as 

sexual assault was raised, since coercion, by definition, reflects a contingent act⎯not merely an 

act⎯and thereby involves both a threat and a demand. On the other hand, the model attempts to 

articulate “how it is accomplished” AND what the ‘it” is. That is, “how” can be understood in 

terms of what is the threat and the “it” can be understood as the demand. 

The difference between victim and perpetrator in terms of how they think about the process 

and outcome was noted. In the SES project above, some of the narrative data seems to suggest 

that women talk about the process (how he did it) more than the outcome (what sexual activity 

was obtained). Is there a parallel question here for coercion and control? Is process the more 

meaningful construct for victims, or is it outcome? The importance of these two questions in 

terms of the ethnographic interviews and looking separately at the target and agent’s 

evaluation/meaning/importance of the demand itself versus the threat was noted. 

The importance of considering separately the target and agent’s evaluation of the demand 

versus the threat was stressed by another discussant because it has legal ramifications in, at the 

least, the immigration context (e.g. the effect on the victim). Immigration law particularly in the 

context of the new crime victim visa that requires that an immigrant victim prove that they have 

suffered substantial physical or mental abuse will focus on the effect of the abuse or coercion on 

the victim. 

The idea that the process versus outcome distinction and the coercion versus control 

distinction are parallel was proposed. Perhaps the process of coercion could be thought of as the 

agent’s threat and accompanying demand. Then the outcome is what happens as a result of this 

process. If the act of coercion is “successful” (that is, if the target complies), then the agent can 

be considered to have controlled the target. However, if the target resists, escapes, or otherwise 

subverts the agent’s demand or threat, the act of coercion could be considered “unsuccessful” 

and therefore no control has been exerted. 

Disagreement with the idea that the act of coercion could be considered “unsuccessful” was 

expressed. Just because, on one instance, the target has been successful in resisting the coercion 

does not mean that it had no effect on him or her. The effect can be cumulative. The target may 

resist now but the act of coercion itself could affect how the target will respond to ongoing 

coercion from the agent in the future. 

Another discussant agreed and noted that “unsuccessful” coercion may have a hugh effect. 

The effect may increase the control about something other than the specific demand of the 

moment. The challenge is to distinguish that effect when whatever level of resistance was 

“successful” in avoiding having to do the specific “index” demand versus the effect when the 

individual was not able to resist completely or at all and thus engaged in some level of 

compliance. 

The question of whether coercion, by definition, is always bad, and what separates it from 

manipulation, other forms of influence, and from ‘justified coercion’ as it’s labeled in the model 

was raised. Is intention also relevant to whether an action is to be seen as coercive, abusive, 

3
manipulative or appropriately controlling? Intention was defined as not whether the actor was 

consciously aware of his or her intentions but whether there is any personal gain involved in 

attempting to coerce the other person. For instance, judges often coerce batterers to attend 

batterer intervention programs (with ultimate threat of physical restraint for noncompliance) but 

there is no personal gain for them to do so (though there is certainly a ‘cost’ to the person being 

ordered). In this case, the judge’s actions would be an unjustified abuse of power, only if he/she 

used bad process or tactics such as yelling at or humiliating the defendant. Another example of 

‘justified coercion’ might be a husband forces alcoholic partner into a detox program by taking 

her and leaving her there. In my mind, this behavior would only be unjustified coercion if it was 

accompanied by abusive behavior or was part of an overall pattern of coercive control. Of 

course, many batterers claim to be using ‘good intentions’ to justify their abuse. In research 

about excuse-making strategies, ‘good intentions’ were found to be the third most commonly 

used excuse for abusive behavior, just after ‘she provoked me’ and ‘I lost control’. 

The importance of taking the context, meaning, and motives of behaviors into account was 

noted. For example, it is important to determine whether a person’s actions were intentionally 

designed to coerce someone into doing something. Thus, outcome and motive should be 

differentiated. However, studies on abusive men indicate that social desirability effects often 

come into play. In other words, many men, despite having intentionally coerced their partners 

into doing something, are reluctant to say so and will often use excuses. In both coercion and 

control, understanding the full context may be the only way of determining their values. 

It was agreed that both intention and outcome are important and different. In terms of 

measurement, it was noted that “how” an agent/abuser gets the target/victim to do something 

s/he does not want to do would be of interest. Whether or not the agent/abuser “intended” to 

coerce maybe yet another dimension (i.e., mechanism) that could be measured separately, but the 

value of doing so (i.e., does it advance our understanding) was questioned. 

Zvi Eisikovits’s conceptions about the construction of control was referenced as a 

possible source for development of the model. It was noted that much of his work on 

control has to do with the concept of “self-control”, not social control or control over 

another. His work is a rather complex treatment of how the notion of self-control (or lack 

thereof) translates to control over⎯in both directions, from the batterer (batterer lack of 

self-control results in control over the victim) and the victim (victim self control results in 

control over the batterer). He is working with “perceptions” and thus “self-control” is 

how it is viewed by victim and batterer, and that’s quite different with an “external” 

conceptualization. 

Coercion and Abuse. It was noted that the last sentence in assumption 3 (It is coercion⎯or 

control that results from abuses of power⎯that is problematic.) suggests that coercion can be 

defined as “control that results from abuses of power.” For one discussant, the word “abuse” has 

always seemed problematically vague. One person’s abuse is another’s gentle persuasion. 

4
Coercion and Force. It was noted that coercion may not be so different from force as 

given enough (psychological) coercion the target may not be able to resist. There may be no 

choice left, if the victim wants to survive. 

II. Working Definition of Coercion 

Definition 1: Coercion is the act of getting someone to act or think in a particular way by using 

or threatening with negative consequences for noncompliance. As such, coercion is a specific 

mechanism of control. An act of coercion requires a “target” and an “agent.” 

Definition 2: Coercion is one aspect of psychological abuse. Psychological abuse also includes 

put-downs, bad treatment, and other behaviors that may not involve a demand that a person do or 

not do something. 

Definition 3: Coercion is different from “force.” Force involves “lack of volition” where— 

given sufficient force—it is physically impossible to resist. 

Definition 4: Coercion involves “choice,” but not “free choice.” By definition, there is a “cost” 

for choosing noncompliance. When that “cost” is meaningful to the “target” of coercion, then 

socially or clinically significant coercion exists. 

Discussion 

Coercion and Psychological Abuse. The question of whether coercion should be defined 

as one aspect of psychological abuse was raised. It was noted that the term “psychological 

abuse” rarely has a clear definition in the psychological abuse literature and has been used to 

encompass a whole range of controlling behaviors that are not obviously psychological. It was 

suggested that one outcome of this work could be to encourage researchers to confine 

“psychological” abuse or control to tactics that are explicitly focused on shaping the psychology 

of the target. It was noted that from a legal perspective that if this were one of the outcomes it 

would be particularly helpful in immigration domestic violence cases in which adjudicators are 

required to determine whether a victim has suffered extreme cruelty. 

One discussant noted that it was more accurate to define psychological abuse as one aspect 

or tactic of coercion rather than defining coercion as ‘one aspect of psychological abuse’. This 

also raised the idea of economic coercion and whether it alone (without the presence of 

psychological, physical and sexual abuse) fits the criteria for coercion or does coercion always 

depend upon the ultimate threat of force? 

It was explained that coercion was put in the category of psychological abuse using a 

common categorical system of physical violence, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and 

stalking. Coercion also is defined within the psychological abuse category in the Duluth Power 

and Control model. Although the point about psychological abuse was understood by this 

discussant, it was unclear whether psychological abuse should refer to the intention of the tactic 

5
as suggested (“confine...to tactics that are explicitly focused on shaping the psychology of the 

target”) or to the topography or mechanism of the tactic itself. 

The question was raised as to whether the term psychological abuse should refer to 

behaviors that are intended to impact the victim in some psychological way or whether 

“psychological” referred instead to something about how (i.e., the mechanism) or the tactic (i.e., 

mind control)? The categories of physical, sexual, etc., seem to refer to something about the 

tactic - that is, type or nature (i.e., topography) and not about the impact on the victim. 

It was agreed that the field needs some clarity in defining psychological abuse and defining 

or validating coercion in relation to psychological abuse was an important matter. A discussant 

reported working on a project that is assessing the internal validity of Hudson and McIntosh’s 

Index of Spouse Abuse. Preliminary results indicate that the model that best fits the data is one 

with three factors called physical, psychological, and controlling violence. However, 

psychological and controlling violence are very highly correlated. Does this mean that they are 

distinct constructs that co-occur or that they are the same construct? This cannot be answered 

from the data, but is there some way in this project to distinguish coercion/control from or as a 

subtype of psychological abuse? 

It was noted that the three identified factors: physical, psychological, and controlling 

violence are reminiscent of Tolman’s (1989) Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory 

(PMWI), specifically two factors: emotional/verbal and dominance/isolation. The question was 

asked whether the factors above (psychological versus controlling) correspond to Tolman’s 

categories? 

Another discussant recommended examining Tolman’s PMWI for items relevant to the 

project, such as: my partner tried to turn my friends and family against me; my partner treated 

me like his personal servant; and my partner monitored my time and made me account for my 

whereabouts. The discussant acknowledged that many people have problems with the concept of 

psychological abuse but pointed out that a large body of research shows that many women, 

regardless of whether they were severely beaten or sexually assaulted, find psychological abuse 

to be more injurious than physical abuse. Recognizing that psychological abuse is very difficult 

to measure, why not let the respondents define whether or not they see coercion as a form of 

psychological abuse? 

In response to the above question, it was noted that whether respondents label coercion as 

psychological abuse may not be important for the purpose of this project. Although if the 

language they use to talk about these things is of interest, than it may be important. A given 

phenomenon can be studied⎯regardless of what it is called⎯as long as it is described 

adequately enough for people to know what is meant. As an analogy, a lot of battered women 

don’t call what happens to them as domestic violence. The label is just a socially constructed 

construct to facilitate communication. Tolman’s PMWI scale includes many examples of 

controlling behavior−including threats, but an instrument that measures the whole construct of 

coercion, including demands and the threats of contingent outcomes that go with them has not 

been identified. 

6
One discussant was reluctant to understand coercion as purely psychological abuse. 

Whether articulated by the agent or not, coercion is always accompanied by threats (implied or 

exposed, social or personal) of physical consequences. Successful coercion might include an 

aspect of terror for the victim. This threat might translate to something like “if I am dumb and 

stupid, I might be thrown out of the house and starve to death,” or “I am too silly and won’t be 

able to survive on my own.” Even the idea that “I am nothing,” generally has some fears of 

physical (real?) reprisals associated with it (e.g., I will have no family support or my children 

will be taken away from me). There is at least a threat to lifestyle hidden in coercive tactics. 

Distinguishing Coercion. The following questions were raised in regards to distinguishing 

coercion: “Is it important to distinguish ‘socially or clinically significant’ coercion from other 

coercion? Why? How can we decide how meaningful it would have to be to be significant? And 

how would we assess meaningfulness?” 

One discussant noted that the above question really gets at Outstanding Issue number two 

(p. 17). Considering just the dynamic of coercion as outlined in the elements of coercive control, 

it seems that each of the six elements could be achieved in examples of “low level” or perhaps 

not socially/clinically significant coercion (even if dysfunctional), as well as in “high level” and 

quite clearly significant examples of coercion. Outstanding Issue number two suggests possible 

ways to distinguish the two. 

Another discussant noted that the legal philosopher Alan Wertheimer, in his book Coercion 

has dealt with the issue of levels of coercion. It is a complicated argument but at the core it 

comes down to the idea that ultimately what is coercive is NOT a behavioral property but a 

normative judgment that society makes. When the MacArthur Network on Mental Health and the 

Law was trying to resolve the problem of what should be counted as coercive, the discussant and 

his colleagues hated Wertheimer’s argument because it meant that they could not measure the 

coerciveness of behaviors, only the perception of coerciveness. However after working at it for 

months and months, they came to the conclusion that he was right. It was noted that if you start 

trying to make rules about what is coercive and what is not and/or how coercive a behavior is, 

you will find that the judgment only works if there is a strong situated normative judgment as 

part of it. 

In response, a discussant replied, “Intuitively, relying on the individual’s perception of what 

threat is sufficient enough to overcome her/his reluctance to engage in what demand is a matter 

that is more complicated than simple behavioral definitions, since it involves the balance of at 

least these two elements. That conceptualization also allows for the same threat to function to 

“achieve” a coercive outcome, (i.e., compliance), sometimes (i.e., with some demands), but not 

others (i.e., other demands).” 

Another discussant agreed that coerciveness cannot be reduced to a behavioral property, but 

was hesitant to agree that it is merely a normative judgment either (except in the broader sense 

that everything is social construct). 

7
The importance of the generality of coercion in a relationship was noted. It is important to 

look at the whole relationship, not just at specific incidents. Johnson’s definition of intimate 

terrorism focuses on the attempt to exert general control. 

III. Purpose of Developing a Measure of Coercive Control 

Purpose 1: To develop a measure capable of assessing the type, severity, and extent of 

coercion within intimate partner relationships. 

Purpose 2: To apply the new measure of coercive control in the study of violent 

intimate partner relationships in order to test a range of hypotheses, including, for 

example, that types of intimate partner violence can be distinguished by the level of 

coercive control they involve (e.g., Johnson, 1995; Johnson and Ferraro, 2000) or that 

some criminal conduct is the result of coercive control in intimate relationships 

(Colvin, Cullen, and Vander Ven 2001; Stark, 1995). 

Discussion 

Weighing Coercion. A discussant asked whether there was any literature addressing how 

to appropriately “weight” items in coercive control inventories and how to capture if the tactic 

was “effective” in achieving the goal the person set out to achieve. The importance of 

distinguishing the difference between actions that actually prevent someone from doing 

something or makes someone do something that they don’t want to do and actions that may have 

no impact whatsoever on the other person’s life (e.g., following partner if doing so does not 

matter to the partner being followed) (Swan and Snow, 2002). 

The question of how to accurately assess the impact of abuse and coercive control on the 

person to which it is directed also was raised. It seems important to pull out things that someone 

may do that have no real impact. For example, a woman threatens to hit her male partner but the 

threat does not make her partner feel afraid. Is that the same (in terms of type, severity, and 

extent of coercion) as when the male partner threatens to hit the woman and she is afraid? 

IV. Six Elements of Coercive Control in Intimate Relationships 

Element 1: Coercion requires that the “agent” demand, request, or expect the “target” to do 

something that the target does NOT want to do. 

a. Coercion does not require—although may involve—an explicit “demand,” especially 

in ongoing relationships where current expectations are made clear through past 

interactions. Likewise, a seemingly pleasant “request,” that appears to be noncoercive when observed from outside the interaction, may functionally be a demand, 

again depending on past interactions between the target and agent. 

8
b. Demands, requests, or expectations can occur in any domain. The more domains in 

which coercion occurs, the more pervasive is the pattern of coercion in the 

relationship. Examples of domains include: 

1. Personal activities (e.g., coming and going, eating, sleeping, dressing); 

2. Social life; 

3. Household; 

4. Work-related/economic/money; 

5. Children/parenting; 

6. Intimate/romance; and 

7. Safety/violence. 

Discussion 

Implicit Demands. It was agreed that coercion implies explicit or implicit threats to the 

target and noted that both the target and agent can be individuals or groups. It was noted that 

point 1(a) on implicit demands is reminiscent of Komter’s work on hidden power. 

Domains. One discussant noted that domain number seven (safety/violence) seems quite 

different from the other six. The first six would likely be found in any discussion of domains of 

family life, but domain number seven seems to cut across them all. 

It was noted that for immigrant families the categories of social life and household are not 

appropriate because there is often a very blurred line defining the two, if they can be separated at 

all. It may be appropriate to come up with a definition for “household” (i.e., the nuclear family), 

and explain that in many immigrant families often times the household consists of not only the 

nuclear family but extended family as well. The suggestion was made to use three categories 

instead of two: 1) Household − to include nuclear family and extended family members living in 

the same home; 2) Family members − to include extended family members that some from 

particular cultures would consider family and not part of social life; and 3) Social life. 

Element 2: Coercion requires the communication of a contingent “meaningful” negative 

consequence for noncompliance. 

a. Communication of a contingent negative consequence for noncompliance may be 

established through: a) a prior actual contingent negative consequence delivered by 

the agent for noncompliance, or b) a threatened one. 

b. Communication of the threat of future negative consequence may be explicit (e.g., 

direct verbal statement) or implicit (e.g., gesture or words that carry the meaning of 

threat, even though they are not overtly stated). 

c. Communication of a threat of a contingent negative consequence may involve 

“invoking the power of third parties” (Raven, 1993). 

9
d. The contingent negative consequence may be the application of an aversive 

consequence (i.e., punishment) or the removal of something positive (i.e., response 

cost)—both of which function to increase the likelihood of compliance. 

e. The “meaningfulness” of the threatened consequence helps to determine “how much 

cost.” Some negative consequences may be slight (e.g., refusal to talk), while others 

may have tremendous impact on the target’s life (e.g., having one’s children taken 

away), and yet others are life-threatening (e.g., being killed). Understanding the 

“weight” or “cost” of the consequence to the target is essential to understanding the 

coercive process. The weight or meaning of a particular negative consequence is 

unique to the target and determined by many factors. 

Discussion 

It was noted that point 2(e) is reminiscent of Cartwright’s early work on fit between the 

needs of B and the resources of A in the exertion of power in relationships. 

Element 3: Coercion requires the agent’s surveillance of the target’s response. 

a. Coercive power requires the agent to be able to conduct surveillance to detect 

compliance vs. noncompliance. Examples of this in intimate partner violence include 

the agent checking the odometer to determine whether the target came right home as 

demanded, frequent phone calls to determine whether the target has left the home, or 

“checking” underwear to determine whether the target had sex with someone else. 

Discussion 

Another example of surveillance (and one seen frequently in intimate terrorism), 

specifically “required ‘reports’ from the target” was suggested for inclusion in this element. 

Women coming to shelters often tell researchers that their partner asks them to account for any 

time that he has been unable to monitor directly. 

Element 4: Setting the stage for social influence. 

Coercion often involves some type of “setting the stage” or preparation of the target, to increase 

the likelihood that subsequent coercive tactics will be effective. 

a. Softening the target. The agent may set the stage by softening the target—that is, 

communicating to the target that the agent is “willing,” “able,” and “ready” to impose 

a negative consequence. It is “important to demonstrate to the target that not only are 

the means available for coercion (i.e., ability), but that the agent is ready and willing to 

pay the costs that coercion implies” (Raven, 1993). 

1. Communication of “willingness” of the agent to engage in threatened negative 

consequence. 

10
a) Communication of willingness occurs when the agent has previously imposed 

negative consequences (i.e., has done it before) on the target or someone else 

that the target knows about. 

b) Communication of willingness occurs when the target states explicitly that 

he/she is going to engage in threatened negative consequence (i.e., has said 

he/she will do it). 

2. Communication of “ability” of the agent to engage in threatened negative 

consequence. 

a) Agent’s ability to administer the negative consequence is based on the target’s 

perception of a unilateral power difference between the agent and the target. 

Perceived power differences can be derived from a number of sources: 

• Access to the “target” or “target’s” family and friends; 

• Physical size and strength; 

• Access to money and other economic resources; 

• Access to weapons; 

• Verbal persuasive ability; 

• Ability to utilize third party resources (e.g., individuals, institutional systems) 

to invoke consequences; and 

• Access to other resources that increase power. 

3. Communication of agent’s “readiness” to engage in threatened negative 

consequence against the target (Raven, 1993). 

a) Communication of readiness answers the “why now?” question in terms of the 

target’s response to coercion. This is especially important when explaining the 

target’s resistance (vs. compliance). 

b) Communication of readiness may occur by means of the agent saying 

explicitly—or in some other way communicating—that he/she is going to 

impose the threatened negative consequence (i.e., has said he/she will do it) 

within a particular timeframe. 

b. Wearing down target’s resistance. Setting the stage for coercion may also occur 

through wearing down the target’s resistance. Wearing down resistance can involve 

the agent reducing the target’s emotional (e.g., inducing a state of terror/fear, 

emotionally wearing down), physical (e.g., injury, sleep deprivation), cognitive (e.g., 

creating mental confusion in the target), or economic (e.g., making it necessary for the 

target to use up her/his resources) resources—some of which may be necessary for the 

target to resist the agent. 

11
c. Exploiting target’s prior vulnerabilities. Coercion may also be made more possible 

because the agent exploits the target’s prior vulnerabilities (e.g., childhood abuse, 

prior victimization, mental disorder or disability, or physical disability). 

Discussion 

Section Titles. It was suggested that “Setting the stage for coercion” may be a more 

appropriate title for the section currently entitled “Softening the target.” The ideas presented in 

this section currently seem to be more about establishing an expectation of punishment and the 

ideas presented in the section entitled, “Wearing down target’s resistance,” seem more about 

softening the target. It was agreed that changing titles were good suggestions and the section 

currently labeled, “Softening the target” might be changed to “creating expectancy” (perhaps to 

put within a theoretical frame of expectancy theory). 

Use of Term “Unilateral”. It was noted that the term “unilateral” in: [the] “Agent’s ability 

to administer the negative consequence is based on the target’s perception of a unilateral power 

difference between the agent and the target” [item (2) a)] seems too strong. It implies zero 

power on the part of the target. It was suggested that perhaps “uneven power balance” is a 

better choice than “unilateral power difference” between the agent and target. 

Verbal Persuasion. It was noted that the use of the term “verbal persuasive ability” [item 

(2) a), fifth bullet, p. 11] again raises the question about including persuasion in control and 

coercion. Do we want to call “verbal persuasive ability” coercion? 

It was agreed that “verbal persuasion” in the “usual” definition would not necessarily be 

called coercion. However, the point that is attempted here is that anything that contributed to the 

agent’s greater social power (overall, in any domain) may increase that person’s ability to engage 

in threatened negative consequence of coercion. It does not mean they will use it that way, only 

that they have the ability to do so. 

Sources. It was noted that the source, “Access to other resources that increase power,” 

[item (2) a), final bullet, p. 11] seems too vague. It was suggested that resources that increase 

coercive power specifically, not all forms of power, would be more appropriate. It also was 

suggested that along with the examples of individuals and institutional systems [item (2) a), sixth 

bullet, p. 11], the INS and IRS also be considered for inclusion. 

Readiness. One discussant reported that it is unclear what item 3, “Communication of 

agent’s ‘readiness’ to engage in threatened negative consequence against the target,” is all about. 

Element 5: Target’s response to the demand, request, or expectation. 

a. Coercion is an interactive process—not a static phenomenon. The “demand/response 

interaction” is iterative and several sequences may occur in the coercive process. For 

example, the sequence may be demand/resist/demand/resist/demand/comply—each 

time the demand becoming stronger. 

12
b. The target’s behavioral response to coercion involves elements of two dimensions, 

which may occur alone or together. 

1. Compliance—doing what the target demands. 

2. Resistance—resisting what the target demands. 

a) Direct resistance may involve confrontation or an overt resistance of the 

demand. 

b) Indirect resistance involves resisting, but in a way that is “softer” or doesn’t 

involve a direct confrontation with the agent (e.g., delaying, rather than 

refusing; saying “yes” to the “request” but then not doing it). 

c. The target’s emotional and cognitive responses to coercion are also important, 

independent of her/his behavioral response. 

1. Emotional and cognitive responses associated with compliance or resistance are 

many. Examples include sadness, fear, helplessness, futility, anger, hope). 

2. The “meaning” of the compliance and resistance behavior is also important. 

Compliance now may be viewed as an interim step (e.g., to buy time) until the 

target can resist more successfully later. Or, compliance may mean to the target 

she/he has “given up” resisting the agent’s demands, at least for now. 

Element 6: Relational context surrounding coercion. 

a. Coercion occurs in the context of a relationship. Characteristics of intimate coercive 

relationships may vary enormously. An ecological model (Bronfenbrenner 1979, 

Dutton 1996) is helpful to organize these contextual factors, as potential moderators 

and mediators of the impact of coercion, as well as on coercive tactics, per se. 

Examples are: 

1. Economic and Tangible Resources Context 

a) Level of economic and tangible resources available to the target independent of 

the agent (e.g., threats to withhold child support payments will be more salient 

for someone with no job). 

2. Institutional Context 

a) Level and type of institutional involvement of each partner. 

3. Cultural and Social Context 

a) Socioeconomic/social class status 

13
b) Race/ethnicity 

c) Religion 

d) Immigration status/citizenship/country of origin 

e) Sexual orientation 

f) Urban/suburban/rural 

g) Age cohort 

4. Social Network 

a) Family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, or acquaintances. 

1) Social networks may influence coercion. Example: the agent’s extended 

family that lives with the target may make noncompliance more costly, since 

it may invoke the disapproval of others, in addition to the agent’s threat. 

2) Social support may bolster the target’s efforts at noncompliance with 

coercive threats. 

b) Partner 

1) Other forms of social power ascribed to the partner—in addition to 

coercion—that may form the basis of coercion, influence, or other forms of 

control. 

a. Reward power—ability to provide or withhold positive social 

consequence directly or indirectly (e.g., through third party). 

b. Legitimate power to influence is seen as legitimate by means of social 

norms (e.g., gender roles), status in the community (e.g., religious or 

community leader), position of authority (e.g., police officer). Thus, the 

agent’s greater legitimate status relative to the target provides an 

opportunity for coercion (e.g., the religious community supports the role 

of husband in making demands of female partner). Legitimate power can 

also be used by the partner to the benefit of the other. 

c. Expert power to influence is based on target’s perception of agent’s 

specific expertise (e.g., black belt, skillful verbal negotiation skills). 

Thus, an agent’s greater expertise, relative to the target, provides an 

opportunity for coercion (e.g., agent has knowledge about cars which 

support his threats to tamper with the car to make it unsafe). The partner 

can also use her/his expert power to the benefit of the other. 

d. Referent power to influence based on target’s identification or emotional 

connection with agent (e.g., emotional attachment, identity as “husband”). 

An agent’s lesser attachment or commitment to the relationship relative to 

14
the target provides an opportunity for coercion (e.g., agent threatens to 

leave the relationship unless the target complies) by the partner. 

e. Informational power to influence based on agent’s access to or control 

over information that is important to the target (e.g., where the checkbook 

is kept). Thus, the agent’s access to or control over information that is 

important to the target provides the opportunity for coercion (e.g., agent 

threatens to withhold information about filing immigration papers unless 

the target complies). The partner may also use his/her informational 

power to the benefit of the other. 

2) Physical power 

a. The agent’s physical size and strength, relative to the target, enhances the 

agent’s ability to use physical force as a threat. 

3) Economic autonomy and resources 

a. The agent’s economic autonomy and resources, relative to the target, 

enhances the agent’s ability to use economic reasons as a tool of coercion. 

5. Individual Context 

a) Target’s strengths/resilience and vulnerabilities 

1) Cognitive 

a. Target’s intellectual problem-solving abilities may enhance her/his ability 

to not comply, without incurring the threatened consequence. 

2) Physical status/physiological state 

a. Alcohol/drug use and abuse 

i. Intoxication may impair her/his ability to resist a coercive demand. 

ii. Chronic alcohol/drug use or addiction 

b. Physical disabilities 

c. Chronic illness (e.g., cancer, HIV/AIDS) 

3) Mental health/mental status 

a. Chronic mental illness 

b. Disorientation or confusion 

c. Depression 

d. PTSD and anxiety 

4) Behavioral Skills/Deficits 

a. Proficiencies and abilities (e.g., karate, firearms) 

b. Skill deficits (e.g., inability to drive a car) 

15 
Discussion 

Contextual Factors. The point was made that in terms of intimate relationships cultural 

and social context is an important influence on coercion. Batterers commandeer various aspects 

of social norms and cultural beliefs to reinforce their coercive demands and to render their 

coercive tactics more effective. These cultural and social conditions also influence the perceived 

options of victims. Certainly culture and control over immigration status offer abusers a greater 

array of tools with which to perpetrate abuse. 

One discussant noted the relevance of the list of contextual factors especially the social 

network variables. Research conducted by the discussant and Martin Schwartz shows that men 

who belong to patriarchal all-male social networks are often influenced by their peers to coerce 

and/or force women to have sex with them, to psychologically abuse them, and to physically 

abuse them under certain conditions (e.g., girlfriends’ challenges to their authority). The 

researchers’ measures of pro-abuse male peer support and the growing literature on the linkage 

between sexist male peer group dynamics and woman abuse might be useful resources. 

Immigration status was noted as another important factor. Many of researchers who are 

currently studying the abuse of women in public housing and violence against other socially and 

economically disenfranchised women have discovered that men who are married to recent 

immigrants often threaten to find ways to send them back to war-torn countries, dictatorships, 

etc., if they do not comply with their wishes. Similarly, the ways in which abusive men use the 

“One strike and you’re out” initiative, a federal policy to deal with crime in public housing needs 

to be considered. As Claire Renzetti (2001) correctly points out in a special issue of Violence 

Against Women on public housing, this policy may intensify an abused woman’s vulnerability. 

For example, she may decide that it is best to comply with whatever her abuser demands so that 

he will not become disruptive and get her in trouble with neighbors and, subsequently, the public 

housing authority (PHA). Or she may not seek help to address the physical abuse because she 

fears the PHA could use it as grounds to evict her. The language used by the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in outlining its “guiding principles” for the One Strike 

Policy does little to relieve this fear. It was suggested that Jody Raphael’s work on the linkage 

between welfare reform and woman abuse be considered because coercion definitely comes into 

play there. 

The linkage between adhering to the ideology of familial patriarchy and coercion and 

various types of woman abuse was noted. A measure of this ideology was constructed by the 

late Michael D. Smith and used by others including the discussant who suggested that this factor 

be added to the model because it would probably be a powerful determinant of men’s coercive 

conduct. It was agreed that this is a good suggestion when the project gets to the stage of 

validating the measure of coercive control. 

Social Networks. One discussant asked, “To what extent do you want to capture the role 

that isolation from social networks plays?” It was noted that this situation is seen with 

immigrant victims where their only social network is his family and where she is cut off by the 

immigration process from her own family members, or where cultural norms cut her off from the 

support of her family when she is ostracized for failing to leave her abuser. 

16
It was suggested that “legal immigration status” be added as an example of legitimate 

power along with the example of gender roles [section b), 1., b., p. 14]. Filing immigration 

papers for a spouse could be added as an example of legitimate power [section b) 1., b., p. 14, 

“Legitimate power can also be used by the partner to the benefit of the other.”]. 

It also was suggested that the example of the agent threatening to withhold information 

about filing immigration papers unless the target complies, should be replaced with the 

following: “e.g., partner tells target that she will lose custody of the children if she calls the 

police because he is a citizen and she is not” [section b), 1., e., p. 15]. The example of control 

over immigration status is better moved up to “legitimate power” because it is not control over 

information but rather direct control over whether she gets immigration status based on a case he 

can file for her. The information issue is that she does not know that if she is abused he can file 

for her, but most abusers of immigrant victims do not know that she has a way she can receive 

legal status without his help. If the abusers do know, it is true that they would not tell her. 

V. Outstanding Issues: 

Issue 1: Does the model make sense? 

a. Are each of the six elements necessary to the model? 

b. Are the six elements, taken together, adequate for the model? 

c. Are there other elements that are necessary to define coercive control in intimate 

partner violence? 

Issue 2: Should a distinction be made in types and levels of coercion? 

a. Assuming the answer is “yes,” should it be made based on: 

1. The “social value” of the demand? 

2. The “social value” of the threatened consequence? 

3. The severity or “level” of aversion of the threatened consequence? 

4. The “intention” or motive of the agent to control the target? If so, is the intention 

required to be long-term or only in that instance? 

5. Other?

Discussion 

Intention. One discussant stated that the intention to coerce the victim need only be in 

“that instance.” To require “long-term intention” creates the difficulty of trying to determine 

what is sufficient to be defined as abuse, which seems like going down the path towards 

requiring a specific quantum of abuse. Different victims will react differently to different forms 

of coercion. 

Issue 3: How should “justifiable” coercion be distinguished from coercive control that is 

associated with intimate partner violence? 

17
a. “Justifiable” coercion may involve a battered woman threatening to call the police 

(i.e., aversive consequence) if her partner does not stop hitting her (i.e., contingent on 

getting the “target” to do what the agent wants). 

b. The six elements of coercion are clearly present in this example: 

1. “Agent” (i.e., battered woman) makes a demand—stop hitting. 

2. “Agent” communicates contingent, meaningful threat—calling police. 

3. “Agent” is in a position to conduct surveillance to see if the “target” (i.e., abuser) 

complies. 

4. “Agent” may have “softened the target” by having communicating: 

a) willingness—having called the police in the past; 

b) ability—has access to phone; and 

c) readiness—“agent” says she will call now. 

5. “Target” may comply or resist. 

6. Many might consider this example of “coercion” justifiable, or not label it as 

coercion at all. 

Discussion 

Justifiable Coercion. One discussant questioned how justifiable coercion would be 

determined and suggested that the term “persuasion” may want to be incorporated in point (6) to 

try to distinguish this from coercion. 

Another discussant expressed the idea that “good” (justifiable) coercion may be thought of 

in terms of disciplining our children to learn socially acceptable behaviors and making life hell 

for colonizers to relinquish their rule (e.g., Gandhi’s nonviolent ‘Quit India’ movement). A 

particular coercive tactic/strategy thus, may be considered “bad” or “good” from the perspective 

taken (the colonizer’s or colonized’s). Perhaps individual-collective should be a dimension 

considered for the model of coercion. In terms of domestic violence also, this might work as in 

many families it is not the intimate partner only who is the agent, but a group of individuals such 

as in-laws. 

Issue 4: How should “everyday or normative coercion” that is part of normal social discourse 

coercion be distinguished from coercive control that is associated with intimate partner violence? 

a. “Everyday coercion” may involve the demand by one partner that “we go to the movie 

right now” paired with the threat that “if you won’t go now, I won’t go with you then” 

(i.e., trivial example). 

b. A more serious, but still “normative” coercion may involve the explicit demand that 

“if you have an affair, I will leave you” (i.e., nontrivial example). 

18
 Discussion 

Distinctions Between Levels of Coercion. Participants were invited to respond to the last 

two questions under “Outstanding Issues.” Specific issues to be addressed included how to make 

distinctions between levels of coercion⎯the “everyday” kind (“If you won't go to this particular 

movie, I won’t go to any movie with you.”) versus the kind that is unacceptable and requires 

external intervention. Right now, the standard seems to be, “You know it (the bad kind) when 

you see it.” Is there a way to conceptualize the distinction more rigorously? One discussant 

thought perhaps thinking about persuasion versus coercion would help provide a distinction. 

One discussant summarized the struggle with the conceptual distinctions between 

justifiable and everyday coercion. “Justified coercion” (a terrible phrase, but the kind referenced 

in the example about a judge “coercing” a batterer into batterer treatment, or a woman’s threat to 

call the police if her batterer does not desist) versus “everyday” coercion (“Go to this movie or I 

won’t go to any movie with you.”) versus really harmful but not illegal coercion (“If you do not 

cook dinner for me every night, I will leave you.”) versus the kind of coercion this project is 

interested in. The dictionary definition of coerce as “to force to act or think in a certain way by 

use of pressure, threats, or intimidation” is helpful, but it does not really allows us to eliminate 

any of the examples above. The suggestion to distinguish between persuasion and coercion 

creates the problem of how to do that? One way may be to make a judgment about the nature of 

the “consequence” for noncompliance. Not getting to go to a movie with your partner is not 

terrible. Being assaulted, having one’s children taken away, being isolated from family and 

friends, potentially losing the ability to live in this country⎯these are indeed horrific 

consequences. Different nonsequences have different meanings for different people. 

19
References 

Bronfenbrenner, U., The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design, 

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1979. 

Cartwright, D., “Power: A Neglected Variable in Social Psychology,” in D. Cartwright (ed.), 

Studies in Social Power, The Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, Ann 

Arbor, 1959. 

Colvin, M., F.T. Cullen, and T. Vander Ven, “Coercion, Social Support, and Crime: An 

Emerging Theoretical Consensus,” Criminology, 2001, 40(1):19-42. 

Dutton, M. A., “Battered Women’s Strategic Response to Violence: The Role of Context,” in J. 

L. Edelsen and Z. C. Eisikovits (eds.), Future Interventions with Battered Women and Their 

Families (pp. 105-124), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1996. 

Eisikovits, Z., and Z. Winstok, “Reconstructing Intimate Violence: The Structure and Content of 

Recollections of Violent Events,” Qualitative Health Research, May 2002, 12(5):685. 

Eisikovits, Z., Z. Winstok, and R. Gelles, “Structure and Dynamics of Escalation From the 

Victim’s Perspective,” Families in Society, March/April 2002, 83(2), p. 142. 

Eisikovits, Z., “Overdrawing and Balancing Accounts,” Violence Against Women, January 2001, 

7(1):5. 

Eisikovits, R. A, “Gender Differences in Cross-Cultural Adaptation Styles of Immigrant Youths 

From the Former U.S.S.R. in Israel,” Youth & Society, March 2000, 31(3):310. 

Eisikovits, Z, H. Goldblatt, and Z. Winstok, “Partner Accounts of Intimate Violence: Towards a 

Theoretical Model.” Families in Society, November/December 1999, 80(6):606-619. 

Eisikovits, Z., “Talking Control Metaphors Used by Battered Women,” Violence Against 

Women, August 1999, 5(8):845. 

French, J.R.P., and B.H.Raven, “The Bases of Social Power,” in D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in 

Social Power, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI, 1959, pp. 150-167. 

Johnson, M.P., “Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence 

Against Women,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1995, 57:283-294. 

Johnson, M.P., and K.J. Ferraro, “Research on Domestic Violence in the 1990s: Making 

Distinctions,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 2000, 62:948-963. 

Kelley, H. H., E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. Harvey, T. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, 

L.A. Peplau, and D. Peterson, Close Relationships, W. H. Freeman, New York, 1983. 

20
Komter, A., “Hidden power in marriage,” Gender and Society, 1989, 3(2):187-216. 

Molm, L.D., Coercive Poser in Social Exchange, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom, 1997. 

Peled, E., and Z. Eisikovits, “Choice and Empowerment for Battered Women Who Stay: Toward 

a Constructivist Model,” Social Work, January 2000, 45(1):9. 

Raven, B.H., “The Bases of Power: Origins and Recent Developments,” Journal of Social 

Psychology, 1993, 49(4):227-251. 

Raven, B.H., R. Centers, A. and Rodriguez, “The Bases of Conjugal Power,” in R.E. Cromwell 

and D.H. Olson (eds.), Power in Families, Wiley, New York, NY, 1975. 

Renzetti, C., “One Strike and You’re Out: Implications of a Federal Crime Control Policy for 

Battered Women,” Violence Against Women, 2001, 7(6):685. 

Stark, E., “Re-presenting Woman Battering: From Battered Woman Syndrome to Coercive 

Control,” Albany Law Review, 1995, 58:973-1026. 

Swan, S. C., and D. L. Snow, “A Typology of Women’s Use of Violence in Intimate 

Relationships,” Violence Against Women, March 2002, 8(3):286. 

21
Appendix D 

Materials from the Ethnographic Interviews 
IRB No.: 02-280 

Appendix D 

MATERIALS FROM THE ETHNOGRAPHIC INTERVIEWS 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Consent to Participate in Research 

Project Name: Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure for Intimate Partner Violence 

Principal Investigator: Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D. Telephone: 202-687-1997 

Project Coordinator: Aileen Worrell, M.S.W. Telephone: 301-215-9100 ext 294 

Sponsor: The National Institute of Justice 

The Georgetown University Institutional Review Board has given approval for this research project. For 

information on your rights as a research subject, call the Institutional Review Board office: 202-687-1506. 

Introduction: You are invited to consider participating in this research study. We will be evaluating aspects 

of power and control in relationships. This form will describe the purpose and nature of the study, its 

possible risks and benefits, other options available to you, and your rights as a participant in the study. Please 

take whatever time you need to discuss the study with anyone you care to talk with. The decision to 

participate or not is yours. If you decide to participate, please sign and date the last line of this form. 

Background and purpose of the study: We will be developing an instrument to measure aspects of power 

and control in relationships particularly in relationships where one person has been violent towards another 

person. We are conducting this study to better understand the nature of violence in relationships. Prior 

studies on violent relationships have focused mostly on the level of violence in the relationship and not as 

much on the level of power and control in the relationship. By developing an instrument to measure aspects 

of power and control in relationships, we hope to learn about the differences in violent couples beyond the 

level of violence alone. 

Total number of people: A total of about 60 people will take part in this phase of the study. 

General plan of the study: We will conduct interviews with individuals over 18 years of age who are in 

relationships in which at least one incident of violence has occurred. All interviews will be conducted on a 

one-on-one basis. The interviews will take approximately one hour and will be held in a location that is 

convenient for you and ensures privacy. The interviews will be tape-recorded and we will take notes of the 

interview. You will be asked such questions as “were there times in your relationship when you felt 

controlled by your partner?” Following the interview, we will spend a few minutes talking about what the 

interview was like for you. If you feel upset or would like to talk with someone further about your safety or 

about the feelings you might have after the interview, we will give you information about resources where 

you can talk with someone. 

Length of the study for each subject: We expect that you will be in the study for one hour. 

Possible benefits of participating in the study: There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this 

study. However, the information you share with us during the study will help to develop specific questions 
IRB No.: 02-280 

for a questionnaire to measure power and control in violent relationships. You may also benefit from having 

an opportunity to talk about these issues in your own relationship. 

Possible risks of participating in the study: You may feel uncomfortable or become upset when you talk 

about your experiences. However, you may find that talking with the interviewer about your experiences 

feels supportive or is helpful to you in some way, although participation in this project is not considered 

counseling of any other type of therapeutic service. 

Who can participate in the study: Anyone over 18 years of age who is in a relationship in which at least 

one incident of violence has occurred within the last 12 months may participate in the study. 

Confidentiality of the data collected during the study: Your responses to the interview questions will 

remain confidential and anonymous. No names or personally identifying characteristics will be recorded on 

the questionnaire, in the notes, or on the tape recorder. We will code your interview with a number. The 

research team will be the only one who can link your name to the number. The interview and tape 

recordings will be kept in a locked drawer and will be destroyed at the end of the study. Only the research 

team will have access to the interview and tape recordings. No names or identifying details will be used in 

any publication or other documents resulting from this study. 

We have identified two possible risks to the confidentiality of the data collected during the study. First, if 

you tell us about a child who is being abused or about your intent to hurt someone, we may be required by 

law to report that information to authorities. Second, if an abusive partner finds out about your participation 

in the study, you could be at increased risk of violence or other forms of retaliation. 

Costs to you for participating: There are no costs to you for participating in this study. 

Payments to you for participating: You will be paid $20 for your time for participating in this study. 

Your rights as a participant in the study: Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You have the 

right to leave the study at any time. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. 

Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Should you 

decide to leave the study, just tell the interviewer that you no longer wish to participate. 

Questions: Should you have any questions at any time about this study, please contact Dr. Mary Ann 

Dutton at 202-687-1997. If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, call the 

Georgetown University Institutional Review Board office at 202-687-1506. 

Investigator's statement: I have fully explained this study to the subject. I have discussed the procedures, 

the possible risks and benefits, the standard and research aspects of the study, and have answered all of the 

questions that the subject and the subject's family members have asked. 

Signature of investigator ___________________________ Date _________________ 

2 
IRB No.: 02-280 

Subject's consent 

I have read the information provided in this Informed Consent Form or it was read to me by the investigator. 

All my questions were answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I also 

agree to allow my comments in the interview to be tape-recorded. 

[Upon signing, you will receive a copy of this form. The original will be kept in a locked drawer and will be 

destroyed at the end of the study.] 

Your signature _______________________________________ Date _____________ 

Signature of witness __________________________________ Date _____________ 

3 

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS FOR MCC PROJECT 

SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. What is your age? 

2. What is your gender? 

3. What is your ethnicity? 3a. African American/Black

 3b. Anglo 

3c. Latina/Latino 

Check all that apply 3d. Asian American or Pacific Islander 

3e. American Indian 

3f. Other 

4. How many children do you have? 

5. How many of your children live with you? 

6. What is your job situation? 6a. Working full-time

 6b. Working part-time 

6c. In the military 

6d. Unemployed 

Check all that apply 6e. Retired and not working 

6f. A student 

6g. A homemaker 

6h. Other 

7. What type of work do you usually do, if you have a job or have had one recently? 

8. Are you receiving federal or state assistance? 

Yes

Check one

 No 

9. What is the highest level of school you have completed? 

9a. Less than 8th grade 

9b. 9th grade 

9c. 10th grade 

9d. 11th grade 

Check one 

9e. 

9f. 

12th grade 

Trade School 

9g. Some college (or in college) 

9h. 2-year Associates Degree 

9i. 4-year college degree (BA/BS) 

9j. Attended graduate school 

COSMOS, MCC Project 9/27/2005 
10. What is your relationship with the partner you are here about?

 10a.

10b.

10c.

Check one 10d.

10e.

10f. 

10g.

Married 

Married but separated 

Divorced 

Boyfriend 

Ex-boyfriend 

Dating, but not boyfriend 

Other 

11. What is your current living arrangement with the partner you are here about?

 11a. Living together 

Check one 11b. Staying together off and on 

11c. Not living together 

If not living together, have you EVER lived together? Yes No 

12. For how long were you, or have you been, involved with this person? 

# of years # of months 

The next set of questions is about the background of the partner you are here K about today. 

13. What is his/her first name? 

14. What is his/her gender? 

15. What is his/her age? 

16. What is his/her ethnicity 16a. African American/Black

 16b. Anglo 

16c. Latino/Latina 

Check all that apply 16d. Asian American or Pacific Islander

 16e. American Indian 

16f. Other 

COSMOS, MCC Project 2 
SECTION 2: CONTROL BY PARTNER 

Opening 1. Would you please describe generally your relationship with your partner? 

PROBE for both positive and negative aspects of the relationship: 

1a. Would you describe generally those parts of your relationship that are working well or parts of your part

positive? 

1b. Would you describe generally those parts of your relationship that aren’t working so well or parts of you

problem for you? 

Nature of Demand, Request, or Expectation 2. We would like to ask you about times in your relationship when you felt controlled by your partner. 

PROBE FOR examples in the following categories. (Continue to add to list as examples are obtained in each caCOSMOS, MCC Project 3 
a. Personal activities (e.g., coming and going, eating, sleeping, attire) 

b. Social life, contact with friends and family c. Household tasks or chores (other than child care) d. Employment-related, financial, transportation, property e. Children/parenting f. Intimate/romance g. Safety/violence 

2a. Would you describe situations when you felt that your partner demanded, requested or expected you to do something you did not want to do. Specifically, what did your partner try to get you to do? 

Was this a demand, request or expectation? 

How mdo whawanted 

Demand 

Request

Expectation

Not at all 

COSMOS, MCC Project 4 
2b. Would you describe situations when your partner kept you from doing 

something you did want to do. Specifically, what did your partner keep you from doing? 

Was this a demand, request, or expectation? 

How muwhat it wyou from 

Demand 

Request

Expectation

Not at all 

A little bit 

Coercive Tactics/Actual Consequences Now we want to talk with you about how your partner gets you or tries to get you to do what s/he wants you to d

Probe for the following types of negative consequences: a. Physical harm to you b. Emotional harm to you c. Threats or risks to children d. Threats or risks to other family members or friends` e. Threats or risks to property or financial security f. Legal threats or risks 

COSMOS, MCC Project 5 
3. Describe any times when you 

believed that your partner would do something to hurt you or make things worse off for you in some way if you didn’t do what s/he wanted you to do. 

How did your partner let you know that s/he would do these things if you didn’t do what s/he wanted? For example, did s/he tell you directly? 

How bad would it be if your partner actually did what s/he threatened to do? 

Has your partner actually 

carried out the threat? 

(Yes/No) 

How can you tell 

is going to actual

Explicit verbal 

threat

Nonverbal 

threat

“Just knew” 

It was a “rule.” 

Not at all bad 

A little bad 

Moderately bad 

Very bad 

Extremely bad 

4. How are the times you just told me about different from other times when your partner persuaded you or you 

what s/he wanted you to do was something that you wanted to do. 

COSMOS, MCC Project 6 
5. How are the times you just told me about different from the other times when you believe your partner has th

request, or expect you to do something that you don’t want to do (or not do things you want to do). 

6. How are the times you just told me about different from the other times when your partner physically forced 

that you didn’t want to do (or not do things you wanted to do). 

Breadth of Control 7. How much of the time or in how many areas of your life did/do you feel that you were or are being controlled 

PROBE for circumscribed situations versus overall sense of being constrained. 

8. Would you say that your partner controls you (choose one): 

a. in almost all areas of your life or most of the time. b. in many, but not all, areas of your life or much of the time. c. in only a few areas of your life or a little bit of the time. 

d. in no, almost no, areas of your life or none or almost none of the time. 

COSMOS, MCC Project 7 
Prior Experiences with Control 

9. Has anyone else other than your partner been involved in making or carrying out threats if you didn’t do wh

Setting the Stage for Coercion Next we want to talk to you about what, if anything, makes you take your partner seriously—that is, what lets yo

willing, able, and ready to carry out the threat. 

10. Sometimes people make threats even though they really would not carry them out. In the past, when your p

threats, generally did you believe s/he was actually willing to carry them out? Yes No 

11. If yes to 10, what made you believe or know your partner was WILLING to do the things s/he threatened to 

what s/he wanted? (Generate list.) 

12. If yes to 10, were any of the following reasons why you believed your partner was willing to do what s/he t

(Circle Yes or No for each.) 

a. My partner has actually done the thing s/he threatened to do before. Yes No b. My partner said s/he would do it. Yes No c. My partner acted like (although didn’t say) that s/he would do it. Yes No d. Because of the circumstances or situation, I knew that s/he would do it. Yes No 

e. Other reasons Yes No 

COSMOS, MCC Project 8 
13. Sometimes people who make threats aren’t actually able to carry them out. At the time, did you think that 

willing but able to carry out the threats s/he made to you? Yes No 

14. If yes to 13, what made you believe or know that your partner generally had the ability or skill to carry out t

to you in the past? (Generate list.) 

15. If yes to 13, were any of the following reasons why you thought your partner was able to carry out the threa

 (Circle Yes or No to each one.) 

a. My partner could keep something from me to carry out the threat. 

b. My partner could use special skills to carry out the threat. c. My partner could use or withhold information as a way of carrying out the threat. d. My partner has the right or the authority to carry out the threat. e. My partner doesn’t love me (or my children, if relevant) as much as I love her/him (or the children). 

Surveillance 16. How would or could your partner know whether or not you were doing what s/he wanted? (Generate list.) Compliance/Resistance 17. What would happen if you DID do what your partner wanted you to do (i.e., any external consequences)? 

18. Are there times when you go along with what your partner wants you to do? 

COSMOS, MCC Project 9 
19. When you go along with what your partner wants you to do—even though you don’t want to—because of w

happen if you don’t, how does this leave you feeling? 

20. When you don’t go along with what your partner wants you to do—even though you think something bad m

don’t, how do you avoid doing it? (Generate list.) 

21. Overall, have you ever done the following to avoid doing what your partner wanted you to do: 

Yes/No How well has it (for each 

strategy) worked to avoid doing what your partner wanted? 

What happened whestrategy)? 

Refuse or just tell him/her that you’re not going to do it. Say “yes,” or tell him/her that you did it, but you didn’t or undo it later. Get help from someone else - like family or friends. Get help from the authorities. Physically fight back. Try to talk him/her out of it or get him/her to change his/her mind. Other: COSMOS, MCC Project 10 
22. What vulnerabilities or weaknesses have or does your partner take advantage of in order to get you to do thin

want to do (or not do things that you want to do)? 

Probe for the following: 

a. Your physical limitations, disabilities, illnesses, b. Your emotional problems c. Your financial problems or lack of money d. Your family responsibilities e. Your legal problems f. Prior history of your being hurt by someone else. 

COSMOS, MCC Project 11 
SECTION 3: CONTROL OF PARTNER 

Introduction: Now we would like to ask you about ways that you get your partner to do things s/he doesn’t wanNature of Demand, Request, or Expectation 1. We would like to ask you about times in your relationship when you might try to control your partner. 

PROBE FOR examples in the following categories. (Continue to add to list as examples are obtained in eac

a. Personal activities (e.g., coming and going, eating, sleeping, attire) b. Social life, contact with friends and family c. Household tasks or chores (other than child care) d. Employment-related, financial, transportation, property e. Children/parenting f. Intimate/romance g. Safety/violence 

1a. Would you describe situations when you demanded, requested or expected that your partner do something s/he did not want to do. Specifically, what did you try to get your partner to do? 

Was this a demand, request or expectation? 

How muwant to dwanted h

Demand 

Request

Expectation

Not at all 

A little bit 

COSMOS, MCC Project 12 
How m

Was this a demand, partne

request, or what i

expectation? him/h

1b. Would you describe situations when you kept your partner from doing something that s/he wanted to do. Specifically, what did you keep your partner from doing? 

Not at all 

Expectation

Demand 

Request

Coercive Tactics/Actual Consequences Now we want to talk with you about how you get your partner to do something you want him/her to do. 

Probe for the following types of negative consequences: a. Physical harm to her/him b. Emotional harm to her/him c. Threats or risks to children d. Threats or risks to other family members or friends e. Threats or risks to property or financial security f. Legal threats or risks 

COSMOS, MCC Project 13 
2. Describe any times when 

your partner believed that you would do something to hurt him/her or make things worse off for him/her in some way if s/he didn’t do what you wanted him/her to do. 

How did you let your partner know that you would do these things if s/he didn’t do what you wanted? For example, did you tell him/her directly? 

How bad would it be for your partner if you actually did what you threatened to do? 

Have you actually carried out 

the threat? (Yes/No) How can your pa

are going to a

Explicit verbal 

threat

Nonverbal 

threat

“Just knew” 

It was a “rule.” 

Not at all bad 

A little bad 

Moderately bad 

Very bad 

Extremely bad 

3. How are the times you just told me about different from other times when you persuaded your partner or s/he 

what you wanted her/him to do was something that s/he wanted to do. 

COSMOS, MCC Project 14 
4. How are the times you just told me about different from other times when your partner believed you had the r

request, or expect s/he do something that s/he didn’t want to do (or not do things s/he wanted to do). 

5. How are the times you just told me about different from other times when you physically forced your partner 

s/he didn’t want to do (or not do things s/he wanted to do). 

Breadth of Control 6. How much of the time or in how many areas of your partner’s life did/do you feel that you are controlling yo

PROBE for circumscribed situations versus overall sense of being constrained. 

7. Would you say that you control your partner (choose one): 

a. in almost all areas of his/her life or most of the time. b. in many, but not all, areas of his/her life or much of the time. c. in only a few areas of his/her life or a little bit of the time. d. in no, almost no, areas of his/her life or none or almost none of the time. 

COSMOS, MCC Project 15 
Prior Experiences with Control 

8. Besides you, has anyone else been involved in making or carrying out threats if your partner didn’t do what ySetting the Stage for Coercion Next we want to talk to you about what, if anything, makes your partner take you seriously—that is, what lets yo

you are willing, able, and ready to carry out the threat. 

9. Sometimes people make threats even though they really wouldn’t carry them out. In the past, when you ma

do you think your partner believed that you were actually willing to carry them out? Yes 

10. If yes to 9, what made your partner believe or know that you were WILLING to do the things you threatene

do what you wanted? (Generate list.) 

11. If yes to 9, were any of the following reasons why you partner believed you were willing to do what you thr

(Circle Yes or No for each.) 

a. You have actually done the thing you threatened to do before. Yes b. You said you would do it. Yes c. You acted like (although didn’t say) that you would do it. Yes d. Because of the circumstances or situation, he/she knew that you would do it. Yes e. Other reasons Yes 

12. Sometimes people who make threats aren’t actually able to carry them out. At the time, did your partner thi

willing but able to carry out the threats you made? Yes No 

COSMOS, MCC Project 16 
13. If yes to 12, what made your partner believe or know you were ABLE to do the things you threatened to do 

what you wanted? (Generate list.) 

14. If yes to 12, were any of the following reasons why your partner thought you were able to carry out the thre

him/her? (Circle Yes or No for each.) 

a. You could keep something from your partner to carry out the threat. b. You could use special skills to carry out the threat. 

c. You could use or withhold information as a way of carrying out the threat. d. You have the right or the authority to carry out the threat. e. You don’t love your partner (or your children, if relevant) as much as he/she loves you (or the children).

Surveillance 15. How would or could you know whether or not your partner was doing what you wanted? (Generate list.) Compliance/Resistance 16. What would happen if your partner DID do what you wanted him/her to do (i.e., any external consequences17. Are there times when your partner goes along with what you want him/her to do? 18. When your partner goes along with what you want him/her to do—even though he/she doesn’t want to—bec

thinks will happen otherwise, how does this leave him/her feeling? 

COSMOS, MCC Project 17 
19. When your partner doesn’t go along with what you want him/her to do—even though he/she thinks somethin

if he/she doesn’t, how does he/she avoid doing it? (Generate list.) 

20. Overall, has your partner ever done the following to avoid doing what you wanted him/her to do: 

Yes/No How well has it (for each 

strategy) worked to avoid doing what you wanted? 

What happened whe(for each strategy)? 

Refuse or just tell you that s/he is not going to do it. Say “yes,” or tell you that s/he did it, but didn’t or undo it later. Get help from someone else - like family or friends. Get help from the authorities. Physically fight back. Tried to talk you out of it or get you to change your mind. Other: COSMOS, MCC Project 18 
21. What vulnerabilities or weaknesses do you take advantage of in order to get your partner to do things that he

do (or not do things that s/he wants to do)? 

Probe for the following: 

a. Your partner’s physical limitations, disabilities, illnesses b. Your partner’s emotional problems c. Your partner’s financial problems or lack of money d. Your partner’s family responsibilities e. Your partner’s legal problems f. Prior history of your partner being hurt by someone else 

COSMOS, MCC Project 19 
SECTION 4: VIOLENCE AND ABUSE 

In the next section, we will be asking a series of questions about the violence K and abuse you have experienced from the partner you are here about today. 

Question: In the last year.... (Circle One) 

1. He/she grabbed me. Yes No

2. He/she pushed or shoved me. Yes No

3. He/she threw something at me that could hurt. Yes No

4. He/she slapped me. Yes No

5. He/she twisted my arm or hair. Yes No

6. He/she kicked me. Yes No

7. He/she punched or hit me with something that could hurt. Yes No

8. He/she slammed me against a wall. Yes No

9. He/she choked or strangled me. Yes No

10. He/she burned or scalded me on purpose. Yes No

11. He/she beat me up. Yes No

12. He/she used or threatened to use a knife or gun. Yes No

13. He/she forced me to have sex. Yes No

14. He/she used threats to make me have sex. Yes No

15. He/she refused to wear a condom during sex. Yes No

16. I had sex with him/her because I was afraid of what he/she Yes No

would do if I didn’t. 

The next few questions are about whether you have done any of the following K things to your partner. Please tell me whether you... 

(Circle One) 

17. Grabbed him/her? Yes No

18. Pushed or shoved him/her? Yes No

19. Thrown something at him/her that could hurt? Yes No

20. Slapped him/her? Yes No

21. Twisted his/her arm or hair? Yes No

22. Kicked him/her? Yes No

23. Punched or hit him/her with something that could hurt? Yes No

24. Slammed him/her against a wall? Yes No

25. Choked or strangled him/her? Yes No

26. Burned or scalded him/her on purpose? Yes No

27. Beat him/her up? Yes No

28. Used or threatened to use a knife or gun on him/her? Yes No

COSMOS, MCC Project 20 
INTERVIEWER: 

K If the participant says “yes” to any of the items from 17-28 above, ask #29-42. 

K If the participant says “no” to all of the items from 17-28 above, skip to #43 on 

page 15. 

Question: “As far as you know, have any of the acts you just 

mentioned resulted in...” (Circle One) 

29. His/her having a sprain, bruise, or small cut [because of your Yes No

violence toward him/her]? 

30. His/her passing out [from your violence against him/her]? Yes No

31. His/her having a broken bone [because of your violence Yes No

toward him/her]? 

32. His/her going to a doctor [because of your violence toward Yes No

him/her]? 

33. His/her needing to see a doctor [because of your violence], but Yes No

not seeing one? 

34. Question: “Can you describe what led you to do these things to your partner?” 

INTERVIEWER: Write down his/her answer word for word. 

INTERVIEWER: The following two percentages should add up to 100 percent. 

Question: “When you have done these things to him/her, what percent of the time— 

from 0 to 100 percent, or somewhere in between... 

35. ...were you the first one to use physical violence?” 

36. ...were you physically violent during or a short time after your partner 

was violent with you?” 

COSMOS, MCC Project 21 
INTERVIEWER: If the participant already mentioned the reason on page 14, #34, 

then circle “yes.” Ask only those items not mentioned on page 14, #34. 

Question: “You may have done these things to your partner for 

many different reasons. I am going to ask you about some of those 

reasons. Please tell me which of the following reasons explain why 

you did these things to him/her, by answering yes or no.” (Circle One) 

37. You wanted to protect yourself from him/her hurting you at Yes No

the time? 

38. You wanted to keep him/her from hurting you in the future? Yes No

39. You were trying to start the fight to get it over with because Yes No

you knew it was coming? 

40. You wanted to hurt him/her for no reason but just to hurt Yes No

him/her? 

41. You wanted to hurt him/her because he/she had hurt you Yes No

before? 

42. You just wanted to scare him/her, not to hurt him/her? Yes No

Question: “In the last year.... 

43. You felt physical pain that still hurt the next day because of 

his/her abuse. 

44. You had a sprain, bruise, or small cut because of his/her 

abuse. 

45. You passed out from being hit on the head by him/her. 

46. You had a broken bone from his/her abuse. 

47. You went to a doctor because of his/her abuse. 

48. You needed to see a doctor because of his/her abuse, but 

didn’t. 

49. He/she followed or spied on you. 

(Circle One) 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

50. He/she kept you awake so that you could not get enough sleep. Yes No 

51. He/she sent or left you unwanted letters or note. Yes No 

52. He/she made unwanted phone calls to you. Yes No 

53. He/she made threats if you looked for (or got) a job or went to 

school. 

Yes No 

54. He/she stood outside your home, school or work place. Yes No 

55. He/she controlled you money or transportation so that it was 

difficult to work or go places. 

Yes No 

56. He/she showed up at places you were even though he had no 

business being there. 

Yes No 

57. He/she destroyed your property. Yes No 

58. He/she hurt or killed your pet or pets. Yes No 

COSMOS, MCC Project 22 
Question: “In the last year.... (Circle One) 

59. He/she threatened to report you to child protective services, 

welfare, the police, or other authorities. 

Yes No 

60. He/she withheld or threatened to withhold filing of your 

immigration papers. 

Yes No 

61. He/she withheld or threatened to withhold medical attention or 

care for you. 

Yes No 

62. He/she withheld or threatened to withhold medical insurance 

for you. 

Yes No 

COSMOS, MCC Project 23 
SECTION 5: CONCLUSION 

1. Is there anything else that you would like us to know about your relationship before 

we end? 

2. Are there types of outside help that might have helped you deal with the issues that 

we have been discussing? 

3. Were there any questions we should have asked to understand coercion or control in 

your relationship? 

4. What was it like for you to talk with me about these issues today? 

PROVIDE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR APPROPRIATE 

STAFF MEMBER AT EACH SETTING FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS 

IF PARTICIPANT NEEDS/WANTS TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES 

FURTHER. 

Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to me today. The information you have 

given us will allow us to help others in the future. As you know, we will be giving you 

$20 for your time today. 

COSMOS, MCC Project 24 

Summary of Observations 

For Ethnographic Interviews with Individuals 

Following are some of the themes that evolved during the ethnographic interviews. 

The themes are categorized by the constructs being assessed in the coercive control 

measure. 

1. Communication of Demand, Request, or Expectation 

• Most of the women who were IPV victims reported that they felt controlled in 

almost all areas of their lives by their partners and felt they had no control at 

all over their partners. 

• In explaining why it was okay for him to tell his partner how to dress, a 

batterer stated: “She’s my woman so I can tell her how to dress; that’s not 

controlling.” 

• One batterer said that he used reverse psychology to control his partner. He 

knew what buttons to press and would say things to have her do what he 

wanted. He knew that she liked to take care of people and he played the role 

of someone who needed care. He also believed that his wife’s nagging was 

her way of controlling him. 

• In terms of the domains in which they felt controlled, interviewees reported: 

- “I never felt like I had my own life. I was very isolated and lost contact 

with friends. He was against birth control; I was always watching the 

children (6). I couldn’t do what I wanted to do on my own. I felt he 

controlled everything.” 

- “He didn’t want me to work. He used my family against me; he would 

call them and say I did things that I had not done and they would believe 

him.” 

- “When I tried to get a protection order against him, his supervisor (the 

chief of police) came to talk to me and told me that I needed to be more 

supportive and learn to take it when he needed to vent.” 

- “I felt there was overall control; friends, family, groceries (he went with 

me to the store). He would take something off me if he did not like what I 

was wearing.” 

- “I couldn’t get a job, couldn’t go to the store, couldn’t drive. The only 

place I was allowed to go was my mother’s house. I couldn’t go to my 

friend’s house unless she was with me. She bought all my clothes and 

gave me money.” 

1
2. Communication of the Threat of a Meaningful Negative Consequence 

• The threat to leave the relationship was a statement common in nearly all of 

the interviews. The threat to leave the relationship was expressed by both the 

batterer and the partner of the batterer. In two situations, the batterers knew 

that threatening to leave the relationship would cause their partner to give in 

or help get their way. 

• Threatening to leave the relationship was also common in interviews with gay 

men. The central coercive dynamic was: “You love me more than I love you 

so I can make you do things. If you don’t do what I say, I’ll end the 

relationship.” 

• For most of the female IPV victims, the central coercive dynamic was the 

threat of physical harm. 

• One woman in a lesbian relationship was threatened with disfigurement if she 

did not do what her partner wanted and, on one occasion, her partner actually 

cut the woman’s face. 

• One woman was told by her abuser that he would beat up her parents. She did 

not believe him and he actually did beat up her parents. 

• One batterer reported that his partner would always use his child as a means of 

controlling his behavior. She would threaten to leave the state or file 

kidnapping charges if bills were not paid or money was needed. Another 

batterer stated that his wife would threaten to call child protective services and 

go to court to get child support if he did not start acting right. 

• Another batterer reported threatening his partner with drug treatment: “I’ll 

put you in detox if you don’t clean up [get off drugs].” 

• Other common threats included: 

- threatening to take away the children or not pay child support if she 

leaves; and 

- threatening not to give them money or pay the bills; 

3. Perceived Threat of Coercion 

• Once violence had occurred in the relationship, all of the women interviewed 

believed their partners were willing to carry out a threat of physical harm 

again because they had done so (often repeatedly) in the past. 

• Two women reported feeling controlled in a few areas of their lives by their 

partner but one of these women also felt she controlled her partner in a few 

2
areas. These two women were involved in relationships in which they and 

their partners sold and used drugs. On the occasions when they had the drugs 

and the money and their partners did not, they felt they could get their partners 

to do what they wanted in exchange for drugs. 

• One batterer had little insight that what he was doing was coercive: “She was 

dancing with another guy so I pulled her out of the club by her hair because 

she’s my woman.” 

4. Compliance/Resistance as Coercive Outcome 

• In terms of compliance, one gay man reported that: “My partner would start 

crying and then I would give in and do what he wanted me to do.” 

• Another gay man reported: “I do what he says to avoid public embarrassment 

(including public outing).” 

5. Other Effects of the Coercive Process 

6. Agent’s Surveillance 

• “I used to call a lot to check up on her because I loved her.” 

• “He would follow me, watch me with binoculars, and call me constantly. He 

also would show up at work to check up on me to see what time I arrived, 

took lunch breaks, or left work.” 

• “He would question me a lot.” 

• “He answered all phone calls and would not let me talk to my friends.” 

• Fellow co-workers (police officers) of one batterer would let him know when 

they say one victim in town. 

7. Setting the Stage for Coercion 

• To set the stage for coercion, interviewees noted the following coercive tactics 

being used: 

- telling the women that they will have nothing in terms of money or 

possessions if they leave; 

- telling the women that “good women” or “good mothers” keep a clean 

house, do not work outside the home, or take care of themselves; and 

3
- accusing the women of seeing other men or doing things they were not 

doing. 

8. Social Ecology Surrounding Coercion 

• The only time some of the women felt their partner had a “right” to tell them 

what to do was when their partner was the only one working and bringing in 

money to pay bills. 

• One gay man thought that his partner could tell him what to do because they 

lived in his partner’s space. 

• In two interviews, the batterers felt that the system overly protected the 

women (and that the system was targeted against men). 

9. Target’s Increased Vulnerability 

• In response to vulnerabilities of their partner - two batterers said that they 

could take advantage of their partners because they knew their partners loved 

them more and that they could get away with doing things. 

• Several women who had been sexually abused by a family member reported 

that their partners would use the knowledge against her in an argument or in 

demeaning remarks. 

10. Motivation, Intention, Personal Gain 

• Two batterers stated that they had a right to demand because they were right. 

In response to question 4 (partner believes you had the right to demand): “I 

tell her because I believe I am right or in the right. It’s the way I was, I was in 

control and I was right.” 

• After describing incidences of violence, control, and coercion one batterer 

stated that “these questions are for men who force their partners to do stuff. I 

do normal relationship stuff, I don’t force her.” 

4
Appendix E 

Materials from the Interviews with Professionals 
IRB No. 02-280 

Appendix E 

MATERIALS FROM THE INTERVIEWS WITH PROFESSIONALS 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY/COSMOS CORPORATION 

Consent to Participate in Research 

Interviews with Professionals 

Project Name: Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure for Intimate Partner 

Violence 

Principal Investigator: Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D. Telephone: 202-687-1997 

Project Coordinator: Aileen Worrell, M.S.W. Telephone: 301-215-9100 x294 

Sponsor: The National Institute of Justice 

The Georgetown University Institutional Review Board has given approval for this research 

project. For information on your rights as a research subject, call the Institutional Review Board 

Office: 202-687-1506. 

Purpose. The purpose of the study is to develop and validate a measure of coercive control for 

use in the measurement of intimate partner violence. 

Procedures. We plan to conduct interviews with individuals who work with intimate partner 

violence in their professional roles. All interviews will be conducted on a one-on-one basis. The 

interviews will take approximately one hour and will be held in a location that is convenient for 

the participant and that ensures privacy. The researcher will take notes of the interview. You 

will be asked such questions as “from your experience with victims or perpetrators of intimate 

partner violence, can you describe interactions you have heard about that appeared to be 

coercive?” 

Risks. You may feel uncomfortable or become upset when you talk about some aspects of your 

work experiences. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you choose to participate, you 

may withdraw your consent at any time. You do not have to answer any question you do not 

want to answer. If you choose to discontinue your participation in this study, there will be no 

penalty. 

Benefits. There are no direct benefits to you. However, the information obtained during this 

study will help to develop specific questions for an instrument to measure coercive control. 

Compensation. You will be paid $20 for participating in this study. 

Confidentiality. Your responses to the interview questions will be confidential. No names or 

personally identifying characteristics will be recorded in the notes. The researcher will code 
your interview with a number. The researcher will be the only one who can link your name to 

the number. The interview notes will be kept in a locked drawer and will be destroyed at the end 

of the study. No names or identifying details will be used in any publications or other documents 

resulting from this research. All data collected from this study will be presented as a group, so 

that no one can identify any one individual within the study. 

Questions. Should you have any questions at any time about this study, please contact Aileen 

Worrell at 301-215-9100 ext 294. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in 

a research study, please contact the Georgetown University Institutional Review Board at 202-

687-1506. 

Certification. I have read and I understand this Informed Consent document. I understand the 

purpose of the research project and all my questions have been answered satisfactorily. I 

understand that I may withdraw my participation at any time and that I can refuse to answer any 

questions. I understand that my name and any personally identifiable information will be kept 

confidential and will not be used in publications or in any other document. I have received a 

copy of this signed Informed Consent. 

Signatures: 

Participant Name: 

Signature: 

Date: 

Researcher Name: 

Signature: 

Date: 

PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEW FOR MCC PROJECT 

General Framework 

1. Tell us a little about the work that you do. 

2. Tell us about stories you’ve heard about your clients being controlled by or 

controlling their partners. By controlled, we mean an individual can’t do what they 

want or they are doing things they don’t want to do because of threats if they didn’t 

comply. 

3. Can you give some examples? 

Extent of Influence 

4. Can you give us examples of the domains in which your clients are most commonly 

controlled by or control their partners? 

PROBE FOR: 

• Personal activities 

• Social life 

• Household 

• Work related/economic/money 

• Children/parenting 

• Intimate/romance 

• Safety/violence 

1 
5. Can you distinguish between the kinds of relationships where one person controls most 

of the activities of his/her partner vs. relationships where control occurs but is more 

limited? 

Influence Tactics/Actual Consequences 

6. Can you give some examples of how your clients or their partners get the other to do 

things they don’t want to do by threatening them with negative consequences if they 

don’t comply? 

Power Bases 

7. What are the kinds of things that make your clients or their partners take the other’s 

demands seriously? That is, what lets them know that the other is willing and able to 

carry out a threat? 

Surveillance 

8. What would be some of the ways that your clients or their partners would know that the 

other was complying with their demands? 

Compliance/Resistance 

2 
9. Can you give examples of times when your clients or their partners came to think that 

what the other was demanding with a threat was actually the right thing to do? 

Control vs. Coercion 

10. Can you give some examples of where your clients or their partners were forced to do 

things when they absolutely had NO choice? 

3

Summary of Observations 

For Interviews with Professionals 

Following are some of the themes that evolved during the interviews with 

professionals who work with victims and batterers. The themes are categorized by 

the constructs being assessed in the coercive control measure. 

1. Communication of Demand, Request, or Expectation 

• Most of the clients we see are controlled in all domains. There is usually a 

systematic pattern of control. The men control all the resources and the 

women often do not work outside the home because they are told that only 

bad mothers go to work. 

• There is a range of control levels in the clients I see. In some, the men have 

complete control. In others, for example, a man could give the women free 

reign with money but be extremely jealous and controlling of her social and 

familial relationships. 

• It has been my experience that a controlling person will try to control in as 

many areas as he can get away with. For example, if she is a stay-at-home 

mother, he can get away with more control than if she works outside the 

home. 

• Specific demands, requests, or expectations included: 

- She is only allowed to use the telephone when he is there to give his 

permission. 

- She has to obey and adhere to his standards of cleanliness in 

housekeeping. When he doesn’t think the kitchen floor is clean 

enough, she has to get down on her hands and knees and lick it clean 

with her tongue. 

- She cannot socialize (talk with) certain people at social gatherings. 

- At parties, she is not allowed to speak with someone that he does not 

approve of. If she does so, he will tap his wrist indicating she will be 

in handcuffs when they get home and will get a beating. (He is a police 

officer). 

- He comes home drunk and demands sex. She refuses. He grabs her by 

both ears and slams her head repeatedly against the rail of their bed. She 

suffers a concussion and damage to bones in her neck. 

1
- He demands her paycheck. She says no. He is driving and steps on the gas 

and says he will kill them both and the kids in the back seat. She hands 

over her paycheck. 

- She is told she will undergo artificial insemination. She refused and her 

husband beat her with a bullwhip until she consented. 

2. Communication of the Threat of a Meaningful Negative Consequence 

• Threats of physical force are used against her (i.e., beat her up or kill her), 

against the children (e.g., hurt or kill the children, or take them away), and 

against family members if she does not do what he wants. 

• Batterers also will threaten to kill women if they leave the relationship or tell 

them they will have nothing if they leave and that he will not pay child 

support. 

• An abuser will threaten to prove she is a bad mother and take the children 

away and she stays with him.

• Women are often threatened with guns in rural communities and a lot of the 

women have had guns pointed at them. 

• A lot of the control tactics used by these men are comparable to those used on 

prisoners of war. 

• Once violence has occurred in the relationship, the threat is always there that it 

will be used again whether the batterer actually says so or not. The violence 

hangs over the relationship. The violence is often random and so you come to 

believe that it is possible every time. Once violence is used, the batterer just 

has to say “I will get you or beat you up if you don’t do whatever I want.” 

3. Perceived Threat of Coercion 

• Many women say they always listened for the tone of his voice. 

• Women say that something just clicks inside when they know he will follow 

through or is about to act. They see it in their partner’s eyes and body 

language, especially after so many times. 

• Women who are battered get tunnel vision – this is the only choice. Another 

woman’s husband threatened to shoot their newborn baby. Every morning he 

2
would leave a bullet on the kitchen counter. Although he was 30 miles away at 

work, she knew he would kill her or the baby if she left so she stayed. 

• For one woman, she always took her abuser seriously when he arrived home 

drunk or having had a drink. Some men will stop to take a drink before going 

home and beating a woman so they can use alcohol as the excuse. 

• A white rancher broke nearly every bone in both feet of a client and raped her 

repeatedly. She also saw him kill a cow – literally beat the cow to death so 

she took his threats seriously. 

• Past experience. There has to be prior violence to let them know the other is 

willing to carry out a threat. The violence doesn’t have to have been done to 

them. It may have been directed at the children, pets or other relatives. 

• It is usually based on past experience. If she had her hair yanked out the last 

time she refused to comply, chances are he won’t have to yank out her hair 

again. He only has to remind her. 

• There may be indicators in the relationship initially but as the relationship 

progresses the indicators become so well masked that it is hard to decipher 

them. It isn’t usually a cycle building phase. 

• There is no way to tell which men will use what resources and come bursting 

through the shelter door. They cannot be predicted. 

4. Compliance/Resistance as Coercive Outcome 

• The women who come to the shelter have given in, often for years. Once they 

make it to the shelter, they have said “enough.” They know they can no longer 

fulfill the man’s demands. The kitchen is spotless, and he wants one more thing. 

Motives for complying include doing anything to provide calm and safety for the 

children. They will do anything at any hour to hide their conditions from the 

outside world and make peace, but the threshold constantly rises. 

• Giving in is survival. Giving in is part of the crazy-making by the partner. She 

runs around making sure he is pleased, and he keeps her going trying to please 

him. Then he adds more for her to do, that she must do in order to ensure her 

safety and that of the children. However, complying guarantees nothing. Control 

does not happen overnight. It can begin subtly and escalate so that women believe 

there is no other way but to comply. 

• Some women never give up trying to resist. Others are more compliant. He only 

uses as much control as he needs to keep her in line and his anxiety level down. 

3
• In one case, a mother of 6 or 7 came into town to the bank with her husband and 

a toddler. Before going into the bank, which had a large glass window, he said, 

“I’ll have my eye on you so don’t get any ideas.” He went into the bank and at 

one point he turned away and was not watching the car. The woman grabbed the 

child and the gun behind the seat. She ran to safety and called for help from the 

shelter. She knew she had to take the gun otherwise her husband would shoot her 

in the back as she ran away. 

5. Other Effects of the Coercive Process 

• In many instances, particularly when the relationship was long term, she would 

internalize his demands and come to believe he actually did know what was best 

for her. There would seem to be a disconnect in her decision-making powers. 

6. Agent’s Surveillance 

• Often the batterers will come home unexpectedly. Or they will ask for reports 

from the woman with all kinds of details in the reports. 

• One husband kept his wife from leaving the house by removing the car’s 

distributor cap or unplugging the wiring while he worked in the fields. 

• Some women must be near the phone constantly as the partner may call at any 

time to check up on her. Men look at phone bills to see who has been called. 

Men check receipts. No space is sacred. Drawers, purses, and the garbage can 

may be searched. 

• Often the batterers don’t know whether the woman has or has not done 

something but they will accuse them of anything. One batterer would use a 

white glove to check how clean the house was. He would run his gloved hand 

along the molding, for example, to see if the house was clean enough. If the 

house was not clean enough, then he would beat the woman up. 

• Men know their wives comply by checking receipts after shopping, checking 

phone bills to see who was called, calling *69 to check the last number dialed, 

talking with friends and relatives to see if the wife has spoken with them or 

has been seen, and checking the car odometer. The men will accuse their 

wives of sleeping around or talking to other men or people they are not 

suppose to. The locations are so isolated and far away from anything that 

many phone calls are long distance. Any long distance calls are questioned. 

• Batterers use direct observation to check on compliance. For example, before 

leaving for work, a husband carefully puts talcum powder on the phone. All 

he had to do was check the phone to make sure the powder was not disturbed. 

4
For that reason, the woman never opened a window for fear a breeze might 

blow it away. The clean freak mentioned previously would run his finger 

along the kitchen floor. It was seldom clean enough for him. 

• Many times a woman does not go into town unless the man has business in 

town. 

• In some cases, women are allowed to go places but they would not dare linger. 

The men time the errands or activities and are waiting when they get home. The 

women must get permission to do activities and would not dream of doing 

something without asking first. If they go to a holiday or other party, they may 

stay by their men the entire time. They know by his body language if they are 

talking to someone they are not suppose to. If she goes to the grocery store, he 

will check the receipts, ask what was bought and how much was spent, why 

certain items were bought, and ask about any deviance from normal on the list. 

7. Setting the Stage for Coercion 

• Most abusers also are verbally abusive. One woman’s husband kept telling 

her she was stupid because she did not have as much formal education as he 

did. He was constantly criticizing her pronunciation and grammar so she was 

literally afraid to speak. 

• Women are told they are bad mothers. They are told they could never make it 

without their partner. 

• The women are told they are bad mothers and they come to believe it. Women 

talk about how their partners make fun of them and ridicule their sexual abilities. 

• Often there are assaults on the person – her looks or her clothes. One client 

was told she had fat, white legs and should never wear shorts. The women 

begin to feel bad about themselves. 

• He also tells her she will have nothing if she leaves him. There have been 

quite a few abusers lately who have told the women they will kill themselves 

if the women leave him. 

• Clients are stalked. One abuser killed the family cat in a gruesome manner. 

In his stalking of her, he made cat noises outside of her home. His message 

was that she may have a protection order but he was still there. 

5
8. Social Ecology Surrounding Coercion 

• One of the first questions asked of a battered woman is why she stays. The 

control is often subtle. There is fear that the children will be taken if she 

leaves. Three or four of the clients I’ve seen in the last year met guys, got into 

drugs, got their supply from the men, and stay. The men say, “if you leave, 

everyone will find out about your drug use, and you will go to jail.” In rural 

areas, there are few jobs. The women are isolated and depend on the men for 

their daily needs. They have little control over daily needs much less fringe 

items. 

• Another question frequently asked of a woman is “does she has a support 

network?” Ninety to 95 percent say no. Women are not allowed to have 

friends or contact with their families. Often the man is a charmer and appears 

so good or befriends her family and friends. The woman is made to appear in 

the wrong. Many women lose their friends through control of the 

relationships. There is no social life. The women often are not allowed to 

join clubs or go out with friends. A fun night out with the girls may be turned 

into him accusing her of sleeping around or having other men look at her. 

Sometimes it is simply easier or better to stay at home and not risk what may 

come. 

• With the rural population, there is more of a tendency toward total control 

over the client’s life – social, monetary, intimate, parenting, and household. 

Sometimes women can go into town on their own for community or church 

meetings but that is still controlled. They must, at the very least, ask 

permission to go. With such isolation, control over everything is easier. The 

women rely on the men for everything. 

• Isolation from friends and family is common. 

• The women generally have nowhere to go because of a lack of resources and 

poverty. Batterers are very good at getting legal aid to represent them so she 

has no legal representation. 

• Most of the women feel they have no choice. If they leave, they are homeless and 

often really do not have anything. To not do something or to avoid doing it, a 

woman has to have options or be ready to leave. 

• In terms of safety, the system often allows battering to continue. Batterers 

know when to notify law enforcement to get the woman arrested. Often they 

will taunt the women, calling them names and saying really horrible things 

until she does something such as throwing a soda at him. In this particular 

example, the couple was in the car when the man began taunting the woman. 

After she threw the soda at him, he drove to the police station and had her 

arrested. 

6
• In some relationships the control escalates when there is alcohol/drug abuse. In 

others, the control disappears with alcohol/drug abuse. It all depends on the M.O. 

of the abuser. Some only escalate control when they suspect she may leave or 

when something changes ie she goes to school or gets a job or gets pregnant. 

• Another tactic used is religion. Men will say that the Bible states a wife must 

be submissive to her husband and the husband is to make decisions. The 

family will go to church every Sunday. The husband will smile and be 

friendly. When the family returns home, he will beat the wife for not keeping 

a child quiet enough. The men quote the Bible to their benefit. In one case, 

the town minister and the husband used the Bible to get the wife and child 

back home saying divorce is a sin and that the father can’t be kept out of the 

home. The wife and child returned though eventually the child was taken into 

custody by protective services and adopted. Using religion is a common and 

major tactic in rural communities. 

• Woman and husband belong to strict religious group. She is controlled not just 

by the husband but by congregation who always back him up. When husband 

decides she needs to be punished, congregation members come to their house 

and watch as he ties wife to bed and “disciplines” her. 

• One abuser told a client that not only would he prove she was a bad mother 

and take the children away from her, but in the afterlife she would never see 

the children again because God does not believe in divorce. The church 

backed him up. The woman went to a bishop and he told her to go back and 

pray for her husband. Her husband beat her so badly and so many times that 

she needed surgery to be able to breathe properly through her nose. 

• When the abuser has convinced everyone in the woman’s social context that she 

is crazy then she comes to believe that she must be crazy and what he wants is 

right. Religion also reinforces the subservient position of women and women are 

told they are being good mothers if they are being submissive to their husband 

who is suppose to be the head of the household. 

• The message a lot of women hear is that “good women” have clean houses and 

take care of themselves so if he is upset because the house is dirty or she doesn’t 

look as good as he thinks she should then she must not be a good woman. Good 

women also do not work outside the home. 

• Most clients have had no access to money that they make or they do not work 

and get a dole, as needed or determined by the abuser. When they come to the 

shelter, there are financial issues, which are difficult. Most have never 

managed money. 

7
• Most clients are afraid of being found. That fears hangs over them even at the 

shelter. If a woman relocates, once her social security number, or a child’s, is 

in the system through social services, work, or school, he can find her. Men 

may make friends with all of the resources women may use to escape in the 

place of reestablishment (e.g., pastor, law enforcement, courts, emergency 

workers). They can make it so no one will believe the women. This is 

especially commonplace in rural communities. 

9. Target’s Increased Vulnerability 

• When the women come to the shelter, much of what they have been told must 

be unlearned. The relationships must be rebuilt with their children. Many 

times the parent/child relationship is askew. The children become protectors 

of their mothers and mothers become overprotective of the children. 

10. Motivation, Intention, Personal Gain 

8 
Appendix F 

Potential Constructs to Assess in Interview 
Appendix F 

POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTS TO ASSESS IN INTERVIEW 

Item 

Set 

Construct Imbedded Constructs Potential Items 

A Communication of demand 

or expectation (1) 

Personal activities 

Social life / Family 

members 

Household 

Work / Economic 

Children / Parenting 

Intimate / Romance 

• First, you will be asked questions about what your 

partner may demand or expect of you that goes 

against what you want. 

• How much does your partner demand or expect you to 

do, or not do, certain things that you do not want to 

do, related to 

1-Not at all 

2-Infrequently or not very often 

3-Sometimes 

4-Often 

5-All the time 

1. Leaving or staying in the house 

2. Eating 

3. Sleeping 

4. What you wear 

5. Bathing, using the bathroom, or other personal 

hygiene 

6. Talking to friends or family members on the phone 

7. Spending time with friends or family members 

8. Taking care of the house 

9. Food or cooking 

10. Where you live 

11. Working or your employment 

12. Money or using credit cards 

13. Taking care of the children 

14. Disciplining the children 

15. Being affectionate or physically close 

16. Talking to each other 

17. Having sex 

18. Staying in the relationship 

• If the answer to any of the questions in A is “yes”, go to 

B. 

For each item 

answered 

“yes”, indicate 

how 

important this 

is to you. 

1- Not at all 

important 

2- A little bit 

important 

3- Somewhat 

important 

4-Quite 

important 

5- Extremely 

important 

1
Appendix F (Continued) 

B Perceived threat of 

contingent meaningful 

negative consequences for 

noncompliance with a 

demand, request, or 

expectation (3) 

Nature of perceived 

threat of negative 

consequence 

Involvement of a third 

party 

• (In A), you indicated that your partner demands or 

expects something of you that is different from what 

you want. 

• How much do you believe that any of the following 

would happen if you didn’t do what he (or she) 

demanded or expected of you? 

1-Not at all 

2-Infrequently or not very often 

3-Sometimes 

4-Often or a lot of the time 

5-All the time 

1. Emotionally hurt you 

2. Emotionally hurt your children 

3. Take you children away from you 

4. Emotionally hurt your friends or family members 

5. Physically hurt you 

6. Kill you 

7. Physically hurt your children 

8. Physically hurt your friends or family member 

9. Destroyed or took your property 

10. Threaten you financially 

11. Threaten you with legal trouble 

12. Restrain you or lock you up 

13. Put you in a mental hospital 

14. Cause you to go to jail or a half-way house 

(If yes to any of the above) 

Are any of the following, people who you believe your 

partner would get to help him (or her) do any of these bad 

things? 

1 = yes 

2 = no 

15. Police, prosecutor, judge, probation officer or 

someone else in the justice system 

16. Minister, priest, rabbi, or other spiritual leader 

17. Your partner’s friend or family member 

18. Your friend or family member 

19. INS 

20. IRS 

21. Mafia 

For each item 

answered 

“yes”, indicate 

how 

important this 

is to you. 

1- Not at all 

important 

2- A little bit 

important 

3- Somewhat 

important 

4-Quite 

important 

5- Extremely 

important 

 2 
Appendix F (Continued) 

C Communication of threat of 

meaningful negative 

consequences (2) 

Nature of threatened 

negative consequence 

• (In B), you indicated that you believed certain things 

would happen if you didn’t do what your partner 

expected of you. 

• Next we want to understand better how you know these 

bad things would happen 

• How much are the following reasons why you believe 

these bad things would happen? 

1-Not at all 

2-Infrequently or not very often 

3-Sometimes 

4-Often or much of the time 

5-All the time 

1. In the past, when I didn’t so what he (or she) 

expected of me, my partner has actually done some 

of these negative things. 

2. In the past, my partner said that he (or she) would do 

some of these negative things if I didn’t do what he 

(or she) wanted, although he (or she) hasn’t actually 

done them. 

3. In the past, my partner acted in a way that made me 

think he (or she) would do some of these things, even 

though he (or she) didn’t actually say so. 

4. In the past, I “just knew” it was a “rule.” 

 3 
Appendix F (Continued) 

D Compliance or 

Resistance(4) 

• (In A), you indicated that your partner demands or 

expects things of you that is different from what you 

want. 

• When that happens, how much of the time do you do 

each of the following? 

1-Not at all 

2-Infrequently or not very often 

3-Sometimes 

4-Often or much of the time 

5-All the time 

1. I do what my partner wants 

2. I resist doing what my partner wants by saying “no” or 

refusing to do it 

3. I resist doing what my partner wants by delaying or 

putting off doing what my partner wants me to do. 

4. I resist doing what my partner wants by saying “yes,” 

but not really doing it 

5. I resist doing what my partner wants, but end up 

doing what he (or she) wants anyway 

For each item 

answered 

“yes”, indicate 

strongly you 

feel the 

following 

when you do 

this. 

1- Not at all 

2- A little bit 

3- Somewhat 

4-Quite 

5- Extremely 

1. happy 

2. sad 

3. frustrated 

4. angry 

5. guilty 

6. afraid 

7. helpless 

8. satisfied 

9. upset 

 4 
Appendix F (Continued) 

E Other Effects of Coercive 

Control Process (5) 

• (In A), you indicated that your partner demands or 

expects things of you that is different from what you 

want. 

• How much do you end up experiencing each of the 

following feelings when this happens? 

1- Not at all 

2- A little bit 

3- Somewhat 

4-Quite 

5- Extremely 

1. happy 

2. sad 

3. frustrated 

4. angry 

5. guilty 

6. afraid 

7. helpless 

8. satisfied 

9. upset 

 5 
Appendix F (Continued)

 F Surveillance (6) • (In A), you indicated that your partner demands or 

expects things of you that is different from what you 

want. 

• How often does your partner do the following in order to 

know whether you have done what he (or she) 

wanted you to do? 

1-Not at all 

2-Infrequently or not very often 

3-Sometimes 

4-Often or much of the time 

5-All the time 

1. He (or she) is there with me, so he (or she) can tell 

2. He (or she) calls on the phone to find out whether I 

have done what he (or she) wants 

3. My partner asks the children to tell him (or her) if I 

have done what he (or she) wants 

4. My partner asks other people (besides the children) 

to tell him (or her) if I have done what he (or she) 

wants 

5. My partner checks the odometer on the car as a way 

of knowing whether I’ve done what he (or she) wants 

6. My partner checks my clothing or underwear to see if 

I’ve done what he (or she) wants. 

 6 
Appendix F (Continued) 

G Setting the Stage (7) • Cognitive set 

-Willing 

 -Ready 

-Able 

• (In B), you indicated that you believed certain things 

would happen if you didn’t do what your partner 

expected of you. 

• At the time, how much are the following are reasons you 

believed your partner was willing to cause those bad 

things to happen 

1- Not at all 

2- A little bit 

3- Somewhat 

4- Quite 

5- Extremely 

1. Because my partner had done those things to me 

before 

2. Because my partner had done those things to 

someone else before 

3. Because my partner said he would do those things to 

me 

4. Because my partner had been drinking or using drugs 

5. Because my partner was under a lot of stress 

• At the time, how much are the following reasons you 

believed your partner was able to cause those bad 

things to happen 

1- Not at all 

2- A little bit 

3- Somewhat 

4- Quite 

5- Extremely 

1. Because my partner’s physical size, strength, or 

physical skills 

2. Because my partner has access to money or other 

financial resources 

3. Because my partner can get other people to help 

4. Because my partner knows where my family or 

friends are 

• At the time, how soon did you believe your partner 

was ready to cause those bad things to happen to 

you if you didn’t do what he wanted 

1. Immediately 

2. Within the day 

3. Within the week 

4. Within the month 

5. Within the year 

6. More than a year 

 7 
Appendix F (Continued) 

• Softening the Target • (In A), you indicated that your partner demands or 

expects things of you that is different from what you 

want. 

• How much of the time did your partner do the following 

things to wear down your resistance and make it 

more likely that you would do what he (or she) 

wanted 

1-Not at all 

2-Infrequently or not very often 

3-Sometimes 

4-Often or much of the time 

5-All the time 

1. Did things to make you feel afraid or terrified to resist 

what he (or she) wanted 

2. Did things to make you feel too emotionally drained to 

resist what he (or she) wanted 

3. Did things to keep you from sleeping so you were too 

tired to resist what he (or she) wanted 

4. Did things to confuse you so you couldn’t resist what 

he (or she) wanted 

5. Did things so you didn’t have money or financial 

resources to resist doing what he (or she) wanted 

6. Got you to use alcohol or drugs so that physically you 

couldn’t resist doing what he (or she) wanted 

7. Did things to physically hurt or injury you so that you 

couldn’t resist doing what he (or she) wanted 

• Exploiting 

vulnerabilities 

• (In A), you indicated that your partner demands or 

expects things of you that are different from what you 

want. 

• To what extent did your partner use the following 

experiences of yours to get you to do what he (or 

she) wanted 

0- Does not apply 

1- Not at all 

2- A little bit 

3- Somewhat 

4- Quite 

5- Extremely 

1. Your having been physically or sexually abused as a 

child 

2. Your having been neglected as a child 

3. Your having grown up in a family with little money 

4. Your having lost a parent during childhood 

5. Your having been previously sexually assaulted or 

raped 

6. Your having been hit or physically hurt by a previous 

partner 

7. Your having been mugged or assaulted by someone 

other than a previous partner 

8. Your having a serious physical condition 

9. Your having emotional problems 

10. Your having lost a child 

11. Your feeling sorry for your partner because of his (or 

her) background or previous experiences 

 8 
Appendix F (Continued) 

H Social Ecology (8) • Economic and 

tangible resources 

• Institutional 

context 

• Cultural and 

social context 

1. Income 

2. Employment 

3. Access to credit cards 

4. Own or lease a residence in your name 

5. Own or lease a car in your name 

6. Have medical insurance for self 

 -independently

 -on partner’s policy 

7. Have medical insurance for children 

 -independently

 -on partner’s policy 

To what extent in the following true of you and your 

partner: 

1- Not at all 

2- A little bit 

3- Somewhat 

4- Quite 

5- Extremely 

8. My partner has been previously arrested 

9. I have been previously arrested 

10. My partner has previously spent time in jailed 

11. I have previously spent time in jail 

12. My partner has previously been convicted of a 

crime 

13. I have previously been convicted of a crime 

14. I have had or currently have a protection order 

against my partner 

15. My partner has had or currently has a protection 

order against me 

16. My partner is involved in a church or temple 

17. (If yes to #16), my partner’s religion encourages 

men to be the head of the household 

18. I am involved in a church or temple 

19. (If yes to #18), my religion encourages men to be 

the head of the household 

20. My partner has been or is involved in mental health 

counseling 

21. I have been or am involved in mental health 

counseling 

22. Race / ethnicity 

23. Racial identity 

24. Religious identity 

25. Immigration status 

26. Sexual orientation 

27. Urban/suburban/rural 

28. Age cohort 

 9 
Appendix F (Continued) 

• Social network

 -Family, friends 

-Partner 

• Individual context 

 -Cognitive 

-Physical status / 

state 

 -Mental health 

-Behavioral skills or 

deficits 

29. Social support inventory (e.g., ISEL) 

30. I have friends or family who support me in resisting 

doing thing my partner demands or expects me to 

do that I don’t want to do 

31. My partner has family or friends who support him 

(or her) in his (or her) demands or expectations that 

I do things even though I don’t want to do them 

32. Relationship cohesion measure? 

33. In spite of our problems, at times my partner and I 

are good friends 

34. In spite of our problems, at times I enjoy spending 

time with my partner 

35. In spite of our problems, at times my partner and I 

have a satisfying sexual relationship 

36. My partner is an important person (legitimate 

power) 

37. My partner is a smart person and know how to do a 

lot of things (expert power) 

38. My partner is a very important person in my life 

(referent power) 

39. My partner has information that I don’t have 

(informational power) 

 10 
Appendix F (Continued) 

I Increased Vulnerability (9) No items here 

J Motivation, Intention, 

Personal Gain (10) 

2. (In B), you indicated that you believed certain 

things would happen if you didn’t do what your 

partner expected of you. 

3. To what extent do you believe the following to be 

true 

1- Not at all 

2- A little bit 

3- Somewhat 

4- Quite 

5- Extremely 

1. My partner intentionally wants to control me 

2. My partner gains something by controlling or trying to 

control me 

 11 
Appendix G 

Development of Coercive Control Measure: Conceptual Framework and Model 
Draft 2/26/03, Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

Appendix G 

DEVELOPMENT OF COERCIVE CONTROL MEASURE: 

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 

Working Definition of Coercion: 

IPV COERCION: Communication of a credible threat of contingent and negative 

meaningful consequences for an intimate partner’s noncompliance with a demand or 

expectation. 

APPRAISAL OF IPV COERCION: Understanding or perception of the likelihood that 

one’s partner would (or would try) to deliver contingent and meaningful negative 

consequences for one’s noncompliance with a demand or expectation. 

Other Components of the IPV Coercion Model: 

RESPONSE TO COERCION: The act of responding to IPV coercion and/or the 

appraisal of IPV coercion along two non-orthogonal dimensions of compliance and 

resistance. 

SURVEILLANCE: The act of monitoring an intimate partner’s response to coercion. 

DELIVERY OF THREATENED (OR OTHER) CONSEQUENCES: Carrying out 

threatened (or other) consequences for an intimate partner’s actual (or assumed) 

noncompliance with a demand or expectation. 

OUTCOMES OF IPV COERCION: The emotional, cognitive, behavioral, social, or 

physiological outcomes associated with exposure to IPV Coercion or with meaningful 

levels of Appraisal of IPV Coercion. 

SETTING THE STAGE FOR IPV COERCION: Exploiting or creating 

vulnerabilities in one’s intimate partner that reduces the capacity or likelihood of 

resistance to IPV Coercion. 

VULNERABILITY TO COERCION: Emotional, cognitive, behavioral, social, or 

physiological conditions that reduce one’s capacity or likelihood of resistance to IPV 

Coercion. 

MOTIVATION, INTENTION, OR PERSONAL GAIN FOR IPV COERCION: The 

conscious or unconscious motivation or intention to engage in IPV Coercive acts or the 

potential of personal gain for doing so. 

1
Draft 2/26/03, Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

Underlying Assumptions / Points of Clarification or Discussion: 

1. Social power plays a role in all interpersonal relationships, including intimate partner 

relationships (French & Raven, 1959). 

2. Coercion is one of several forms of social power. Both social power and coercion are 

found in most intimate partner relationships, although there is a great deal of variance 

in forms and severity of coercion (Molm, 1997; Raven, 1993; Raven, Center, & 

Rodriguez, 1975). Distinguishing “acceptable” vs. “unacceptable” forms of coercion 

is determined by social norms. An example of “unacceptable” coercion might be the 

threat of a beating for not coming home on time. An example of an “acceptable” 

coercion might be the threat of calling the police if the abusive partner does not put 

down the gun. 

3. Control is influencing someone to do something they would not otherwise do. Control 

is neither positive nor negative; it is the product of inevitable social power in 

relationships. The construct of control encompasses coercion, as well as force, 

persuasion, and authority, and other forms of social power. It is coercion that is the 

focus of the development of this measure. 

4. Coercion is a fluid process. An individual can be both a “target” and an “agent” of 

coercion—sometimes within the same interaction. The level or severity of coercion 

between the two partners may or may not differ dramatically. 

5. Coercion is the act of getting someone to act or think in a particular way by using or 

threatening with negative consequences for noncompliance. As such, coercion is a 

specific mechanism of control. An act of coercion requires a “target” and an “agent.” 

6. Coercion is different from “force.” Force involves “lack of volition” where—given 

sufficient force—it is physically impossible to resist. 

7. Coercion involves “choice,” but not “free choice.” By definition, there is a “cost” for 

choosing noncompliance. When that “cost” is meaningful to the “target” of coercion, 

then socially or clinically significant coercion exists. 

8. The agent’s awareness of his/her intention or motivation to control the target through 

coercion is not necessary for the coercive process to occur or for coercive outcomes 

to result. 

Purpose of Developing a Measure of Coercive Control: 

1. To develop a measure capable of assessing the type, severity, and extent of coercion 

within intimate partner relationships. 

2. To apply the new measure of coercive control in the study of violent intimate partner 

relationships in order to test a range of hypotheses, including, for example that types 

2
Draft 2/26/03, Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

of intimate partner violence can be distinguished by the level of coercive control they 

involve (Johnson, 1995; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000) or that some criminal conduct is 

the result of coercive control in intimate relationships (Colvin, Cullen, & Vander 

Ven, 2001; Stark, 1995). 

Elaboration of the Model of Coercive Control in Intimate Relationships: 

COERCIVE PROCESS 

1. Communication of Demand, Request, or Expectation 

a. Coercion requires that the “agent” demand, request, or expect the “target” to 

do something that the target does NOT want to do. 

b. Coercion doesn’t require—although may involve—an explicit “demand,” 

especially in ongoing relationships where current expectations are made clear 

through past interactions. Likewise, a seemingly pleasant “request,” that 

appears to be non-coercive when observed from outside the interaction, may 

functionally be a demand, again depending on past interactions between the 

target and agent. (Komter, 1989) 

c. Demands, requests, or expectations can occur in any domain. The more 

domains in which coercion occurs, the more pervasive is the pattern of 

coercion in the relationship. 

1. Personal activities (e.g., coming and going, eating, sleeping, dressing) 

2. Social life 

3. Household (nuclear family and extended family living in same house) 

4. Family members (extended family not living in same house) 

5. Work related/economic/money 

6. Children/parenting 

7. Intimate/romance 

2. Communication of the Threat of a Meaningful Negative Consequence 

a. Coercion requires the communication of a contingent “meaningful” negative 

consequence for noncompliance. 

b. Communication of a contingent negative consequence for noncompliance may 

be established through a) a prior actual contingent negative consequence 

delivered by the agent for noncompliance or b) a threatened one. 

c. Communication of the threat of future negative consequence may be explicit 

(e.g., direct verbal statement) or implicit (e.g., gesture or words that carry the 

meaning of threat, even though they are not overtly stated). 

3
Draft 2/26/03, Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

d. Communication of a threat of a contingent negative consequence may involve 

“invoking the power of third parties” (Raven, 1993). 

e. The contingent negative consequence may be the application of an aversive 

consequence (i.e., punishment) or the removal of something positive (i.e., 

response cost)—both of which function to increase the likelihood of 

compliance. 

The “meaningfulness” of the threatened consequence helps to determine “how 

much cost.” Some negative consequences may be slight (e.g., refusal to talk), 

while others may have tremendous impact on the target’s life (e.g., having 

one’s children taken away), and yet others are life-threatening (e.g., being 

killed). Understanding the “weight” or “cost” of the consequence to the target 

is essential to understanding the coercive process. The weight or meaning of a 

particular negative consequence is unique to the target—determined by many 

factors (Cartwright, 1959). 

COERCIVE OUTCOME 

3. Perceived Threat of Coercion 

a. The target’s perception that her/his partner is sufficiently ready, willing, and 

able to engage in a threatened and meaningful negative consequence for 

noncompliance with a demand, request, or expectation by the agent provides 

the cognitive component of the definition of coercive outcome (Outcome1). 

That is, coercion has been “successful” when the target behaves “as though” 

the contingent punishment would occur, regardless of whether it actually 

would occur. 

b. The perception of “sufficiently ready, willing, and able” should incorporate the 

potential for doubt—since the criteria would not likely need to be 100% certain 

in order that one modify one’s behavior (e.g., comply) with a demand, request, 

or expectation. Given a sufficiently high threshold consequence (e.g., being 

killed, having one’s children taken away), the target’s perceived likelihood that 

such a consequence for noncompliance would occur may need only be minimal 

in order to coerce compliance. 

c. It is probably necessary that the agent has engaged in at least some form of 

coercive acts—allowing for disagreement in report between agent and target. 

Otherwise, the target may be experiencing the situation as coercive, but it 

would be based on other factors (e.g., prior relationship experience, disordered 

psychological state). 

4
Draft 2/26/03, Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

4. Compliance / Resistance as Coercive Outcome 

a. The target’s response to the demand, request, or expectation may be in the 

form of compliance or resistance. Note that resistance may not be sufficiently 

strong and eventually lead to compliance, so both may occur in response to 

threat. 

b. Coercion is an interactive process—not a static phenomenon. The 

“demand/response interaction” is iterative and several sequences may occur in 

the coercive process. For example, the sequence may be 

demand/resist/demand/resist/demand/comply—each time the demand 

becoming stronger. 

c. The target’s behavioral response to coercion involves elements of two 

dimensions, which may occur alone or together. 

1. Compliance—doing what the target demands 

2. Resistance—resisting what the target demand. 

a) Direct resistance may involve confrontation or an overt resistance of the 

demand. 

b) Indirect resistance involves resisting, but in a way that is “softer” or 

doesn’t involve a direct confrontation of the agent (e.g., delaying, rather 

than refusing; saying “yes” to the “request” but then not doing it). 

5. Delivery of Threatened Negative Consequences 

a. In some cases, the threat of negative consequence is actually delivered—for 

actual or perceived noncompliance. Generally, these acts fit the definitions of 

various forms of IPV. 

MEDIATING AND MODERATING CONSTRUCTS RELATED TO COERCION 

6. Other Effects Of The Coercive Process 

a. Emotional and cognitive responses associated with compliance or resistance 

are many. Examples include sadness, fear, helplessness, futility, anger, hope). 

b. The “meaning” of the compliance and resistance behavior is also important. 

Compliance now may be viewed as an interim step (e.g., to buy time) until the 

target can resist more successfully later. Or, compliance may mean to the 

target she/he has “given up” resisting the agent’s demands, at least for now. 

7. Agent’s Surveillance 

a. Coercive power requires the agent to be able to conduct surveillance to detect 

compliance vs. noncompliance. Examples of this in intimate partner violence 

5
Draft 2/26/03, Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

include the batterer checking the odometer to determine whether the partner 

came right home as demanded, frequent phone calls to determine whether the 

partner has left the home, required reports by the target to the agent, or 

“checking” underwear to determine whether the partner had had sex with 

someone else. 

8. Setting The Stage For Coercion 

Coercion often involves some type of “setting the stage” or preparation of the 

target to increase the likelihood that subsequent coercive tactics will be effective. 

a. Creating Vulnerability. The agent may soften the target—that is, 

communicating to the target that the agent is “willing,” “able,” and “ready” to 

impose a negative consequence. It is “important to demonstrate to the target 

that not only are the means available for coercion (i.e., ability), but that the 

agent is ready and willing to pay the costs that coercion implies” (Raven, 

1993). 

1. Communication of “willingness” of agent to engage in threatened negative 

consequence. 

a) Communication of willingness occurs when the agent has previously 

imposed negative consequences (i.e., has done it before) on the target or 

someone else that the target knows about. 

b) Communication of willingness occurs when the target states explicitly 

that he/she is going to engage in threatened negative consequence (i.e., 

has said he/she will do it). 

2. Communication of “ability” of agent to engage in threatened negative 

consequence. 

a) Agent’s ability to administer the negative consequence is based on the 

target’s perception of an uneven power difference between the agent and 

the target. Perceived power differences—which alone or in 

combination provide a basis from which to persuasively communicate 

the ability to engage in the threatened negative consequences—can be 

derived from one or more sources, including, but not limited to the 

following: 

• Actual IPV 

• Physical size and strength 

• Access to money and other economic resources 

• Access to weapons 

• Ability to utilize third party resources (e.g., individuals, institutional 

systems, INS, IRS) to invoke consequences 

6
Draft 2/26/03, Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

• Access to the “target” or “target’s” family and friends 

• Access to other resources that increase power 

3. Communication of agent’s “readiness” to engage in threatened negative 

consequence against agent (Raven, 1993). 

a) Communication of readiness answers the “why now?” question in terms 

of the target’s response to coercion. This is especially important when 

explaining the target’s resistance (vs. compliance). 

b) Communication of readiness may occur by means of the agent saying 

explicitly—or in some other way communicating—that he/she is going 

to impose the threatened negative consequence (i.e., has said he/she will 

do it) within a particular timeframe. 

b. Softening the target/Wearing down target’s resistance. Setting the stage for 

coercion may also occur through wearing down the target’s resistance. 

Wearing down resistance can involve the agent’s reducing the target’s 

emotional (e.g., inducing a state of terror/fear, emotionally wearing down), 

physical (e.g., injury, sleep deprivation), cognitive (e.g., creating mental 

confusion in the target), or economic (e.g., making it necessary for the target to 

use up her/his resources) resources—some of which may be necessary to resist. 

c. Exploiting target’s prior vulnerabilities. Coercion may also be made more 

possible because the agent exploits the target’s prior vulnerabilities (e.g., 

childhood abuse, prior victimization, mental disorder or disability, physical 

disability). 

9. Social Ecology Surrounding Coercion 

Coercion occurs in the context of a relationship. Characteristics of intimate coercive 

relationships may vary enormously. An ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 

Dutton, 1996) is helpful to organize these contextual factors, as potential moderators 

and mediators of the impact of coercion, as well as on coercive tactics, per se. 

Examples are: 

a. Economic and Tangible Resources Context 

1. Level of economic and tangible resources available to the target 

independent of the agent (e.g., threats to withhold child support payments 

will be more salient for someone with no job). 

b. Institutional Context 

1. Level and type of institutional involvement of each partner 

2. Public policies, including, but not limited to: 

7 
Draft 2/26/03, Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

a) Public housing policy of zero tolerance for violence (“one strike and 

you’re out” initiative). 

b) Welfare reform 

c) Institutional support of ideology of family patriarchy (see work by 

Michael D. Smith and Walter DeKeseredy) 

c. Cultural and Social Context 

1. Socioeconomic/social class status 

2. Race/ethnicity 

3. Religion 

4. Immigration status/citizenship/country of origin 

5. Sexual orientation 

6. Urban/suburban/rural 

7. Age cohort 

d. Social Network 

1. Family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and acquaintances 

a) Social networks may influence coercion. Example: The agent’s 

extended family that lives with the target may make noncompliance 

more costly, since it may invoke the disapproval of others, in addition to 

the agent’s threat. 

b) Isolation from social network may increase vulnerability of the target, or 

serve to increase agents’ coercive tactics and motivation to coercion. 

c) Target’s social support may bolster the target’s efforts at noncompliance 

with coercive threats. 

d) Agent’s involvement in patriarchal all-male social networks—and the 

pro-abuse male peer support it may provide—may provide support to 

bolster the agent’s coercive (and other violent and abusive) tactics. 

2. Partner 

a) Other forms of social power ascribed to the partner—in addition to 

coercion—that may form the basis of coercion, influence, or other forms 

of control. 

1) Reward power—ability to provide or withhold positive social 

consequence directly or indirectly (e.g., through third party). 

2) Legitimate power to influence is seen as legitimate by means of 

social norms (e.g., gender roles), status in the community (e.g., 

religious or community leader), position of authority (e.g., police 

8
Draft 2/26/03, Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

officer), and agent’s legal immigration status. Thus, the agent’s 

greater legitimate status relative to the target provides an opportunity 

for coercion (e.g., the religious community supports the role of 

husband in making demands of female partner, agent threatens to 

withhold information about filing immigration papers unless the 

target complies). Legitimate power can also be used by the partner 

to the benefit of the other. 

3) Expert power to influence is based on target’s perception of agent’s 

specific expertise (e.g., black belt, skillful verbal negotiation skills). 

Thus, an agent’s greater expertise, relative to the target, provides an 

opportunity for coercion (e.g., agent has knowledge about cars which 

support his threats to tamper with the car to make it unsafe). The 

partner can also use her/his expert power to the benefit of the other. 

4) Referent power to influence based on target’s identification or 

emotional connection with agent (e.g., emotional attachment, identity 

as “husband”). An agent’s lesser attachment or commitment to the 

relationship relative to the target provides an opportunity for 

coercion (e.g., agent threatens to leave the relationship unless the 

target complies) by the partner. 

5) Informational power to influence based on agent’s access to or 

control over information that is important to the target (e.g., where 

the checkbook is kept). Thus, the agent’s access to or control over 

information that is important to the target provides the opportunity 

for coercion (e.g. partner tells target that she will lose custody of the 

children if she calls the police because he is a citizen and she is not). 

The partner may also use his/her informational power to the benefit 

of the other. 

3. Physical power 

a) The agent’s physical size and strength, relative to the target, enhances 

the agent’s ability to use physical force as a threat. 

4. Economic autonomy and resources 

a) The agent’s economic autonomy and resources, relative to the target, 

enhances the agent’s ability to use economic reasons as a tool of 

coercion. 

a. Individual Context 

1. Target’s strengths/resilience and vulnerabilities 

9 
Draft 2/26/03, Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

a) Cognitive 

1) Target’s intellectual problem-solving abilities may enhance her/his 

ability to not comply, without incurring the threatened consequence. 

b) Physical status/physiological state 

1) Alcohol/drug use and abuse 

i. Intoxication may impair her/his ability to resist a coercive 

demand. 

ii. Chronic alcohol/drug use or addition 

2) Physical disabilities 

3) Chronic illness (e.g., cancer, HIV/AIDS) 

c) Mental health/mental status 

1) Chronic mental illness 

2) Disorientation or confusion 

3) Depression 

4) PTSD and anxiety 

d) Behavioral Skills / Deficits 

1) Proficiencies and abilities (e.g., karate, firearms) 

2) Skill deficits (e.g., inability to drive a car) 

10. Target’s Increased Vulnerability 

This element of the target’s increased vulnerability following “setting the stage” tactics is 

not essential to the model of coercive control in that it is not essential that it occur. 

However, it may be of interest in better studying the dynamics of the coercion process. 

11. Motivation, Intention, Personal Gain 

The question of the agent’s motivation, intention, or personal gain is complex, and 

difficult to assess, especially given social desirability and psychological defense (e.g., 

denial, projection) considerations. An awareness of intent to coerce seems not necessary 

in order to engage in acts that would be objectively judged as coercive. Yet, this 

construct is an important one to consider further. 

10
Draft 2/26/03, Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

References 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature 

and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Cartwright, D. (1959). A field theoretical conception of power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), 

Studies in social power (pp. 183-220). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. 

Colvin, M., Cullen, F. T., and Vander Ven, T. (2001). Coercion, social support, and 

crime: An emerging theoretical consensus. Criminology, 40(1), 19-42. 

Dutton, M. A. (1996). Battered women's strategic response to violence: The role of 

context. In J. L. E. Z. C. Eisikovits (Ed.), Future interventions with battered women 

and their families (pp. 105-124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

French, J. R. P., and Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright 

(Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social 

Research. 

Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of 

violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294. 

Johnson, M. P., and Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: 

Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 948-963. 

Komter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender & Society, 3(12), 187-216. 

Molm, L. D. (1997). Coerceive poser in social exchange. Cambridge, United Kingdom: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of 

Social Psychology, 49(4), 227-251. 

Raven, B. H., Center, and Rodriguez. (1975). The bases of conjugal power. In D. H. 

Olson (Ed.), Power in families. New York: Wiley. 

Stark, E. (1995). Re-presenting woman battering: From battered woman syndrome to 

coercive control. Albany Law Review, 58, 973-1026. 

11

• 

demand or expectation 

• 

consequence for 

• 

to carry out threatened consequence, 

A

• 

i

ion 

including party 

• 

- Communicate readiness 

IPV) 

- Manipulation 

- Creating indebtedness 

• • • Facilitating

Agent Target 

MOTIVATION / INTENTION / 

SOCIAL ECOLOGY 

d

COERCIVE THREAT 

Communication of 

Communication of threat 

of meaningful negative noncompliance 

Communication of ability 

including involvement 

of third party 

PPRAISAL (OR UNDERSTANDING 

OF) OF COERCIVE THREAT 

Target’s perception of likelihood that 

the agent w ll carry out threat of contingent and meaningful negative consequences for noncompliance with a demand or expectat

SURVEILLANCEinvolvement of thi

SETTING THE STAGE 

Creating vulnerabilities 

- Communicate willingness 

- Communicate ability (e.g., prior

Exploiting existing vulnerabilities Wearing down resistance 

 attachment 

VULNERABILITY TO COERCION 

PERSONAL GAIN 

MODEL OF INTIMATE PARTNER 

COERCIVE CONTROL 

B
Appendix H 

Materials from the Advisory Panel Meeting 
Appendix H 

MATERIALS FROM THE ADVISORY PANEL MEETING 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

Development and Validation of a Coercive Control 

Measure for Intimate Partner Violence 

Advisory Panel Meeting 

COSMOS Corporation 

3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 950 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

March 13-14, 2003 

Agenda 

March 13, 2003 

8:30 am - 9:00 am Continental Breakfast 

9:00 am - 9:45 am Welcome and Introductions 

9:45 am - 10:15 am Overview of Grant and Purpose of the Study 

Mary Ann Dutton, Principal Investigator, 

Georgetown University Medical Center 

10:15 am - 10:30 am Break 

10:30 am - 12:30 pm Overview and Discussion of the Conceptual Model 

Mary Ann Dutton 

12:30 pm - 1:30 pm Lunch (provided) 
1:30 pm - 3:00 pm Review and Discussion of the Preliminary Ethnographic Interviews 

Mary Ann Dutton 

Lisa Goodman, Co-investigator, Boston College 

Aileen Worrell, Project Coordinator, COSMOS Corporation 

3:00 pm - 3:15 pm Break 

3:15 pm - 4:30 pm Discussion of the Implications for Revisions of the Conceptual Model 

Mary Ann Dutton 

March 14, 2003 

8:30 am - 9:00 am Continental Breakfast 

9:00 am - 10:15 am Review and Discussion of Proposed Questionnaire Items 

Mary Ann Dutton 

10:15 am - 10:30 am Break 

10:30 am - 11:30 am Review and Discussion of Proposed Questionnaire Items 

11:30 am - 12:30 pm Review and Discussion of Validation Study Design 

Mary Ann Dutton 
National Institute of Justice 

Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure 

for Intimate Partner Violence 

Advisory Panel Meeting 

COSMOS Corporation 

3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 950 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

March 13-14, 2003 

PARTICIPANT LIST 

Advisory Panel Members 

David Adams, Ed.D.* 

Program and Research Director 

Emerge 

2380 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 101 

Cambridge, MA 02140 

Phone: 617-547-9879 

E-mail: dadams9@msn.com 

Joyce Chung, M.D. 

Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry 

Department of Psychiatry 

Georgetown University Medical Center 

3800 Reservoir Road, NW 

Washington, DC 20007 

Phone: 202-687-8609 

E-mail: chungjy@georgetown.edu 

Sarah Cook, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor 

Department of Psychology 

Georgia State University 

140 Decatur Street, 11th Floor 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Phone: 404-651-2283 

E-mail: scook@gsu.edu 

*Unable to attend 1 
Shamita Das Dasgupta, Ph.D.* 

Co-founder and Development Coordinator 

Manavi 

7 Fletcher Drive 

Montville, NJ 07045 

Phone: 973-334-7356 

E-mail: shamitadas@hotmail.com 

Walter DeKeseredy, Ph.D. 

Professor 

Department of Sociology and Anthropology 

Ohio University 

Athens, OH 45701 

Phone: 740-593-1376 

E-mail: dekesere@ohiou.edu 

Ed Gondolf, Ed.D. 

Associate Director of Research, Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute 

Professor of Sociology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania 

1098 Oakland Avenue 

Indiana, PA 15705 

Phone: 724-357-4749 

E-mail: egondolf@grove.iup.edu 

Michael Johnson, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor of Sociology, Women’s Studies and 

African & African American Studies 

Associate Head, Department of Sociology 

The Pennsylvania State University 

211 Oswald Tower 

University Park, PA 16802 

Phone: 814-865-2527 

E-mail: mpj@psu.edu 

Lucy Laufe, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology and Sociology 

Montgomery College 

20200 Observation Drive 

Germantown, MD 20876 

Phone: 301-353-1965 

E-mail: llaufe@mc.cc.md.us 

Charles Lidz, Ph.D.* 

Director, Center for Research on Mental Health Services 

Department of Psychiatry 

University of Massachusetts Medical Center 

*Unable to attend 2 
55 Lake Avenue North 

Worcester, MA 01655 

Phone: 508-856-5498 

E-mail: chuck.lidz@umassmed.edu 

Leslye Orloff, J.D. 

Senior Staff Attorney and Program Director 

Immigrant Women Program 

NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund 

1522 K Street, NW, Suite 550 

Washington, DC 20005 

Phone: 202-326-0040 

E-mail: lorloff@nowldef.org 

Sue Osthoff 

Director 

National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women 

125 S. 9th Street, Suite 302 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Phone: 215-351-0010 

E-mail: sueo@ncdbw.org 

Ellen Pence, Ph.D.* 

Executive Director 

Praxis International 

202 East Superior Street 

Duluth, MN 55802 

Phone: 218-722-4820 

E-mail: praxisep@aol.com 

Rose Pulliam, M.S.W. 

Statewide Coordinator 

Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 

P.O. Box 405 

Montpelier, VT 05601 

Phone: 802-223-1302 

E-mail: rose@vtnetwork.org 

Rachel Rodriguez, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor, School of Nursing 

University of Wisconsin 

600 Highland Avenue 

Madison, WI 53792 

Phone: 608-262-0051 

E-mail: rarodri1@facstaff.wisc.edu 

*Unable to attend 3 
Beverly Wilkins* 

Owner and Consultant 

Peaceful Nations 

1208 San Pedro, N.E., #212 

Albuquerque, NM 87110 

Phone: 505-268-5863 

E-mail: bjwilkins@msn.com 

Oliver Williams, Ph.D.* 

Executive Director 

Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community 

School of Social Work 

University of Minnesota 

290 Peters Hall 

1404 Gortner Avenue 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

Phone: 612-624-5357 

E-mail: owilliam@tc.umn.edu 

National Institute of Justice Participants 

Leora Rosen, Ph.D., M.P.H. 

Senior Social Science Analyst 

National Institute of Justice 

Office of Research and Evaluation 

Violence and Victimization Division 

810 Seventh Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20531 

Phone: 202-616-2452 

E-mail: rosenl@ojp.usdoj.gov 

Bernard Auchter 

Senior Social Science Analyst 

Office of Research and Evaluation 

Violence and Victimization Division 

810 Seventh Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20531 

Phone: 202-307-0154 

Email: auchter@ojp.usdoj.gov 

Project Team 

Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D. 

Principal Investigator 

Professor 

Department of Psychiatry 

*Unable to attend 4 
Georgetown University Medical Center 

620 Kober Cogan Hall 

Washington, DC 20007 

Phone: 202-687-1997 

E-mail: mad27@georgetown.edu 

Lisa Goodman, Ph.D. 

Co-Investigator 

Assistant Professor 

Department of Counseling & Developmental Psychology 

Boston College 

310 Campion Hall 

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 

Phone: 617-552-1725 

E-mail: goodmalc@bc.edu 

Aileen Worrell, M.S.W. 

Project Coordinator 

COSMOS Corporation 

3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 950 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Phone: 301-215-9100 ext 294 

E-mail: aworrell@cosmoscorp.com 

*Unable to attend 5 
NIJ-MCC Advisory Panel Meeting 

March 13, 2003 

Welcome and Introductions 

Overview of Grant and Purpose of the Study 

Mary Ann provided an overview of the grant. Some of the impetus was written into the 

proposal was the debate around gender symmetry. There was an early controversy in late 

70s and early 80s that faded away; more recently the debate has come back in terms of 

women’s use of violence, is the violence the same as men, does the violence have the 

same impact and is it of the same type. The resurgence led us to think about how we 

address this. Thanks to Mike’s work and Evan Stark which point at that not only do we 

need to look at the different violent acts but also to look at the aspect of coercion. If we 

can develop some measure of this aspect of coercion perhaps we can gain a better 

understanding of the difference in violence between women and men. Before we can get 

to measurement development, we had to get a conceptual framework in place. The first 

step of the project was to develop a conceptual framework. Second step is measurement 

development. Third step is the psychometric analysis. Fourth step is to do a preliminary 

analysis of the instrument with Mike’s work to see what does the instrument tell us. 

Hopefully, this project will provide preliminary work to this question. 

Mike shared his thinking regarding the whole issue of coercion and violence. It’s 

important to make a distinction between the types and levels of violence. For his 

typology, control is imperative and it is important for him to know information about 

both partners in the relationship. Most instruments do not look at the aspect of control 

and violence in both partners. Most instruments focus on the violence of one partner. 

Mike explained the four types of violence: intimate terriorism, which is rare; mutual 

couple violence; violent resistance; situational couple violence (formerly common couple 

violence). SCV can be very severe and fatal and can be frequent if there is a pattern of 

arguing over a particular issue or situation (such as when couples are drinking). 

Generally, SCV does not contain a pervasive pattern to control. Gender debate came to 

Mike’s attention when he went to Vietnam. What you see in a national survey is 

situational couple violence but what you see in shelters is intimate terriorism. What you 

see in the difference between the two types of violence is the results to victims. In the 

data sets, most of the women are predominate in violent resistant. Same sex distinctions 

cannot be made because we do not have the data. 

Ed wanted to know the level of analysis. He hears that there is a difference in the level of 

violence but he sees a range of different incidents in his work and patterns that ebb and 

flow that look like coercion. When do incidents and patterns become an analysis of the 

relationship? 

Mike agreed that Ed raised 4 important questions. He looks at patterns over time or over 

domains to define a relationship. He is primarily looking at victim reports of violence for 
data analysis. The individual versus the dyadic? He is looking at the dyadic data but is 

making an analysis of the individual. 

Walter proposes if you really want to test the typology need to look at item 10 of model 

regarding motivation. In order to identify the different types of control you need to go to 

the source of the problem and understand the motivation of the agent. 

Mary Ann agreed that we do need to look at that dimension. 

Walter states tapping into this will push the argument further. 

Lucy stated that understanding the motive of the agent will affect the decision made by 

the target. 

Rose asked Mike what we the aspect that made violence resistance from situation couple 

violence; Mike responded that the difference is that in violence resistance the batterer is a 

terriorist. 

Leora expressed that there may be other types of violence out there that we are not aware 

of that has nothing to do with gender symmetry. We should not restrict ourselves to 

looking at only 4 types of violence. Things are complex and there are different types of 

relationships with overlap between the types ex., he may be a terrorist but there may be 

times when she engages in situational couple violence. 

Leslye agreed that we need to understand aspect of coercion. 

Walter said a lot of the large scale surveys have not been designed to get at this aspect of 

coercion. People have not looked at the factors of motivation. And we need to look at 

the question “why” to understand the difference of violence among men and women. 

There seems to be a golden opportunity to look at the issue of motivation. 

Mike continued his discussion of the 4 points Ed raised: continuous versus points in time 

– when do you cut off the time period you are looking at to assess the relationship. The 

other point is that: change over time; a particular relationship could change among the 

different types of violence over time. There is not a lot of work on motivation. 

Holtzworth and Munroe is his favorite work. Most of Mike’s assessments have come 

from shelter victims. Mike encounters people who are very anxious for a measure. 

Purpose of the Study 

Mary Ann reviewed the proposal. Conceptually, we came from this grant from the 

theories of power. The aspects of reward and punishment were studied from the 

dimension of the coercion. The social aspects of power went into the foundation of the 

proposal. 
The context of violence and coercion is important to include in looking at the conceptual 

framework. Lisa stressed the difference between immigrant women and other women 

where “if you don’t do this I will leave you” will have a different impact based on the 

context (i.e., an immigrant woman who relies on her abuser for everything including 

communicating). 

Overview of the Conceptual Model 

Diagram of the model was reviewed. The motivation is an internal process which with a 

person may or may not have awareness of or insight into. The bold boxes in the model 

are the essential components of the model. The rest of the model is useful in defining the 

construct but would not necessarily explain the construct. Setting the stage helps us 

explain how someone got to this point in time so we can understand why a person would 

respond the way she did (i.e., if one heard objectively why someone did something they 

may wonder why someone would do something unless you knew what led up to the 

event). 

Psychological abuse and how it is part of setting the stage was discussed over the listserv 

discussion. If someone already comes to the relationship with prior incidents that can be 

exploited by the target, such as child abuse, etc... then that person may be more 

vulnerable to being coerced. 

Separating the two outcomes: Outcome 1 is the perception of the target that the target is 

willing, able, and ready. Sue and Leslye stressed that the word “perception” will not 

have an impact with judges because women are always thought to be “making this stuff 

up.” Sue and Leslye suggested that the word “understanding” would be better. 

Softening the target as it expressed in the model seems more pervasive where in reality it 

is usually more unpredictable and the unpredictableness of the situation and the 

punishment is in itself a “softening” of the target because it keeps the person off guard. 

Manipulation may result if coercion does not work. The form of manipulation may make 

the coercive process easier. 

Coercive process involves two processes that are contingent: communication of a 

demand, request, or expectation; and communication of a threat of meaningful negative 

consequence. In our definition and measure, we need to struggle with demand, rule, 

expectation, and the contingent threat or consequence. 

Ed thought process was too strong a word, perhaps an act would be better term to look at 

the act as part of the whole process. 

Surveillance also is important to knowing whether the act occurred. 

What is also important is the coercive outcome in terms of the response. The response 

does not define whether it is a coercive act. We can look at whether there is compliance 
to something you did not want to do. What if it was something you did not really mind 

doing, is it really compliance? The affect on the agent may alter changes and coercive 

process in terms of whether there is compliance or resistance. 

How to track change over time? In terms of compliance or resistance, the affect and 

result will change over time. It’s hard to measure this dimension with this methodology. 

Especially, with violent resistance when a woman will comply for years until finally she 

physically resists which is not a good response either but she gets labeled as being as 

abusive as her partner when she was trying to stop the violence. 

Social ecology – could ask about a particular strategy she used and why did she choose to 

use this strategy now. We are also looking at patterns over time. This type of question 

comes out of Hierarchy of Resort literature in medical anthropology; first you try this 

when your child is sick, then you do call the doctor if that does not work, etc. 

Surveillance – Sarah questioned whether there really has to be surveillance. Some 

batterers can not be involved in surveillance but accuse their partner of not doing it to 

keep the crazy making going. Women often cannot predict the outcome of their actions. 

Surveillance does not necessarily have to happen; she just hast to believe it’s possible. 

If one of the outcomes of the coercive process is to put someone in a subservient position 

and state of uncertainty. Because the person does not know what you will do next, there 

is a constant state of uncertainty. 

Fighting Back by June Bryant who killed her husband after years of abuse discusses 

many of these issues. 

Walter – batterers often state that they “lost control” and hit her. 

Mary Ann – do we want to think about the thing we are measuring as requiring these 3 

dimensions of the outcome (1), or focus on the act itself. Walter suggested that openended questions could be added to an instrument to understand the act. Rose thought the 

act was the focus and the surveillance helps explain the act. 

Mike – the issue that the judge needs a dichtomoy but we will not be able to provide a 

dichotomy without looking at the patterns and a relationship. 

Walter – if you limit it to specific situations, the judge may not buy it but will want to see 

a pattern. 

Mary Ann – does the definition have to have all of the components to be sufficient for 

judging an act to be coercive. 

Walter – a lot of women talk that they see themselves in major of danger of being killed 

but the coercion they experience is typically beyond the perview of the law. 
Rose – it’s the act within the context that we are looking at. I would hate to see a laundry 

list of acts. Doesn’t think it is possible to look at the acts outside of the context. We 

need to be able to look at the coercive process in terms of how meaning is made of the 

acts. 

Mary Ann suggested we get specific about the boxes to see if we A, B, and C to define 

coercion or is it A, B, or C or can you have B only but A and C help explain B. 

Walter thinks coercion will differ among different ethnic groups who’s definition of 

coercion will differ. 

Lucy – the tension between the culture and the individual in terms of raising issues. 

Walter – once you try to narrow the definition we will exclude a lot of acts that some may 

consider coercive. 

Setting the Stage: Creating Expectancy or Developing the Cognitive Set 

Page 5 of the revised model, number 7 

The willingness of the agent to engage in a threatened consequence must be 

communicated to the target. The communication may not be explicit. 

The question of whether a person is not only willing to do an act but also able to do it. 

Ability can be based on many things such as physical strength, access to money or 

weapons, or ability to use a third party’s resources. 

Physical size is an important dimension but also age is important. A lot of men will look 

for a younger woman because she is perceived as easier to manipulate and control. Age 

should be added as a variable. 

Rose – some things are not communicated but are inherent to culture or who and where 

you are. Methodologically, we can look at both but we need to look at the target’s 

perception of these things. For example, size and age are not communicated but are 

inherent. 

Leslye – how does the understanding of the meaning by the target get formed. 

Lisa – it’s her understanding of the situation. Some of the things he has never 

communicated; it is just the way it is. 

Walter – from a social context he thinks that will come into play. The studies of 

bystander involvement in social psychology to see how people will react. 

Lucy – the meaning and how it is created so that the target and agent have the same 

meaning of the act. 
Rose – the aspect of ready, willing, and able are good to look at. 

Sue – but a lot of people are ready, willing, and able but whether I care or not is 

important. 

Walter – but the social context would get at that. 

Sue – felt a lot of women are willing to try a lot of things in terms of being ready, willing, 

and able but the consequences are insignificant. 

Leora – if there was a way to present the information to a judge so you look at both 

pieces or what both partners do instead of just counting violent acts. 

Rose – but that is dangerous. 

Lisa – then maybe the Setting the Stage box needs to be bold. It’s necessary to 

understand whether the target has the ability to deliver rather than the ability to try. 

Mary Ann - Is the box “Setting the Stage” necessary to have coercion?

Walter – ability to deliver is subjective too. 

Lisa – in the eyes of the victim is the target able to carry through on a threat. 

Sarah – it appears that we have a very structural model. Would some of the constructs fit 

better under mediating or moderating factors?

Lisa – it’s only my ability to deliver that distinguishes my saying to my child “Go to your 

room” from him saying “No, you go to your room.” 

Walter – you could have variations of coercive control; a broad definition of coercive 

control with various components. Might want to consider breaking down the one 

instrument into different components. Then you may have an instrument for each 

component. So you would have one global scale with subscales that people could use 

depending on what is indicated by each scenario. 

Mary Ann – if we assume for the moment that we have a construct overall and look to see 

where the individual pieces fit. 

Sue – when you start pulling pieces of the model apart to develop separate subscales, my 

danger flags start going off (Rose agreed) and you begin looking at the situation out of 

context. 

Walter – there is only so much you can administer or measure to individuals. 
Rose – if we look at the model overall first instead of cutting it up now I would be less 

anxious instead of carving up the model into parts now. 

Sarah – I’m thinking about moderating and mediating factors and precursors to the act. 

Mike – is this discussion similar to the one on the listserv regarding the difference 

between coercion and control? I may be coercive but was I successful. 

Mary Ann – did the agent’s expectation get delivered to the target? Someone could 

understand the danger and choose to take the risk or not to take the risk. 

Mary Ann – if we come back to what is central to coercion, are there pieces of the model 

that need to be relocated on the model. 

Ed – what strikes him is that there are really 3 dimensions: the demand, the threat, and 

communicate the willingness and ability to carry through on the act. Much of the work 

they do in the BIP is to identify these 3 dimensions with the batterer. We do not focus on 

the reasons that lead to the 3 dimensions and the results of the act; but are behaviorally 

specific. 

Walter – you will have these indicators to define whether coercion occurred but at the 

end of the day a judgement will have to be made. Maybe what needs to be done is to 

operationalize coercion. 

Mary Ann – let’s ponder over lunch whether to move ability over to the Coercive Process 

box. 

Recap – two versions: someone’s understanding of being a target of coercion, and the 

agent’s motivation. We have a process of coercion now. 

Ed – ability also has a component of communication. Do you let the agent know that you 

have the ability (i.e., you own a gun and you tell the target that you have a gun). 

Walter – there is a danger of “everything but the kitchen sink” that can trivialize 

everything. 

Softening the Target/Wearing Down Target’s Resistance 

Mary Ann – once a coercive act occurs, it makes someone more vulnerable. 

Walter – does that mean we need a linear model: coercive outcome1 to coercive 

outcome2 and loop back to Softening the target. 

Leora – other actions that can be taken into account when setting the stage are things that 

have an impact much later on such as convincing her to quit her job or criticizing her 

family and friends leading eventually to cutting them off from their friends and family. 
Rachel also said love can be used to soften the target, “oh, stay with me tonight, I love 

you.” Using the love and jealousy dynamic to get someone “hooked” on the relationship 

and setting the stage for coercive. Giving gifts and softening someone up so they think 

they are really being loved but in fact are being softened up. 

Joyce – where does the aspect of isolation come in? It’s especially important in rural 

areas. 

Sue – softening someone up creates vulnerability. 

Rachel – in cultural context (Latino) women are taught to handle situations in 

relationships in a certain way (her mother could get her father to do anything she wanted 

as long as she let him think it was her idea). A lot of times, it may be manipulative but it 

doesn’t look like it from the outside. The question of what is a demand is difficult. What 

is the difference between a demand and an expectation? 

Leslye – that is the key: what you understand the consequences to be. 

Lisa – but it’s more to it than that because if she doesn’t care if he gets angry, than it may 

not be coercive. 

Leora – cultural expectations in terms of gender roles and expectations there are defined 

roles. Does a particular justify the use of violence? If so, then what? In our own 

culture/society because nothing or little was done in terms of battering that in itself is a 

form of tolerance for violence. 

Lisa – are we going to define coercion for a community that sees violence as legitimate. 

Ed – assumptions (number 2) states that distinguishing “acceptable” versus 

“unacceptable” forms of coercion is determined by social norms. 

Leslyle – would like to take the physical aspect (i.e., beating) out of the discussion. She 

gets uncomfortable when we talk about violence being acceptable by certain cultures 

because it gets muddied. If we take a beating out of the discussion, is there a negative 

consequence that the agent experiences other than a beating. 

Rachel – need to distinguish between legitimacy versus reality. Violence is not 

acceptable in Latino culture; we fight that stereotype all the time. We need to take 

“acceptable” out of the discussion.and focus on what she accepts as the reality of the 

situation or what she understands will be a negative consequence. 

Leslye – if you get the behavior and how it affects her that is what is important. 

Walter – you will need to let others tailor it to fit their communities. 
Lisa – to make the instrument concrete we are going to need concrete items which means 

culture will come into play because we can’t leave culture out but we will have to have 

concrete items that will be able to used with people from multiple cultures. 

Walter – to develop a standardize measure (9 parts art; one part science) you need to 

come up with items that will have appeal to the greatest audience. 

Ed – or you may come up with a list of items that “trips” something in the person being 

interviewed so they understand what you are meaning with your question. 

Walter – as researchers we are often caught in a quaqmire, because people from different 

ethnic groups are telling them all the time that there is so much variation within their own 

culture that the questions will not capture all the variation in the community. 

Rose – her concern is that you develop a measure that you think is culturally competent 

and you find variation among the different groups, you think your results are the answer 

(Latinos are like this and African Americans are like that) but really that may not be the 

results at all but the instrument is erroneously giving you those results because it did not 

really capture the true item being measured. 

Mike – perhaps explore the idea of having passed a certain number of thresholds to put 

you in a category of coercive. 

Mary Ann – understanding coercion is a flip side of the equation. 

Sue – her understanding of the why is key. 

Walter – when you want to understand why someone is doing something you need to go 

to the source, which is the agent. Need to focus most of your attention to the agent in 

terms of motivation. For data, you can get this information from the target. 

Ed – the biggest factor in risk assessments is “likelihood” and he has found that the 

women are very good at assessing likelihood. 

Walter – agree with Ed although likelihood doesn’t tell you anything about why. 

Sarah – does not see Outcome 1 as a flip side of the act. 

Ed – outcome 1 is really risk perception. 

Leslye – it seems to be if she sees him as able and feels afraid and if you weigh in the 

“readiness” piece you may kick out people who actually feel coerced. 

Mary Ann – does coercion mean a separate assessment of each component of willingness, 

ability, and readiness? Everything in the box is about perception or understanding. 
Leslye and Mike – include likelihood and take out the “why now” piece. 

Ed – the term “communication” indicates that you have a sender and a receiver of 

communication. 

Walter – you are going to have discrepancies between the sexes in terms of accounts of 

violence. 

Mike – agent and target will differ in what they say. 

Lisa – initially we will not be administering the instrument to couples so we will not 

being able to assess the differences. 

Lisa – if a woman feels coerced and acts on that perception, isn’t that coercion?

Walter – if you are not interviewing couples, you do not have the interactive data set. 

Mike – when you asking about the “why” you will get different answers between the 

agent and target, but if you focus on the behaviors you will get more agreement. 

Compliance versus Resistance 

Mary Ann – the difference between compliance and resistance is not always that clear 

cut. 

Mike – “indirect resistance” can be compliance. Indirect resistance may mean I’m going 

to go along to mitigate the violence today so that I can plan to leave tomorrow. 

Mary Ann – Compliance and resistance are a dichotomy and are melded. 

Leora – it’s often a way of coping. 

Walter – interactive dynamic; compliance one time, resistance another time. A 

continuium almost where at first it starts as compliance then leads to resistant compliance 

to outright resistance. 

Lisa – couldn’t all resistance be considered “resistance.” Lisa proposed the term strategic 

response. 

Lucy – suggested adaptive response may be a better term than strategic response. 

Walter – thought we will get feedback that compliance initially was done to please their 

partner. 

Mary Ann – the compliance again was to avoid a negative consequence. 
Leslye – the negative consequence could be her partner’s displeasure. 

Mary Ann – the measure may not be able to capture the relationship over time. But could 

capture the responses over time. With some of the research Lisa and I have done we 

found that often people placated more over time. 

Walter – the measure is also taking “choice” into consideration which is good because we 

often think of humans as hollow beings. 

Leslye – we should get a lot of rich data because often women are seen as doing nothing 

but they often have done a lot. We should be able to get quantifiable data that would 

detail some of the strategies women use. 

Rose – you will still have women say they did nothing when that is really doing 

something. 

Mary Ann – there are many variations to doing nothing and what would doing nothing 

look like. 

Joyce – external versus internal involvement; it may appear that they are complying 

externally but internally they are disengaged. 

Walter – especially with extreme violence, you will often hear someone say “I left my 

marriage years ago” when they mean internally because they are still living together. 

Ed – passive aggressive behavior is another dynamic. 

Mary Ann – you say “sure I’ll do it” but you have no intention of doing it. 

Rose – you have people saying “I wanted to do that myself, anyway” where it may not 

appear to be compliance but is a form of passive behavior or lack of insight on the part of 

the target who did not want to acknowledge the compliance and the reasons for it. 

Mary Ann – “I’m not being controlled because I wanted to do it.” 

Walter – are you going to ask for outcomes for each coercive act. Mary Ann said no. 

Then Walter said we may want to ask about the most recent coercive event or what you 

did most commonly and what was the outcome. Then you be looking at patterning. 

Mike – separate from the measurement issue is the level of compliance and resistance. 

Lucy – in my own research when I have had to grapple with a tx issue, I have asked 

“have you ever done this or that” to develop a list. 

Sue – is there an assumption that violence has been used in every relationship. Group 

said no. Perhaps need to know when the violence occurred in the relationship because 
the compliance and coercion may have changed after the point of time when violence 

occurred. Fear in a very direct way is an issue. I can be compliant but not fearful. One 

of the things between men and women who are violent is the aspect of fear. 

Rose – fear and severity of the outcome comes into play with coercive outcome 2 with 

compliance and resistance. 

Lisa – the threat of negative consequences are some of the items we will need to 

consider. 

Rose – the meaning of what people define is “meaningful” is instrumental. 

Lisa – what came out to her in doing these interviews was the fear of him leaving the 

relationship. 

Sue – if women are describing that him leaving her is as bad as being beaten or 

deportation, she doesn’t know what to do with that . 

Leslye – there may be no threat of deportation or leaving but a threat of embarrassment or 

harassment is coercive. 

Rose – we want to attempt to tease out what is different from coercion in most everyday 

relationships from real coercive in violent relationships. Maybe we need to consider 

what is it about him or her leaving that we need to define (psychological versus 

pragmatic). 

Ed – maybe we want a clinical instrument as opposed to a self-administered instrument. 

Mary Ann – we are going to look at the difference between the self report surveys versus 

the indepth interviews we conduct following the self-report questionnaires. 

Ed – In terms of outcome 2, we have looked at what is the agent’s response to the target’s 

compliance or resistance. Mary Ann stated that was a good point 

Walter – severity of the violence is deceiving; Michael D. Smith found that a slap can 

knock out teeth; a shove can cause a concussion. 

Mike – some of the criticisms he has heard about violence against women is that the 

research leaves out the coercive things that women do. 

Leslye – we need to look at the coercive tactics that coexist with violence and social 

issues and that applies to men and women. Does coercive tactics used by women also 

include threats to deport someone, take away the kids, kill you, etc. We may find that 

threats to leave the relationship are as devastating to the target as the other threats but the 

research may also lead to controlling patterns of behavior that is quantifiably different for 

targets and agents. 
Rose – suppose we have a range of things that are considered threatening and we find out 

that women are as coercive as men – so what. I’m interested in how the coercion is 

different. If we tease out the differences, perhaps we can come up with some indicators 

that tells us something about the severity of the violence. 

Ed – the end point will be different for men and women because of all the contextual 

things. We don’t know from the model what the outcome of Box 5 will be. Men are 

more likely to become physical. 

Rachel – shared having been in a coercive relationship without the violence. “I will 

never leave you” is the coercive tactic used in her relationship. She was told “I will kill 

myself” if you leave and I will never leave you unless you make me. The coercion plays 

on you and never leaves you – 15 years later the feeling is still with her. 

Leslye and Rachel – how do you capture that feeling that 20 years later I am still afraid as 

a result of the coercive relationship. How has your life changed? 

Walter – the issue of surveillance is important. How many men are hunted down by the 

ex-partners and killed? 

Ed – we can let the target decide on the severity of the coercion and how it is affecting 

her life. I think Dobash’s instrument is trying to do that to capture fear and uncertainty. 

The fear can vary based on the severity of the coercion. 

Rachel – look at the outcome in terms of how it affects the quality of your life. 

Walter – coercion and control are very different based on gender. The rest of the 

instrument will uncover the difference. Degrees of seriousness will show a sharp 

difference based on power and the ability of men to exercise more power and have access 

to more resources than women generally. 

Sue – does the threat to leave the relationship actually control the behavior? 

Lisa – is it control when the threat makes the target change her behavior? 

Rachel – it’s control when you have to think about your behavior. 

Walter – or perhaps if it changes your biology or physiology; example when a friend of 

his hears a racial remark, it ruins his week. 

Mary Ann – I wonder when I think of Coercive Outcome 1 it seems that it’s just trying to 

measure the understanding of coercion but if we consider that state of being “controlled”. 

Leora – son told her country music on the radio was child abuse. 
Ed – definition of control on page 1 of the draft model (section 4) presses us more to 

define coercion. Coercion and control can be a noun or adjective. 

Mike – the Dobash’s Quality of Life instrument is worth looking at as a possible way to 

measure the aspect of 15 years later she is still afraid. 

Lisa – by definition anyone who is controlled is being coerced. So we need to pick one. 

I think what women experience they have more choice. Women would not want to say 

that I am being controlled always. 

Mary Ann – one could ask control of what? Control of my behavior, thoughts, or what 

aspects. Get at not only that a person has engaged in a coercive act but it altered her 

thoughts and actions. 

Sue – if we say every aspect of coercion is a form of control then it worries me that we 

look at all demands as coercive. People make demands all the time. 

Rachel – that’s why we have to couple it with the quality of life issue. Looking at one 

without the other is where you get lost. 

Rose – there is coercion that matters and that does not. 

Rachel – it’s the what it does to you that matters. 

Leslye – the items would be did it change my behavior, affect your life. 

Lucy – the target makes every decision thinking of the agent first. 

Mike – the aspect of violence. 

Lisa and Leora – that it’s an empirical question. 

Tomorrow – look at measurement development. 
NIJ-MCC Advisory Panel Meeting 

March 14, 2003 

Mary Ann – reviewed changes to model (schematic). 

Ed – the word “request” doesn’t work for him because it’s usually not a request that the 

target do something. 

Leora – perhaps the word “instruct” would fit better or to put request in quotes. 

Mike – I’ve added a box labeled “increased expectancy” that increases over time from 

past experiences. 

Walter – asked how we were going to test the model. 

Mary Ann – this is a conceptual model and we will not be able to test the model as it is in 

this state. The model attempts to look at coercion in the social context. 

Leora – given the demand and threat; may need to consider the cultural context regarding 

whether the expectation is legitimate in that culture. 

Lucy – an example could be dress, in some cultures women’s dress is proscribed and if 

the envelope is being pushed then a particular culture may deem it appropriate for the 

man to intervene and demand that his wife dress more appropriate. 

Walter – ask within your sociodemographic section, what culture do you identify with. 

Often we he asked about racial identity, people will respond American or White 

Canadian, etc so you may want closed categories. 

Leora – culture is something to consider in the results. 

Mary Ann – we could ask how they or their group identify a “demand” based on their 

legitimacy. We would not define the demand as coercion. 

Rose – so what do we do with this? 

Leora – the information could be used so it does not discriminate against someone or a 

particular culture. It makes you take into consideration how the results fit in with a 

particular culture. 

Walter – the sample will contain a variety of people so chances are you will get primarily 

from European background. You may not be able to get all the representation from the 

different ethnic groups. 

Ed – I thought a lot of this information would come from the social context. 
Leslye – I have concern about what people think is legitimate and where is that going to 

get us. A lot of time people are told something is legitimate when it is not. I don’t know 

if we need to go there. 

Leora – I think this has relevance in terms of interventions. If people are told that 

something is legitimate, then we need to be aware of this when providing services or 

trying to help victims. 

Sue – the word legitimate makes her nervous. 

Mary Ann – would the word “approve” be better. Would people in your culture approve 

of your doing this? 

Rose – the word culture is so broad; community means different things to different 

people. 

Walter – I think we need to broaden the definition. Ask an open ended question, what 

ethnic or cultural group do you identify with? Someone within a particular community 

such as the Hmong may want to tailor the questionnaire to their culture. 

Lisa – asking if people in your community would think this is an okay way to behave 

would be a good question. 

Mary Ann – when we have left the ethnic question open, then we have gotten responses 

such as “Baptist” so it’s worked better to provide closed categories. 

Ed – on the surveillance box on the model; the range that can be involved in surveillance. 

Some people just surmise; a lot of men act as judge, jury, and executioner/prosecutor (see 

Barbara Hart). A lot of men don’t need the evidence from surveillance because they have 

already have made up their mind. They know you can’t be trusted so they do not have to 

conduct surveillance. 

Lucy – suggested that verification might be a better word for surveillance and 

surveillance would be a subset of verification. 

Mary Ann reviewed draft instrument (tab 7) 

Mary Ann – attempting to tap into each of the constructs being assessed. Are these the 

correct constructs and the correct domains? 

Rose – what concerns me about asking how important this is to you. Once there is a 

threat involved, then that sets the frame for whether you wanted to do something or not. 

Leora – how would you distinguish between a relationship where one partner tells the 

other something to do and the other does it willingly from one that is overall controlling. 
Mary Ann – the demands by themselves are not enough to judge coercion. For example, 

could you lower the shades are not in itself coercive unless there is also a threat of 

negative consequences. If it is something I really want to do then you can’t coerce me. 

The importance of the target’s actions are related to the severity of the threat. Example, 

yes, I wanted to do it because I did not want to die or get beat up. 

Rose and Mary Ann – suggested leaving out how important this was to you from the 

questionnaire. 

Sarah – expressed concern in terms of sexual assault when the issue of consensual sex is 

raised. 

Walter – Mary Koss’s measures of sexual assault are very good to identify whether 

someone wanted to engage in sexual encounters. 

Walter – suggested an expansion of the preamble to let respondents know what we are 

looking for with our questions. 

Mary Ann – what abut the domains or potential items. 

Sue – the range of the demands that batterers expect is so broad and a lot of those things 

are not included in these items. Perhaps we could include an other category. 

Mary Ann – I agree that the list is endless. 

Sarah – is it important to include every little type of incident or to get a sample of 

responses from a range of people. When we do pilot tests, we include an other category 

and if a particular item keep coming up then we add it to the questionnaire. 

Walter – those that use supplementary open-ended questions increase the responses they 

get from participants. 

Lisa – will these items provide a continuous score. 

Mary Ann – that raises the question how do you construct the score. 

Ed – some of these are psychometric questions that may become clearer. 

Mary Ann – I think we can construct the score as we go along. 

Sarah – some of the problems to come from how you use these scores together. Lisa 

agreed. 

Leslye – so you are trying to weigh how bad the incident. 

Leora – do you also want to add “kept you from doing something.” 
Mary Ann – we did that during the ethnographic interviews and it became cumbersome. 

Sarah – you may need to have more specificity; some of the questions are too abstract. 

Example: “related to leaving or staying in the house” is not concrete enough for people to 

respond. 

Walter – agreed with Sarah but also stressed that you want to get the multiplicity of the 

responses. You may want to include some examples in parenthesis but keep it broad to 

get as many types of incidents. 

Rachel – you may want to include “how you use money.” 

Sue – how you use the car is another one; having sex with others. 

Walter – pornography is a big one. 

Rose – whether she can participate in outside activities. 

Leslye – whether she can do an activity without being monitored. 

Rachel – is she allowed to do things by herself or on her own. 

Ed – coerced to use alcohol or drugs, perform illegal acts. 

Rachel – health needs to be added; some men prevent women from coming to clinic by 

selling car, discourage them from losing weight or encourage them to lose weight. 

Ed – can use other under each domain to get a list of items instead of adding too many 

and making the instrument too lengthy. 

Rose – need to change the word “important.” 

Walter – put it in the preamble. 

Lisa – is there a way to cut or combine some of these items so it is not as lengthy. 

Leora – there is; she has seen it done with the CTS. Group the items into what you 

consider logical groups. 

Sue – if you grouped the items I think you could lose the nuances. 

Walter – don’t rank items by severity. 

Mary Ann – do we want to know how much they did or did not want to do something?
Walter – I don’t think it’s important to include that question. 

Lucy – may not be able to answer this question now; try a pilot and see what you get. 

Sue – I think the importance part is key. I think it’s important to know this information 

before going to the next step. 

Rachel – from a qualitative point, I don’t think I would know what this meant. I don’t 

think this will get that information for you. 

Mary Ann – reviewed the perceived threat (Item b). 

Ed and Sue – asked for clarification for discrete threats. 

Mike – you are trying to maintain the contingency with the demands. 

Mary Ann – agreed. Want to distinguish between a relationship in which there are 

demands but no threats and threats but no demands. 

Ed – it seems that you ask have these things happen to you then you ask how likely these 

things would happen if you did not do what you wanted. 

Sarah – Mark Warr (1985, J of Social Problems) has developed on instrument on these 

type of questions. 

Leslye – the threat of deportation needs to be included in list on page 2 and never to see 

kids again (which is different from taking them away), threatening to destroy papers or 

things they brought away from their country. 

Walter – threatening with notification of authorities regarding public housing or 

threatening to do something so she loses her job. 

Leora – there could be other threats in terms of exposure (outing, telling your employer 

that you have mental problems). 

Ed – a methodological point is that it seems like all we have done is elaborate all the 

controlling and threats that are out there. It seems there should be something more. The 

instrument doesn’t seem to give us the dimension of coercion we are trying to get at. 

Mike – in one way everything we have is in the control wheel but this theoretical 

framework made me realize why we need all these things in there to have a coercive 

relationship. The whole top row of boxes are coercion. 

Ed – why not use the power and control wheel. 
Rachel – there is something missing; there seems to be more going on; there is something 

that makes this relationship coercive. I think it’s going to be difficult to measure that 

aspect. 

Walter – Page 7 of proposal states what coercion implies and requires. When you bring 

up the thing power; you got to have something about the person’s power. Not only to 

have enough power to punish but the target’s perception of power becomes critical. 

Lisa – doesn’t likelihood and ability imply that the person has the power? 

Rose – it depends on whether we are talking about the bolded boxes or concrete coercive 

acts. 

Lisa – you need to ask about the threat with the acts so it’s contingency. The threat with 

a demand is needed to capture the contingency. 

Mary Ann – you need the demand and the threat plus the ability to carry through. 

Lisa – could you ask for threats within each domain. 

Ed – it gets you closer. 

Rose – why would you need to know for each demand the specific threat.

Mike – I’m hearing 3 different levels of specificity: for each demand, what was the 

threat; if you had demands and you had threats; and then the more general by domains 

and asking what were the threats in each domain. 

Sue – it still doesn’t get to implied threat and I don’t know how you’re going to get that. 

Lisa – could have 3 columns with the acts, threats, and your understanding of the threat. 

Mary Ann – instead of measuring two co-occurring sets of behaviors, we need to connect 

the demand with the threat. Does she think these things are just going to happen or does 

she think that these things are going to happen if she doesn’t comply. 

Mike – the contingency is central. Can we ask straight out if you didn’t do this did you 

think something would happen?

Lisa – but how does this get at the implied threat. 

Walter – patterning will get you to the information you want. 

Lisa – the laundry list of items may give us the pervasiveness of the coercion. 
Walter – may want to ask about relationships that occurred within the past 2 years or over 

a lifetime. 

Mary Ann – do we ask for an index relationship or across relationships?

Walter – ask across relationships; have you ever had a relationship in which this 

happened. 

Mike – that approach is risky because you get a lot of different responses that you will 

not be able to connect. 

Lisa and Sarah – we think we need to ask about a particular relationship. Sarah tried 

asking about any relationship they have had and the data was not compelling. 

Walter – if you are going to look at people in cohabitating relationships; people drift in 

and out of relationships all the time. 

Joyce – if you focus on most recent relationship than you get the specificity you want and 

you may under detect. 

Walter – asking for all relationships, then we get to the prevalence of coercion. 

Mike – we want to get at the incidence and pattern of coercion in a relationship and that’s 

why we need to focus on one relationship. 

Lisa – Mike, have you defined when a pattern is a pattern. 

Mike – I have discussed it but have not defined it. You can do cluster analysis and look 

at the relationship between that and a simple scale. 

Ed – there is something about the frequency of these things over a period of time. 

Walter – if you have a large number in each subset of the population; what are you going

to say – will you generalize to the population. 

Mike – think you can ask community sample about most recent relationship and ask 

identified victims or batterers about their violent relationship. It is important to have 

more of the checklist from existing surveys should be in our questionnaire to check to see 

if things are highly correlated. 

Walter – Smith’s instrument on attitudes toward women is a good measure. 

Lisa – what instruments are important to include to help us understand coercion: 

autonomy will be low when coercion is high for discriminant validity but how do you 

measure autonomy in relationship in which the partner does not want to be autonomous. 
Sarah – ambivalent sexism by Glick and Fiske instrument. 

Ed – rationalizations and minimalization are two areas where we think this “typifies” 

batterers. 

Leora – a curious thing she came across was the National Comorbidity Study that looked 

at psychiatric illness but they also included the CTS and she came across a variable that 

asked about power in a relationship: The questions were “in your relationship, who has 

more say in making a final decision you or your spouse? Who has more power you or 

your spouse? Then there was a range of the power you have in the relationship. The ones 

that felt they had no control, had the most violence. 

Walter – Blood and Wolfe’s instrument is the one Leora was referring to. 

Ed – what comes first to mind is the Straus and Gelles measure where they found two 

extremes. Narcissism with the inflated self esteem shows up predominately. 

Mike – Holtzworth Monroe found this to be the case. 

Leora – a study she did which will appear in VAW she found two predictors of male 

violence: little to no male peer support and alcohol use. 

Walter – he has five measures that test for indebtedness that he will send to Lisa. 

Leora – thinks the coercive control instrument will be able to pick up the discrepancy 

between actions and what they believe. 

Walter – power and sex go hand in hand. Sex is the number one source seen as coercion 

by men and this is where you will see the most entitlement by men. 

Ed – a way to get this contingency may be to put two columns and have severity of threat 

from zero to five and the degree of the likelihood. Then ask the type of demand. The 

demand itself isn’t as important as the severity of the threat. The severity is in the tactic. 

The demand is the door you go in first. 

Rose – I think we lose something with this approach because if I think you are going to 

do something then the threat is more severe. 

Mary Ann – what if go to consequences which are tied to the agent (consequences to 

him). 
Appendix I

Transmittal E-Mail and Consensus Rating Survey 
Appendix I 

TRANSMITTAL EMAIL AND CONSENSUS RATINGS SURVEY 

National Institute of Justice 

Coercive Control in Intimate Partner Violence 

August 22, 2003 

Dear Colleague: 

)

/mcc/

j ) 

Sincerely, 

) 

Re: Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure for Intimate Partner Violence 

REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN CONSENSUS RATINGS 

We are requesting your assistance in our efforts to develop a measure of nonviolent coercive control. We are 

developing and validating this measure as part of the project, 'Development and Validation of a Coercive Control 

Measure for Intimate Partner Violence,' which is being funded by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Until now, ongoing efforts to understand the relational context of intimate partner violence have been hampered 

by two significant obstacles: 1) the field has yet to develop a clear theoretical understanding of coercive control, 

and 2 there exists no adequate measure of nonviolent coercive control. As part of this project, we have developed 

a measure of coercive control, with the help of our national advisory panel of experts. Now, we are requesting 

your assistance; the input of professionals in the field is the final important step in finalizing the development of 

this measure prior to validation testing. 

We are requesting that you complete a consensus rating survey. The survey asks you to rate the extent to which 

items on the newly developed measure capture the construct of coercive control. You may complete the survey 

online at http://www.cosmoscorp.com . For your convenience, both e-mail and plain text versions of the 

survey are attached to this message. The consensus ratings survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes to 

complete. We are hopeful that you can complete and submit the survey by September 10, 2003. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our pro ect coordinator, Darci Terrell, at (405 969-3078; 

dterrell@cosmoscorp.com. Thank you again for your assistance on this important project. 

Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D., Principal Investigator 

Lisa Goodman, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigator 

Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D. 

Professor 

Department of Psychiatry 

620 Kober Cogan Hall 

Georgetown University 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Phone: (202 687-1997 

Lisa Goodman, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor 

Department of Counseling Psychology 

Boston College 

140 Commonwealth Avenue 

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 

Phone: (617) 552-1725 








Appendix J 

Coercive Control Survey, In-depth Interview Protocol, and Consent Forms 

J-1 Coercive Control Survey Consent Form and Questionnaire 

J-2 In-depth Interview Consent Form and Protocol 

J-3 Coercive Control Survey Consent Form and Questionnaire—Spanish 

J-4 In-depth Interview Consent Form, Protocol, and Debriefing—Spanish 
Appendix J-1 

Coercive Control Survey Consent Form and Questionnaire 
Coercive Control Measure, Page 1 of 2 IRB No.: 02-280 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Consent to Participate in Research 

Project Name: Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure for Intimate Partner Violence 

Principal Investigator: Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D. Telephone: 202-687-1997 

Project Coordinator: Darci Terrell Telephone: 405-969-3078 

Sponsor: The National Institute of Justice 

The Georgetown University Institutional Review Board has given approval for this research project. For 

information on your rights as a research subject, call the Institutional Review Board office: 202-687-1506. 

Introduction: You are invited to consider participating in this research study. We will be evaluating aspects 

of control in relationships. This form will describe the purpose and nature of the study, its possible risks and 

benefits, other options available to you, and your rights as a participant in the study. Please take whatever 

time you need to discuss the study with anyone you care to talk with. The decision to participate or not is 

yours. If you decide to participate, please sign and date the last line of this form. 

Background and purpose of the study: We are conducting this study to better understand ways in which 

men and women’s attempts to control each other affect their relationships. Prior studies on violent 

relationships have focused mostly on the level of violence in the relationship and not as much on the level of 

control in the relationship. By conducting this study, we hope to learn about the differences in violent 

couples beyond the level of violence alone. 

Total number of people: A total of about 600 people will take part in this phase of the study. 

General plan of the study: Researchers will administer questionnaires to individuals over 18 years of age. 

It should take you about one hour to fill out the questionnaire and we will provide a space where you can do 

so in privacy. You will be asked to answer such questions as “Were there times in your relationship when 

you felt controlled by your partner?” After you fill out the questionnaire, we will spend a few minutes 

talking about what participating in this study was like for you. If you feel upset or would like to talk with 

someone further about your safety or about the feelings you might have after completing the questionnaire, 

we will give you information about resources where you can talk with someone. 

Length of the study for each subject: We expect that you will be in the study for one hour. 

Possible benefits of participating in the study: There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this 

study. However, the information you share with us during the study will help us to understand more about 

relationships where one or both partners attempt to control the other. The results of this study will also be 

helpful to improve the effectiveness of intervention programs. 

Possible risks of participating in the study: If your partner finds out about your participation in the study, 

you could be at increased risk if he or she chooses to retaliate in some way. Also, the questions in the 

questionnaire may raise uncomfortable or upsetting issues for you. However, you may find that having the 

opportunity to think about your experiences is helpful to you in some way, although participation in this 

study is not considered counseling or any other type of therapeutic service. 
Coercive Control Measure, Page 2 of 2 IRB No.: 02-280 

Who can participate in the study: Anyone over 18 years of age who is in a relationship in which at least 

one incident of violence has occurred within the last 12 months may participate in the study. 

Confidentiality of the data collected during the study: Your responses to the interview questions will 

remain confidential. No names or personally identifying characteristics will be recorded on the questionnaire 

you fill out. This form will be stored in a locked cabinet separately from your completed questionnaire. The 

researcher will code your questionnaire with a number. The researcher will be the only one who can link 

your name to the number. The questionnaire will be kept in a locked drawer and will be destroyed at the end 

of the study. Only the research team will have access to the questionnaire. No names or identifying details 

will be used in any publication or other documents resulting from this study. All data collected from this 

study will be presented as a group, so that no one can identify any one individual within the study. 

If you tell us of a child who is being abused or of your intent to harm someone else or yourself, we are 

obligated break to report that information to the appropriate authorities. 

HIPPA Compliance: This project does not involve obtaining any information about you from any medical 

or other health care records. 

Costs to you for participating: There are no costs to you for participating in this study. 

Payments to you for participating: You will be paid $20 for your time for participating in this study, and 

additionally, by completing and submitting the survey you will be eligible to receive one of three $100 

raffles. Also, if needed, child care and transportation costs of up to $10 will be provided. 

Your rights as a participant in the study: Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You have the 

right to leave the study at any time. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. 

Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Should you 

decide to leave the study, just tell the interviewer that you no longer wish to participate. 

Questions: Should you have any questions at any time about this study, please contact Dr. Mary Ann 

Dutton at 202-687-1997. If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, call the 

Georgetown University Institutional Review Board office at 202-687-1506. 

Investigator's statement: I have fully explained this study to the subject. I have discussed the procedures, 

the possible risks and benefits, the standard and research aspects of the study, and have answered all of the 

questions that the subject and the subject's family members have asked. 

Signature of investigator ___________________________ Date _________________ 

Subject's consent 

I have read the information provided in this Informed Consent Form or it was read to me by the investigator. 

All my questions were answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. 

[Upon signing, you will receive a copy of this form. The original will be kept in a locked drawer and will be 

destroyed at the end of the study.] 

Your signature _______________________________________ Date _____________ 

Signature of investigator/witness __________________________________ Date _____________ 

SECTION 1 ID NUMBER

34632 

1. What is your age? 

1a. What is your sex? Male Female


2. What is your ethnicity/race? 

Shade in all that apply 

African American/Black


Caucasian


Latina/Latino


Asian American or Pacific Islander


American Indian


Other


2a. In which country were you born? 

2b. If other than U.S., how many years have you lived in the US? 

3. How many children do you have? 

4. What is your job situation? 

Shade in all that apply 

Working full-time


Working part-time


In the military


Unemployed


Retired and not working


A student


A homemaker


Other


5. Are you receiving any federal or state assistance? No
 Yes


34632 

Page 1 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

6. What is the highest level of school you have completed? 

Shade in only one circle 

Less than 8th grade


9th grade


10th grade


11th grade


12th grade


Trade school


Some college (or in college)


2 Year Associates Degree


4 Year College Degree (BA/BS)


Attended graduate school


7. Including income from all sources, such as work, child support, public assistance, and family help, about how much 

money did you personally receive in 2002 before taxes? 

Shade in only one circle 

Less than $5,000


$5,000 to $10,000


$11,000 to $15,000


$16,000 to $20,000


$21,000 to $25,000


$26,000 to $30,000


$31,000 to $35,000


$36,000 to $40,000


$41,000 to $45,000


$46,000 to $50,000


$51,000 to $55,000


Over $55,000


34632 

Page 2 of 28 CCS T1.8 
ID NUMBER 

34632 

PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

8. Are you currently involved with an intimate partner? Yes -(if yes, skip to question 8b) 

8a. If you are not currently involved with an intimate partner, how long has it been since you were involved in your most 

recent relationship with an intimate partner? 

No


Shade in only one circle 

Less than 6 months ago
 6 months to 12 months ago
 1 to 2 years ago


8b. How long have you been involved in your current relationship or, if you are not currently in an intimate relationship, 

how long were you involved in your most recent intimate relationship? 

Shade in only one circle 

Less than 6 months


6 months to 12 months


1 to 2 years


2 to 3 years


3 to 4 years


4 to 5 years


5 to 6 years


6 to 7 years


7 to 8 years


8 to 9 years


9 to 10 years


9. What is the relationship status with your current intimate partner or, if you are not currently in an intimate relationship, 

what was the relationship status with your most recent intimate partner? 

10 to 11 years


11 to 12 years


12 to 13 years


13 to 14 years


14 to 15 years


15 to 16 years


16 to 17 years


17 to 18 years


18 to 19 years


19 to 20 years


More than 20 years


Shade in only one circle 

Legally married
 Committed relationship
 Dating
 Casual relationship


10. What is your living arrangement with your current intimate partner or, if you are not currently in an intimate 

relationship, what was your living arrangement with your most recent intimate partner? 

Shade in only one circle 

Living together
 Living together on and off
 Living separately


34632 

Page 3 of 28 CCS T1.8 
ID NUMBER 

34632 

PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

SECTION 2A 

Answer the following questions in relation to your current intimate partner if you have 

one - or your most recent intimate partner if you are not currently in an intimate 

relationship. 

Sometimes people demand things from their intimate partners even without saying it 

in words. We are interested in knowing what your partner has demanded from you. 

Question: In the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship, did YOUR PARTNER 

demand something related to 

Personal activities/Appearance 

1. Leaving the house (e.g. not want you to leave).-----------------------------> 

2. Eating.---------------------------------------------------------------------> 

3. Sleeping in certain places or at certain times.-----------------------------> 

4. Wearing certain clothes.----------------------------------------------------> 

5. Maintaining a certain weight.-----------------------------------------------> 

6. Using TV, radio, or the internet.-------------------------------------------> 

7. Viewing sexually explicit material.-----------------------------------------> 

8. Bathing or using the bathroom-----------------------------------------------> 

9. Answering the phone.--------------------------------------------------------> 

10. Reading certain things.--------------------------------------------------> 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Support / Social life / Family 

11. Talking on the phone.----------------------------------------------------> 

12. Spending time with friends or family members.----------------------------> 

13. Going to church, school, or other community activities.------------------> 

14. Talking to a counselor, clergy, or someone else about personal or family 

matters.-----------------------------------------------------------------> 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

15. Taking care of dependent relatives.--------------------------------------> 

16. Taking care of pets.-----------------------------------------------------> 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

34632 

Page 4 of 28 CCS T1.8 
34632 

PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER

Question: In the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship, did YOUR PARTNER 

demand something related to 

Household 

17. Taking care of the house.------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

18. Buying or preparing foods.-----------------------------------------------> Yes No 

19. Living in certain places.------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

Work / Economic / Resources 

20. Working.-----------------------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

21. Spending money, using credit cards or bank accounts.---------------------> Yes No 

22. Learning another language.-----------------------------------------------> Yes No 

23. Going to school.---------------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

24. Using the car or truck.--------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

Health 

25. Using street drugs.------------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

26. Using alcohol.-----------------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

27. Going to the doctor.-----------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

28. Taking medication or prescriptions drugs.--------------------------------> Yes No 

Intimate Relationship 

30. Spending time with your partner.-----------------------------------------> 

31. Separating or leaving the relationship.----------------------------------> 

29. Talking to your partner.-------------------------------------------------> 

32. Having sex.--------------------------------------------------------------> 

33. Using birth control/condoms.---------------------------------------------> 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

34. Doing certain sexual behaviors.------------------------------------------> Yes 

35. Having sex in exchange for money, drugs, or other things.----------------> 

36. Photographing you nude or while having sex.------------------------------> 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

34632 

Page 5 of 28 CCS T1.8 
_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

34632 

PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER

Question: In the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship, did YOUR PARTNER 

demand something related to 

Legal 

37. Talking to police or lawyer.---------------------------------------------> 

38. Doing things that are against the law.-----------------------------------> 

39. Carrying a gun or knife.-------------------------------------------------> 

40. Talking to landlord or housing authorities.------------------------------> 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

41. Filing citizenship papers.-----------------------------------------------> 

42. Talking to the immigration authorities.----------------------------------> 

43. Immigration sponsorship.-------------------------------------------------> 

Immigration (Answer only if you are an immigrant to this country) 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

48. Talking to child protection authorities.---------------------------------> 

Children / Parenting (If no children skip to question #49) 

44. Taking care of children.-------------------------------------------------> 

45. Disciplining the children.-----------------------------------------------> 

46. Making every day decisions about the children.---------------------------> 

47. Making important decisions about the children.---------------------------> 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Please list any other expectations or expectations by your partner. 

49. 

50. 

34632 

Page 6 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER

34632 

SECTION 2B 

How would YOUR PARTNER know whether you did what he (or she) demanded? 

Please shade "yes" or "no" to indicate which of the things your current or most recent 

partner has done in order to see whether you did what he (or she) demanded. 

1. Checked or opened your mail or personal papers/journal.--------------------->
 Yes
 No


2. Kept track of telephone/cell phone use.------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


3. Called you on the phone.---------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


4. Told you to carry a cell phone or pager.------------------------------------>
 Yes
 No


5. Checked your clothing.------------------------------------------------------>
 Yes
 No


6. Checked the house.---------------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


7. Checked receipts/checkbook/bank statements.--------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


8. Checked the car (odometer, where parked).----------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


9. Asked the children, neighbors, friends, family or coworkers.---------------->
 Yes
 No


10. Told you to report your behavior to him/her.----------------------------->
 Yes
 No


11. Used audio or video tape recorder.--------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


12. Spied on, followed, or stalked you.------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


13. Your partner didn't need to check; your partner just acted like he/she


knew.-------------------------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


Please list other things that your partner has done to check whether you complied with an expectation 

or demand. 

14. Other (_______________________________________________________________________________


15. Other (_______________________________________________________________________________


16. Other (_______________________________________________________________________________


34632 

Page 7 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

SECTION 2C 

In the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship, did YOUR PARTNER 

make you think that he/she MIGHT do the following IF you didn't do what he/she 

wanted? 

Harm to you


1. Say something mean, embarrassing or humiliating to you.--------------------->
 Yes
 No


2. Keep you from seeing or talking to family or friends.----------------------->
 Yes
 No


3. Tell someone else personal or private information about you.---------------->
 Yes
 No


4. Keep you from leaving the house.-------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


5. Limit your access to transportation.---------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


6. Physically hurt you.-------------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


7. Try to kill you.------------------------------------------------------------>
 Yes
 No


8. Scare you.------------------------------------------------------------------>
 Yes
 No


9. Have sex with someone else.------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


10. Leave the relationship or get a divorce.--------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


11. Not let you take medication.--------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


12. Put you in a mental hospital.-------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


13. Cause you to lose your job.---------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


14. Keep you from going to work.--------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


15. Cause you to lose your housing.------------------------------------------>
 Yes
 No


16. Hurt you financially.---------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


17. Cause you legal trouble.------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


18. Have you arrested.------------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


19. Threaten to have you deported.------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


20. Force you to engage in unwanted sex acts.-------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


21. Force you to participate in or observe sex acts with others.------------->
 Yes
 No


22. Destroy legal papers.---------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


23. Destroy or take something that belongs to you.--------------------------->
 Yes
 No


34632 

Page 8 of 28 CCS T1.8 
ID NUMBER 

34632 

PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

In the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship, did YOUR PARTNER 

make you think that he/she MIGHT do the following IF you didn't do what he/she 

wanted? 

25. (Skip if no children) Not let you see your child or take your children 

from you.----------------------------------------------------------------> 

Harm to you 

24. Physically hurt or kill your pet or other animal.------------------------> Yes No 

Yes No 

Harm to Partner 

26. Threaten to commit suicide.----------------------------------------------> 

27. Actually attempt to harm or kill himself/herself.------------------------> 

Yes No 

Yes No 

28. Say something mean or hurtful to your friends or family members.---------> 

29. Physically hurt a friend or family member.-------------------------------> 

30. Try to kill a friend or family member.-----------------------------------> 

31. Destroy property of family members or friends.---------------------------> 

Harm to others 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Please list any other things that your partner lead you to belive he/she might do if you did not do 

what he/she wanted. 

32. Other (________________________________________________________________________________ 

34632 

Page 9 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

SECTION 2D 

Question: During the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship has 

YOUR PARTNER made you think that he or she would get any one to help him/her to 

enforce a demand? 

Yes If yes, who (e.g. Friends, Kids) __________________________________________________________ 

No 

34632 

Page 10 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

SECTION 2E 

Question: During the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship which of 

the following have you done when YOUR PARTNER expected or demanded something 

of you that you did not want to do? 

1. Did what your partner wanted, even though you didn't want to.--------------->
 Yes
 No


2. Refused to do what he/she said.--------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


3. Tried to talk your partner out of wanting you to do it.--------------------->
 Yes
 No


4. Lied about having done what your partner wanted.---------------------------->
 Yes
 No


5. Sought help from someone else.---------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


6. Tried to distract your partner.--------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


7. Tied to avoid him/her.------------------------------------------------------>
 Yes
 No


8. Fought back physically.----------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


9. Used/threatened to use a weapon against him/her.---------------------------->
 Yes
 No


10. Left home to get away from him/her.-------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


11. Ended (or tried to end) the relationship.-------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


12. Argued back verbally.---------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


13. Did nothing - just didn't do it.----------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


14. Filed for a civil protection order.-------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


15. Called the police.------------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


16. Tried to get criminal charges filed.------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


17. Other _________________________________________________________________________________


34632 

Page 11 of 28 CCS T1.8 
ID NUMBER 

34632 

PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

SECTION 3A 

Answer the following questions in relation to your current intimate partner if you have 

one - or your most recent intimate partner if you are not currently in an intimate 

relationship. 

Sometimes people demand things from their intimate partners, even without saying it 

in words. We are interested in knowing what you have demanded from your partner. 

Question: In the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship how often did YOU 

demand something of your partner related to 

6. Using TV, radio, or the internet.-------------------------------------------> 

7. Viewing sexually explicit material.-----------------------------------------> 

8. Bathing or using the bathroom.----------------------------------------------> 

10. Reading certain things.--------------------------------------------------> 

9. Answering the phone.--------------------------------------------------------> 

Personal activities 

1. Leaving the house (e.g. not want partner to leave).-------------------------> 

2. Eating.---------------------------------------------------------------------> 

3. Sleeping in certain places or at certain times.-----------------------------> 

4. Wearing certain clothes.----------------------------------------------------> 

5. Maintaining a certain weight.-----------------------------------------------> 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Support / Social life / Family 

11. Talking on the phone.----------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

12. Spending time with friends or family members.----------------------------> Yes No 

13. Going to church, school, or other community activities.------------------> Yes No 

14. Talking to a counselor, clergy, or someone else about personal or family 

matters.-----------------------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

15. Taking care of dependent relatives.--------------------------------------> Yes No 

16. Taking care of pets.-----------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

Household 

17. Taking care of the house.------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

34632 

Page 12 of 28 CCS T1.8 
34632 

PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER

Question: In the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship how often did YOU 

demand something of your partner related to 

Household 

18. Buying or preparing foods.-----------------------------------------------> Yes No 

19. Living in certain places.------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

Work / Economic / Resources 

20. Working.-----------------------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

21. Spending money, using credit cards or bank accounts.---------------------> Yes No 

22. Learning another language.-----------------------------------------------> Yes No 

23. Going to school.---------------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

24. Using the car or truck.--------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

Health 

25. Using street drugs.------------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

26. Using alcohol.-----------------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

27. Going to the doctor.-----------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

28. Taking medication or prescriptions drugs.--------------------------------> Yes No 

Intimate Relationship 

29. Talking to you.----------------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

30. Spending time with you.--------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

31. Separating or leaving the relationship.----------------------------------> Yes No 

32. Having sex.--------------------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

33. Using birth control/condoms.---------------------------------------------> Yes No 

34. Doing certain sexual behaviors.------------------------------------------> Yes No 

35. Having sex in exchange for money, drugs, or other things.----------------> Yes No 

36. Photographing your partner nude or while having sex.---------------------> Yes No 

Legal 

37. Talking to police or lawyer.---------------------------------------------> Yes No 

38. Doing things that are against the law.-----------------------------------> Yes No 

39. Carrying a gun or knife.-------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

34632 

Page 13 of 28 CCS T1.8 
_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

34632 

PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER

Question: In the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship how often did YOU 

demand something of your partner related to 

Legal 

40. Talking to landlord or housing authorities.------------------------------> Yes No 

Immigration (Answer only if you are an immigrant to this country) 

41. Filing citizenship papers.-----------------------------------------------> 

42. Talking to the immigration authorities.----------------------------------> 

43. Immigration sponsorship.-------------------------------------------------> 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Children / Parenting (If no children skip to question #49) 

44. Taking care of children.-------------------------------------------------> 

45. Disciplining the children.-----------------------------------------------> 

46. Making every day decisions about the children.---------------------------> 

47. Making important decisions about the children.---------------------------> 

48. Talking to child protection authorities.---------------------------------> Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

50. 

49. 

Please list any other expectations or demands you have of your intimate partner. 

34632 

Page 14 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

SECTION 3B 

How would you know whether your partner did what you demanded that she (or he) do? 

Please shade "yes" or "no" to indicate which of the things you have done in order to see 

whether your current or most recent partner did what you demanded. 

1. Checked or opened your partner's mail or personal papers/journal. ---------->
 Yes
 No


2. Kept track of telephone/cell phone use.------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


3. Called your partner on the phone.------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


4. Told your partner to carry a cell phone or pager.--------------------------->
 Yes
 No


5. Checked your partner's clothing.-------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


6. Checked the house.---------------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


7. Checked receipts/checkbook/bank statements.--------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


8. Checked the car (odometer, where parked).----------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


9. Asked the children, neighbors, friends, family, or coworkers.--------------->
 Yes
 No


10. Told partner to report behavior to you.---------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


11. Used audio or video tape recorder.--------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


12. Spied on, followed, or stalked your partner.----------------------------->
 Yes
 No


13. Didn't need to check, you just know.------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


Please list other things that you have done to check whether your partner complied with your 

expectations or demands. 

14. Other _________________________________________________________________________________


15. Other _________________________________________________________________________________


16. Other _________________________________________________________________________________


34632 

Page 15 of 28 CCS T1.8 
34632 

PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER

SECTION 3C

Question: In the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship, did you make your partner 

think that you MIGHT do the following IF she/he didn't do what you wanted? 

6. Physically hurt your partner.-----------------------------------------------> 

7. Try to kill your partner.---------------------------------------------------> 

8. Scare your partner.---------------------------------------------------------> 

9. Have sex with someone else.-------------------------------------------------> 

10. Leave the relationship or get a divorce.---------------------------------> 

11. Not let your partner take her/his medication.----------------------------> 

14. Keep your partner from going to work.------------------------------------> 

13. Cause your partner to lose her/his job.----------------------------------> 

15. Cause your partner to lose her/his housing.------------------------------> 

12. Put your partner in a mental hospital.-----------------------------------> 

16. Destroy your partner financially.----------------------------------------> 

17. Threaten your partner with legal trouble.--------------------------------> 

18. Have your partner arrested.----------------------------------------------> 

5. Limit your partner's access to transportation.------------------------------> 

19. Threaten to have your partner deported.----------------------------------> 

Harm to partner 

1. Say something mean, hurtful, embarrassing or humiliating to your partner.---> 

2. Keep your partner from seeing or talking to family or friends.--------------> 

3. Tell someone else personal or private information about your partner.-------> 

4. Keep your partner from leaving the house.-----------------------------------> 

Yes No 

20. Force your partner to engage in unwanted sex acts.-----------------------> 

21. Force your partner to participate in or observe sex acts with others.----> 

22. Destroy legal papers.----------------------------------------------------> 

23. Destroy or take something that belongs to your partner.------------------> 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

24. Physically hurt or kill your partner's pet or other animal.--------------> Yes No 

34632 

Page 16 of 28 CCS T1.8 
34632 

PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER

Question: In the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship, did you make your partner 

think that you MIGHT do the following IF she/he didn't do what you wanted? 

Harm to partner 

25. (skip if no children) Not let your partner see her/his child or take a 

child from her/him.------------------------------------------------------> Yes No 

Harm to self 

26. Threaten to commit suicide.----------------------------------------------> 

27. Actually attempt to harm or kill yourself.-------------------------------> 

Yes No 

Yes No 

29. Physically hurt a friend or family member.-------------------------------> 

30. Try to kill a friend or family member.-----------------------------------> 

28. Say something mean or hurtful to your partner's friends or family members.> 

Harm to others 

31. Destroy property of family members or friends.---------------------------> 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Please list any other things that you lead your partner to believe you might do if she/he didn't do 

what you wanted. 

32. Other _________________________________________________________________________________ 

34632 

Page 17 of 28 CCS T1.8 
ID NUMBER 

34632 

PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

SECTION 3D 

Question: During the last 12 months of your current or most recent intimate 

relationship, have you made your partner think that you would get any one to help you 

to enforce a demand? 

Yes If yes, who (e.g. Friends, Kids) __________________________________________________________ 

No 

34632 

Page 18 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

SECTION 4A 

In this section, we want to know how you have felt over the past month. Shade in one circle for each question


Question: In the past month... 

Rarely 

or none of 

the time 

Some or a 

little of 

the time 

Occasionally 

or a moderate 

amount of 

time 

Most or 

all of 

the time 

1. I was bothered by things that usually don't 

bother me.-----------------------------------> 

2. I did not feel like eating; my appetite was 

poor.----------------------------------------> 

3. I felt that I could not shake off the blues 

even with help from my family or friends.---> 

4. I felt that I was just as good as other 

people.--------------------------------------> 

5. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was 

doing.---------------------------------------> 

6. I felt depressed.----------------------------> 

7. I felt that everything I did was an effort.--> 

8. I felt hopeful about the future.-------------> 

9. I thought my life had been a failure.--------> 

10. I felt fearful.---------------------------> 

11. My sleep was restless.--------------------> 

12. I was happy.------------------------------> 

13. I talked less than usual.-----------------> 

14. I felt lonely.----------------------------> 

15. People were unfriendly.-------------------> 

16. I enjoyed life.---------------------------> 

17. I had crying spells.----------------------> 

18. I felt sad.-------------------------------> 

19. I felt that people disliked me.-----------> 

20. I could not get going.--------------------> 

34632 

Page 19 of 28 CCS T1.8 
SECTION 5A ID NUMBER 

34632 

In this section, you will be asked questions about whether you may have experienced 

the following during the last 12 months of your current or most recent intimate 

relationship. Please shade "yes" or "no" 

1. My partner grabbed me.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


2. My partner pushed or shoved me.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


3. My partner threw something at me that could hurt.---------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


Yes
 No


Yes


4. My partner slapped me.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> 

No
 5. My partner twisted my arm or hair.------------------------------------------------------------------------------> 

6. My partner kicked me.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


7. My partner punched or hit me with something that could hurt.------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


8. My partner slammed me against a wall.------------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


Yes
 No


Yes


9. My partner choked or strangled me.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------> 

No
 10. My partner burned or scalded me on purpose.----------------------------------------------------------------> 

11. My partner beat me up.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


12. My partner used or threatened to use a knife or gun.--------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


13. My partner forced me to have sex.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


Yes
 No


Yes


14. My partner used threats to make me have sex.----------------------------------------------------------------> 

No
 15. My partner refused to wear a condom during sex.-----------------------------------------------------------> 

16. I had sex because I was afraid of what might happen if i didn't.------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


17. I felt physical pain that still hurt the next day because of my partner's abuse.-------------------------> Yes
 No


18. I had a sprain, bruise, or small cut because of my partner's abuse.---------------------------------------> Yes
 No


Yes
 No


Yes


19. I passed out from being hit on the head by my partner.-----------------------------------------------------> 

No
 20. I had a broken bone from my partner's abuse.-----------------------------------------------------------------> 

21. I went to a doctor because of my partner's abuse.-------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


22. When was the FIRST time you experienced ANY of these types of abuse from ANY intimate partner? 

years ago (if less than 1 year ago, shade this circle in ---> 

34632 

Page 20 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

SECTION 5A1 

In this section, you will be asked questions about whether you may have done any of the 

following during the last 12 months of your current or most recent intimate relationship. 

Please shade "yes" or "no" 

Yes
 No
 1. I Grabbed my partner.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> 

2. I pushed or shoved partner.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


3. I threw something at my partner that could hurt.-------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


4. I slapped partner.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


5. I twisted my partner's arm or hair.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


6. I kicked my partner.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


7. I punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt.----------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


Yes
 No
 8. I slammed my partner against a wall.---------------------------------------------------------------------------> 

Yes
 No


Yes


9. I choked or strangled my partner.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> 

No
 10. I burned or scalded my partner on purpose.-------------------------------------------------------------------> 

11. I beat my partner up.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


12. I used or threatened to use a knife or gun.----------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


13. I forced my partner to have sex.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


14. I used threats to make my partner have sex.-------------------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


15. I refused to use birth control or wear a condom during sex.-----------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


16. I made my partner afraid of what might happen if he/she didn't have sex with me.----------------> Yes
 No


17. My partner felt physical pain that still hurt the next day because of my abuse.-----------------------> Yes
 No


18. My partner had a sprain, bruise, or small cut because of my abuse.--------------------------------------> Yes
 No


Yes
 No


Yes


19. My partner passed out from being hit on the head by me.-------------------------------------------------> 

No
 20. My partner had a broken bone from my abuse.---------------------------------------------------------------> 

21. My partner went to a doctor because of my abuse.-----------------------------------------------------------> Yes
 No


34632 

Page 21 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

SECTION 5B 

In the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship has your 

partner done the following. Pleases shade "yes" or "no" 

Question: In the last year... 

1.	 My partner called me names.------------------------------------>
 Yes
 No


2.	 My partner swore at me.---------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


3.	 My partner yelled and screamed at me.-------------------------->
 Yes
 No


4.	 My partner treated me like I was less than he or she is.------->
 Yes
 No


5.	 My partner watched over my activities and insisted I tell him or


her where I was at all times.---------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


6.	 My partner used our money or made important financial decisions


without talking to me about it.-------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


7.	 My partner was jealous or suspicious of my friends.------------>
 Yes
 No


8.	 My partner accused me of having an affair.--------------------->
 Yes
 No


9.	 My partner interfered with my relationships with other family


members.------------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


10.	 My partner tried to keep me from doing things to help myself.-->
 Yes
 No


11.	 My partner controlled my use of the telephone.----------------->
 Yes
 No


12.	 My partner told me my feelings were crazy.--------------------->
 Yes
 No


13.	 My partner blamed me for his/her problems.--------------------->
 Yes
 No


14.	 My partner tried to make me feel crazy.------------------------>
 Yes
 No


Page 22 of 28 CCS T1.8 

34632 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

SECTION 5B1 

In the last 12 months of your current or most recent relationship have you done any of 

the following? Please shade "yes" or "no". 

Question: In the last year... 

1. You called your partner names.--------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


2. You swore at your partner.------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


3. You yelled and screamed at your partner.----------------------->
 Yes
 No


4. You treated your partner like she/he was less than you are.---->
 Yes
 No


5. You watched over your partner's activities and insisted he/she 


tell you where he/she was at all times.------------------------>
 Yes
 No


6. You used your money or made important financial decisions


without talking to your partner about it.---------------------->
 Yes
 No


7. You were jealous or suspicious of your partner's friends.----->
 Yes
 No


8. You accused your partner of having an affair.------------------>
 Yes
 No


9. You interfered with your partner's relationships with other 


family members.------------------------------------------------>
 Yes
 No


10. You tried to keep your partner from doing things to help him/her 


self.---------------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


11. You controlled your partner's use of the telephone.------------>
 Yes
 No


12. You told your partner his/her feelings were crazy.------------->
 Yes
 No


13. You blamed your partner for your problems.--------------------->
 Yes
 No


14. You tried to make your partner feel crazy.--------------------->
 Yes
 No


34632 

Page 23 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

SECTION 5C 

The following questions refer to your relationship with your current or most recent 

partner. Please shade "yes" or "no". 

1. You have a right to know everything your partner does.--------->
 Yes
 No


2. You insist on knowing where your partner is at all times.------>
 Yes
 No


3. You have a right to be involved with anything your partner


does.---------------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


4. You try to keep your partner from spending time with opposite


sex friends.--------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


5. It would make you mad if your partner did something you had said


not to do.----------------------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


6. You tend to be jealous.---------------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


7. Your partner should not keep any secrets from you.------------->
 Yes
 No


8. You understand if there are some things your partner may not


want to talk about with you.----------------------------------->
 Yes
 No


9. It bothers you when your partner makes plans without talking to


you first------------------------------------------------------>
 Yes
 No


34632 

Page 24 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

SECTION 5D 

In this section, you will be asked about your relationships with PEOPLE IN 

GENERAL. 

Shade in one circle each question


1. There is at least one person I know whose advice I can really trust.--> True False 

2. There is really no one I can trust to give me good financial advice.--> True False 

3. There is really no one who can give me feedback about how I'm handling 

my problems.----------------------------------------------------------> True False 

4. When I need suggestions for how I deal with a personal problem I know 

there is someone I can turn to.---------------------------------------> True False 

5. There is someone who I feel comfortable going to for advice about 

sexual problems.------------------------------------------------------> True False 

6. There is someone I can turn to for advice about handling hassles over 

household responsibilities.-------------------------------------------> True False 

7. I feel that there is no one with whom I can share my most private 

worries and fears.----------------------------------------------------> True False 

8. If a family crisis arose not many of my friends would be able to give 

me good advice about handling it.-------------------------------------> True False 

9. There are not many people I trust to help solve my problems.----------> True False 

10. There is someone I could turn to for advice about changing my job 

or finding a new one.----------------------------------------------> True False 

34632 

Page 25 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

SECTION 5E 

The next set of questions include a list of problems or difficulties that people 

sometimes have in response to trauma, such as being attacked or abused. 

Using the scale on the right, circle how much you have felt the following, 

where 1 is "not at all" and 5 is "all the time." 

Shade in one circle each question


Question: In the past month how much have you... Not at all <--------------> all the


time


1. Been bothered by repeated, disturbing memories, thoughts, or 


images of abuse or violence?------------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


2. Been bothered by repeated disturbing dreams about abuse?--->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


3. Suddenly acted or felt as if a prior abuse I've experienced


was happening again [as if you were reliving it]?---------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


4. Been bothered by feeling very upset when something reminded 


you of abuse?---------------------------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


5. Been bothered by having physical reactions [e.g. heart 


pounding, trouble breathing, sweating] when something
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 reminded you of abuse?------------------------------------->


6. Avoided thinking about or talking about abuse?------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


7. Avoided activities or situations because they reminded you


of abuse?-------------------------------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


8. Had trouble remembering an important part of the abuse?---->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


9. Felt a loss of interest in activities that you used to


enjoy?----------------------------------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


10.	 Experienced feeling distant or cut off from other 


people?------------------------------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


11.	 Felt emotionally numb or unable to have loving feelings 


for those close to you?--------------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


12.	 Experienced feeling as if your future will somehow be cut 


short?-------------------------------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


13.	 Had trouble falling asleep or staying asleep?----------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


14.	 Experienced feeling irritable or having angry outbursts?>
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


15.	 Had difficulty concentrating?--------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


16.	 Experienced being "super-alert" or watchful or on guard?>
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


17.	 Felt jumpy or easily startled?-------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


34632 

Page 26 of 28 CCS T1.8 
PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS PLEASE SHADE CIRCLES LIKE THIS

 NOT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THIS

ID NUMBER 

34632 

SECTION 5F 

In your opinion, how likely is it that your current or most recent partner will 

attempt to do each of the following things in the next year? Please answer 

using the scale indicated. 

Shade in one circle each question


Question: In the next year, how likely do you think it is 

that your partner will... 

1. Threaten to harm you physically?-------------------------> 0 1 2 3 4 

2. Physically assault you?----------------------------------> 

3. Physically injure you?-----------------------------------> 

4. Try to kill you?-----------------------------------------> 

5. Control or dominate you?---------------------------------> 

6. Humiliate or degrade you?--------------------------------> 

7. Cause financial problems for you?------------------------> 

8. Threaten or physically harm someone you care about?------> 

9. Get you in trouble with the law?-------------------------> 

10. Destroy your property?--------------------------------> 

11. Physically injure someone else whom you care about?---> 

12. Violate a protection order by having contact with you, 

if you have an order or were to get one?--------------> 

13. Track you down or find you if you have left him (or 

her) or if you were to leave him (or her)?------------> 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

14. Try to take away or kidnap your child or children?----> 0 1 2 3 4 

15. Try to get custody of your child or children?---------> 0 1 2 3 4 

16. Cause emotional harm to your child or children?-------> 0 1 2 3 4 

Not at 

all likely 

A little 

likely 

Some 

what 

likely 

Quite 

likely 

Extremely 

likely 

Not at Extremely 

all afraid <---------------> afraid 

17. How afraid of your current or most recent partner do you


feel.--------------------------------------------------->
 0
 1
 2
 3


34632 

Page 27 of 28 CCS T1.8 

4 
ID NUMBER 

34632 

Please share any comments you would like to make about the questionnaire (e.g., wording of 

statements or omissions that should be included, etc.): 

Thank you for participating. Your time will be most valuable to help develop a better understanding 

of intimate relationships. 

34632 

Page 28 of 28 CCS T1.8 
Appendix J-2

In-depth Interview Consent Form and Protocol 
In-Depth Interview, Page 1 of 3 IRB No.: 02-280 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Consent to Participate in Research 

Project Name: Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure for Intimate Partner Violence 

Principal Investigator: Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D. Telephone: 202-687-1997 

Project Coordinator: Darci Terrell Telephone: 405-969-3078 

Sponsor: The National Institute of Justice 

The Georgetown University Institutional Review Board has given approval for this research project. For 

information on your rights as a research subject, call the Institutional Review Board office: 202-687-1506. 

Introduction: You are invited to consider participating in an additional component of this research study. 

We will be asking follow-up questions about the Coercive Control Survey that you just completed. This 

form will describe the purpose and nature of the follow-up questions, the possible risks and benefits, other 

options available to you, and your rights as a participant in the study. Please take whatever time you need to 

discuss the study with anyone you care to talk with. The decision to participate or not is yours. If you decide 

to participate, please sign and date the last line of this form. 

Background and purpose of the study: We are conducting this study to better understand ways in which 

men and women’s attempts to control each other affect their relationships. Prior studies on violent 

relationships have focused mostly on the level of violence in the relationship and not as much on the level of 

control in the relationship. By conducting this study, we hope to learn about the differences in violent 

couples beyond the level of violence alone. 

Total number of people: A total of about 50 people will take part in this component of the study. 

General plan of the study: Researchers will ask follow-up questions to selected individuals who have 

completed the Coercive Control Survey. It should take you about 30 minutes to answer these questions and 

we will provide a space where you can answer the questions in privacy. You will be asked to answer such 

questions as “Can you give me an example of a situation where your partner demanded that you do 

something?” “What were you afraid he/she would do if you didn’t do it? If you feel upset or would like to 

talk with someone further about your safety or about the feelings you might have after answering the 

questions, we will give you information about resources where you can talk with someone. 

Length of the study for each subject: We expect that you will be in the follow-up interview for 30 

minutes. 

Possible benefits of participating in the study: There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this 

component of the study. However, the information you share with us during the study will help us to 

understand more about relationships where one or both partners attempt to control the other. The results of 

this study will also be helpful to improve the effectiveness of intervention programs. 

Possible risks of participating in the study: If your partner finds out about your participation in the study, 

you could be at increased risk if he or she chooses to retaliate in some way. Also, the questions in the 

questionnaire may raise uncomfortable or upsetting issues for you. However, you may find that having the 

opportunity to think about your experiences is helpful to you in some way, although participation in this 

study is not considered counseling or any other type of therapeutic service. 
In-Depth Interview, Page 2 of 3 IRB No.: 02-280 

Who can participate in the in-depth interview: Anyone who has met the requirements to participate in the 

Coercive Control Survey (anyone over 18 years of age who is in a relationship in which at least one incident 

of violence has occurred within the last 12 months), and who has completed the Coercive Control Survey. 

Confidentiality of the data collected during the study: Your responses to the interview questions will 

remain confidential. No names or personally identifying characteristics will be recorded on the questionnaire 

you fill out. This form will be stored in a locked cabinet separately from your completed questionnaire. The 

researcher will code your questionnaire with a number. The researcher will be the only one who can link 

your name to the number. The interview questions will be kept in a locked drawer and will be destroyed at 

the end of the study. Only the research team will have access to the interview questions. No names or 

identifying details will be used in any publication or other documents resulting from this study. All data 

collected from this study will be presented as a group, so that no one can identify any one individual within 

the study. 

If you tell us of a child who is being abused or of your intent to harm someone else or yourself, we are 

obligated break to report that information to the appropriate authorities. 

HIPPA Compliance: This project does not involve obtaining any information about you from any medical 

or other health care records. 

Costs to you for participating: There are no costs to you for participating in this study. 

Payments to you for participating: You will be paid an additional $20 for your time for participating in 

this component of study. 

Your rights as a participant in the study: Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You have the 

right to leave the study at any time. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. 

Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Should you 

decide to leave the study, just tell the interviewer that you no longer wish to participate. 

Questions: Should you have any questions at any time about this study, please contact Dr. Mary Ann 

Dutton at 202-687-1997. If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, call the 

Georgetown University Institutional Review Board office at 202-687-1506. 

Investigator's statement: I have fully explained this study to the subject. I have discussed the procedures, 

the possible risks and benefits, the standard and research aspects of the study, and have answered all of the 

questions that the subject and the subject's family members have asked. 

Signature of investigator ___________________________ Date _________________ 

Subject's consent 

I have read the information provided in this Informed Consent Form or it was read to me by the investigator. 

All my questions were answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. 

[Upon signing, you will receive a copy of this form. The original will be kept in a locked drawer and will be 

destroyed at the end of the study.] 

Your signature _______________________________________ Date _____________ 
In-Depth Interview, Page 3 of 3 IRB No.: 02-280

Signature of investigator/witness __________________________________ Date _____________ 

Rev. 1/27/04 

ID Number: Interviewer Name: 

Site: Date: 

IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 

Instruction to Interviewer: 

Use the following script to introduce the In-depth Interview Protocol after the participant 

has completed the Coercive Control Survey 

If you are interested, we would also like to conduct a follow-up interview with 

you, which would take about a half hour. We would pay you an additional $20 

for your participation if you choose to do this. For the interview, we will be 

asking you some follow-up questions on the same topic as the survey itself. 

Would you be interested in participating in this second step? 

If the participant would like to participate, they must read and sign the In-depth Interview 

Protocol Consent Form. 

The Interviewer will use the participant’s completed Coercive Control Survey as a 

foundation for guiding the In-depth Interview. Refer to Section 2A of the completed 

survey. Pick at least 3 (three) items where the participant indicated “YES” that their 

partner DEMANDED something of them (there may be more than 3 items in this section 

where the participant noted “YES”; pick only 3 for the purpose of this interview (if 

possible, select items from different “categories” if there are more than 3 items). You 

will ask follow-up questions for each of the 3 items. 

1/27/04 
IN-DEPTH ITEM #1: 

1.1 You indicated that your partner sometimes demanded that you: (interviewer: write 

here the item that is being addressed, e.g., “leaving the house”) 

1.2 How often would your partner make this kind of demand?

1.3 Can you give me an example of a particular situation where he/she would do that?

1.4 What led up to this demand that time?

1.5 How did he/she actually let you know what he/she wanted you to do?

1.6 What did you think he would do if you did NOT do what he/she wanted?

1.7 What did you think would happen if you DID do what he/she wanted? 

1.8 What did you end up doing in response to this demand?

1.9 How did it [participant’s response to demand] leave you feeling? 

1.10 Is there anything else you’d like to say about his particular demand?

1/27/04 
IN-DEPTH ITEM #2: 

2.1 You indicated that your partner sometimes demanded that you: (interviewer: write 

here the item that is being addressed, e.g., “leaving the house”) 

2.2 How often would your partner make this kind of demand?

2.3 Can you give me an example of a particular situation where he/she would do that?

2.4 What led up to this demand that time?

2.5 How did he/she actually let you know what he/she wanted you to do?

2.6 What did you think he would do if you did NOT do what he/she wanted?

2.7 What did you think would happen if you DID do what he/she wanted?

2.8 What did you end up doing in response to this demand?

2.9 How did it [participant’s response to demand] leave you feeling? 

2.10 Is there anything else you’d like to say about his particular demand?

1/27/04 
IN-DEPTH ITEM #3: 

3.1 You indicated that your partner sometimes demanded that you: (interviewer: write 

here the item that is being addressed, e.g., “leaving the house”) 

3.2 How often would your partner make this kind of demand?

3.3 Can you give me an example of a particular situation where he/she would do that?

3.4 What led up to this demand that time?

3.5 How did he/she actually let you know what he/she wanted you to do?

3.6 What did you think he would do if you did NOT do what he/she wanted?

3.7 What did you think would happen if you DID do what he/she wanted? 

3.8 What did you end up doing in response to this demand?

3.9 How did it [participant’s response to demand] leave you feeling? 

3.10 Is there anything else you’d like to say about his particular demand?

1/27/04 
Appendix J-3 

Coercive Control Survey Consent Form and Questionnaire—Spanish 
Coercive Control Measure, Page 1 of 3 IRB No.: 02-280 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Aprobación Para Participar en el Estudio 

Nombre del Proyecto: Desarrollo y Validación de una Medida del Control Coercitivo 

 en Violencia Entre Parejas Intimas 

Investigadora Principal: Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D. Teléfono: 202-687-1997 

Coordinadora de Proyecto: Darci Terrell Teléfono: 405-969-3078 

Patrocinador: Instituto Nacional de Justicia 

El Consejo de Revisión Institucional de la Universidad de Georgetown ha aprobado el conducto del presente 

estudio. Para mas información sobre sus derechos como contribuyente al estudio, puede llamar a la oficina 

del Consejo de Revisión Institucional, al teléfono: 202-687-1506. 

Introducción: Esta usted invitada/o a considerar participar en el presente estudio. Estaremos evaluando 

aspectos del control en las relaciones entre hombres y mujeres. El presente documento explica el propósito y 

naturaleza del estudio, sus posibles riesgos y beneficios, otras opciones para usted, y sus derechos como 

participante en el estudio. Por favor tome el tiempo necesario para discutir el estudio con cualquier otra 

persona que quiera. La decisión de participar o de no participar es suya. Si usted decide no participar, por 

favor anote la fecha y firme en la ultima línea del documento. 

Antecedentes y propósito del estudio: Estamos realizando el estudio para mejor entender los diferentes 

efectos que tienen en una relación intima, las maneras en cuales los hombres y mujeres intentan controlarse a 

si mismos. Estudios previos que investigaban relaciones violentas se han enfocado principalmente en el 

nivel de la violencia, y no en el nivel de control en la relación. Al realizar el presente estudio, se espera 

aprender las diferencias que existen entre parejas violentas, aun más que el nivel de violencia. 

Numero de participantes: Un total de 600 personas participaran en esta fase del estudio. 

Plan de estudio: Investigadores le presentarán la encuesta a personas mayores de 18 años de edad. Los 

participantes contaran con una hora para llenar la encuesta, cual podrán completar en privado. Se le harán 

preguntas como, “Ha habido instantes en su relación cuando sintió que su pareja la/lo controlaba?” Al 

terminar la encuesta, tendremos tiempo de platicar con usted acerca de su experiencia participando en el 

estudio. Si usted se siente mal y quiere hablar con alguien acerca de su seguridad personal o de las 

emociones y sentimientos que sintió después de acabar la encuesta, nosotros le daremos información de 

recursos o personas con quien puede hablar. 

Duración del estudio para cada participante: Estimamos que le lleve 1 hora para acabar la encuesta. 

Posibles beneficios de participar en el estudio: No hay beneficios directos de participar en el estudio. La 

información que usted nos proporcione durante el estudio nos ayudara a entender mejor las relaciones 

cuando uno o dos miembros de la pareja intenta controlar al otro. Los resultados del estudio también 

ayudara a mejorar los programas de intervención de violencia domestica. 
Coercive Control Measure, Page 2 of 3 IRB No.: 02-280 

Posibles riesgos de participar en el estudio: Si su pareja sabe de su participación en el estudio, usted 

pudiera estar en riesgo de que el/ella se vengue de alguna manera. También, las preguntas de la encuesta 

pudieran hacerle pensar en cosas que le molesten o hagan sentir mal. A la vez, el tener la oportunidad de 

pensar en sus experiencias le pudiera resultar de benefició, pero debe saber que su participación en el estudio 

no va a resultar en consejos o terapia. 

Quien puede participar en el estudio: Cualquier persona mayor de los 18 años de edad, quien esta en una 

relación en cual ha tenido por lo menos un incidente de violencia en los últimos 12 meses puede participar en 

el estudio. 

Confidencialidad de la información reunida para el estudio: Las respuestas que nos de en la entrevista 

permanecerán confidenciales. No usaremos su nombre o características personales que se puedan usar para 

identificarla/lo con la encuesta que entregó. Ya que firme este documento, será guardado en un archivo con 

candado y estará separado de la encuesta que nos entregue. Los investigadores serán las únicas personas que 

puedan identificar su nombre con su numero de encuesta. La encuesta estará guardada en un archivo y se va 

a destruir cuando termine el estudio. Solamente los investigadores tendrán acceso a su encuesta. Los 

nombres do los participantes del estudio no serán usados en documentos que resulten del estudio. Toda la 

información reunida para el estudio se presentará por grupo, así que ninguna persona o individuo podrá ser 

identificado. 

Si durante la entrevista nos cuenta de un niño a quien le están causando abuso, o de su intención de dañar a 

alguien o a si misma/o, estamos obligados a reportar esa información a las autoridades. 

Cumplimientos de HIPPA: El presente proyecto no requiere que le pidamos información de sus archivos 

médicos. 

Gastos de participación: No existen gastos para que usted participe en el estudio. 

Pagos por su participación: A usted se le pagaran $20 por su tiempo para participar en el estudio, y 

también, por llenar y entregar la encuesta es elegible para recibir una de tres rifas de $100 dólares. También, 

si lo necesita, le podemos ayudar con $10 para ayudar con el cuidado de niños o de transporte. 

Sus derechos como participante en el estudio: Su participación en el estudio es completamente voluntaria. 

Usted tiene el derecho de terminar con el estudio cuando usted guste. No es necesario que conteste las 

preguntas que no quiera contestar. El dejar el estudio no le resultara en ningún castigo o perdida de 

beneficios a cuales tiene derecho de recibir. Si decide no continuar con el estudio, dígale a la persona que 

la/lo entrevisto y dígale que no quiere continuar con el estudio. 

Preguntas: Si tiene alguna pregunta durante el estudio, por favor hable con la doctora Mary Ann Dutton al 

teléfono 202-687-1997. Para mas información sobre sus derechos como contribuyente al estudio, puede 

llamar a la oficina del Consejo de Revisión Institucional de la universidad de Georgetown, al teléfono: 

202-687-1506. 

Declaración del investigador: Yo le he explicado el estudio al participante. Hemos platicado acerca del 

procedimiento del estudio, sus posibles riesgos y beneficios, los aspectos de la investigación, y le he 

contestado todas las preguntas que el participante y sus familiares me han hecho. 

Firma del investigador ___________________________ Fecha _________________ 
Coercive Control Measure, Page 3 of 3 IRB No.: 02-280 

Aprobación del participante 

Yo he leído la información dada en el presente documento, o la información fue leída por el investigador. 

Todas mis preguntas fueron contestadas y estoy satisfecha/o con las respuestas. Yo voluntariamente acepto 

participar en el estudio. 

[Al firmar, le darán una copia del documento. El original será guardado en una cajón con llave y será 

destruido cuando acabe el estudio.] 

Su firma _______________________________________ Fecha _____________ 

Firma del investigador/testigo __________________________________ Fecha _____________ 

Sección 1 ID NUMBER

50982 

1. ¿Cuántos años tiene? 

1a. ¿Cuál es su sexo? Masculino Femenino


2. 2. ¿Cuál es su raza u origen étnico? 

Marque todas las respuestas que apliquen 

Afro-Americano


Caucásico/Blanco


Latina/Latino


Asiático-Americano o de las Islas del Pacífico


Indio Americano


Otro


2a. ¿En qué país nació? 

2b. Si nació fuera de los Estados Unidos, ¿por cuántos años ha estado viviendo en los Estados Unidos? 

3. ¿Cuántos hijos/niños tiene? 

4. 4. ¿A qué se dedica? 

Marque todas las respuestas que apliquen 

Trabajo a tiempo completo


Trabajo a tiempo parcial


Servicio militar


Desempleado/a


Retirado/a y no trabaja


Estudiante


Ama de casa


Otro


5. ¿Está recibiendo alguna ayuda económica federal o estatal? No
 Si


50982 

Page 1 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

6. ¿Cuál fue el año de estudios más alto que terminó? [Marque solamente una respuesta] 

Marque solamente una respuesta 

Menos de la secundaria (8vo. grado o menos)


Primer año de preparatoria (9no. grado)


Segundo año de preparatoria (10mo. grado)


Tercer año de preparatoria (11vo. grado)


Cuarto año de preparatoria (12vo. grado)


Escuela vocacional


Unos años de universidad (o está en la universidad)


Diplomado de dos años


Bachillerato/Licenciatura (BA/BS) de cuatro años

Escuela graduada


7. ¿Cuál fue su ingreso en el año 2002 antes de descontar los impuestos? Por favor, incluya todas las fuentes de ingresos 

tales como su trabajo, pensiones alimentarias, asistencia económica federal o del estado y ayuda de su familia. 

Marque solamente una respuesta 

Menos de $5,000


DE $5,000 a $10,000


DE $11,000 a $15,000


DE $16,000 a $20,000


DE $21,000 a $25,000


DE $26,000 a $30,000


DE $31,000 a $35,000


DE $36,000 a $40,000


DE $41,000 a $45,000


DE $46,000 a $50,000


DE $51,000 a $55,000


Más de $55,000


50982 

Page 2 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

8. ¿Tiene una pareja en este momento? Si -(Si contestó que sí, pase a la pregunta 8b) 

8a. Si en este momento no tiene pareja, ¿cuánto tiempo ha pasado desde que tuvo su pareja más reciente? 

No


Marque solamente una respuesta 

Menos de 6 meses
 De 6 a 12 meses
 De 1 a 2 años


8b. ¿Cuánto tiempo lleva con su pareja actual? Si no tiene pareja, ¿cuánto tiempo estuvo con su pareja más reciente? 

Marque solamente una respuesta 

Menos de 6 meses


De 6 a 12 meses


De 1 a 2 años


De 2 a 3 años


De 3 a 4 años


De 4 a 5 años


De 5 a 6 años


De 6 a 7 años


De 7 a 8 años


De 8 a 9 años


De 9 a 10 años


De 10 a 11 años


De 11 a 12 años


De 12 a 13 años


De 13 a 14 años


De 14 a 15 años


De 15 a 16 años


De 16 a 17 años


De 17 a 18 años


De 18 a 19 años


De 19 a 20 años


Más de 20 años


9. ¿Qué tipo de relación tiene con su pareja? Si no tiene pareja, ¿qué tipo de relación tuvo con su pareja más reciente? 

Marque solamente una respuesta 

LeLegalmente casados
 Comprometidos
 Enamorados/Novios
 Relación Casual


10. ¿Cómo viven usted y su pareja? Si no tiene pareja, ¿cómo vivían usted y su pareja más reciente? 

Marque solamente una respuesta 

Vivimos juntos
 Vivimos juntos de vez en cuando
 Vivimos separados


50982 

Page 3 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 2A 

Conteste las siguientes preguntas pensando en su relación con su pareja o con su pareja 

más reciente si no tiene pareja en estos momentos. 

A veces las personas exigen/piden a sus parejas algunas cosas aún sin decir nada. Nos 

interesa conocer qué le ha exigido/pedido su pareja. 

Pregunta:En los últimos 12 meses de su relación con su pareja o de su relación con su pareja más reciente, 

¿le exigió/pidió SU PAREJA algo relacionado con lo siguiente?: 

Actividades personales/Apariencia 

1. Salir de la casa (por ejemplo, no desear que usted salga de la casa).-------> 

2. Comer.----------------------------------------------------------------------> 

3. Dormir en ciertos lugares o a ciertas horas.--------------------------------> 

4. Ponerse cierta ropa.--------------------------------------------------------> 

5. Mantener cierto peso.-------------------------------------------------------> 

6. Usar la televisión, la radio, o la Internet.--------------------------------> 

7. Ver material sexualmente explícito.-----------------------------------------> 

8. Bañarse o usar el baño.-----------------------------------------------------> 

9. Contestar el teléfono.------------------------------------------------------> 

10. Leer ciertas cosas.------------------------------------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Apoyo/Vida Social/Familia 

11. Hablar por teléfono.-----------------------------------------------------> 

12. Pasar tiempo con sus amistades o familiares.-----------------------------> 

13. Ir a la iglesia, la escuela, o participar en otras actividades en la 

comunidad.---------------------------------------------------------------> 

14. Hablar con un/a consejero/a, pastor/a, sacerdote, o alguna otra persona 

sobre asuntos personales o familiares.-----------------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

15. Cuidar a familiares que dependan de usted.-------------------------------> 

16. Cuidar mascotas.---------------------------------------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

50982 

Page 4 of 28 MCC T1 S 
50982 

Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER

Pregunta:En los últimos 12 meses de su relación con su pareja o de su relación con su pareja más reciente, 

¿le exigió/pidió SU PAREJA algo relacionado con lo siguiente?: 

Hogar 

17. Ocuparse de la casa.-----------------------------------------------------> 

18. Comprar o preparar comida.-----------------------------------------------> 

19. Vivir en ciertos lugares.------------------------------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Trabajo/Dinero/Recursos 

20. Trabajar.----------------------------------------------------------------> 

21. Gastar dinero, usar tarjetas de crédito o cuentas de banco.--------------> 

22. Aprender otro idioma.----------------------------------------------------> 

23. Ir a la escuela/estudiar.------------------------------------------------> 

24. Usar el carro/auto/coche o camión.---------------------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Salud 

26. Usar alcohol.------------------------------------------------------------> 

25. Usar drogas.-------------------------------------------------------------> 

28. Usar medicinas o drogas recetadas.---------------------------------------> 

27. Ir al médico.------------------------------------------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Relación de Pareja 

30. Pasar tiempo con su pareja.----------------------------------------------> 

31. Separarse o dejar la relación.-------------------------------------------> 

29. Hablar con su pareja.----------------------------------------------------> 

32. Tener relaciones sexuales.-----------------------------------------------> 

33. Usar anticonceptivos o condones.-----------------------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

34. Hacer ciertas conductas sexuales-----------------------------------------> Si No 

35. Tener relaciones sexuales a cambio de dinero, drogas, u otras cosas.-----> 

36. Tomarle fotografías desnuda o mientras tenía relaciones sexuales.--------> 

Si No 

Si No 

50982 

Page 5 of 28 MCC T1 S 
_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

50982 

Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER

Pregunta:En los últimos 12 meses de su relación con su pareja o de su relación con su pareja más reciente, 

¿le exigió/pidió SU PAREJA algo relacionado con lo siguiente?: 

Asuntos Legales 

37. Hablar con la policía o con un/a abogado/a.------------------------------> 

38. Hacer algo que esté en contra de la ley.---------------------------------> 

39. Cargar una pistola/ un revólver o un cuchillo.---------------------------> 

40. Hablar con su casero o con los administradores del departamento de la 

vivienda.----------------------------------------------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

41. Pedir la ciudadanía americana.-------------------------------------------> 

42. Hablar con agentes de inmigración.---------------------------------------> 

43. Patrocinio de inmigración.-----------------------------------------------> 

Inmigración [Conteste solamente si es inmigrante a los Estados Unidos] 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

48. Hablar con las autoridades/agencias de gobierno que protegen a los niños.> 

Niños/Crianza de los Hijos/Niños 

44. Cuidar los hijos/niños.--------------------------------------------------> 

45. Disciplinar los hijos/niños.---------------------------------------------> 

46. Tomar decisiones de la vida diaria de los hijos/niños.-------------------> 

47. Tomar decisiones importantes de los hijos/niños.-------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Por favor, escriba cualquier otra cosa que su pareja quiera que usted haga o 

que haya querido que usted hiciera 

49. 

50. 

50982 

Page 6 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 2B 

¿Cómo SU PAREJA podría saber si usted hizo lo que él (o ella) quería que hiciera? 

Por favor, marque "sí" o "no" para contestar qué cosas su pareja o su pareja más reciente 

ha hecho para saber si usted hizo lo que él (o ella) quería que hiciera 

1. Revisó o abrió su correspondencia o sus papeles personales/diario.---------->
 Si
 No


2. Llevó cuenta de su uso del teléfono o del teléfono celular.----------------->
 Si
 No


3. Le llamó por teléfono.------------------------------------------------------>
 Si
 No


4. Le dijo que tuviera un teléfono celular o un buscapersonas ("bíper").------->
 Si
 No


5. Inspeccionó/Revisó su ropa.------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


6. Inspeccionó/Revisó la casa.------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


7. Inspeccionó recibos/chequera/estados de cuenta del banco.------------------->
 Si
 No


8. Inspeccionó el carro/coche/auto (el odómetro, dónde estaba estacionado).---->
 Si
 No


9. Le preguntó a los hijos/niños, vecinos, amistades, familiares, o


compañeros/as de trabajo.--------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


10. Le dijo que le tenía que informar lo que hacía.-------------------------->
 Si
 No


11. Usó una audio o videograbadora.------------------------------------------>
 Si
 No


12. Le espió, siguió, o acechó.---------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


13. No necesitaba revisar; actuaba como si supiera.-------------------------->
 Si
 No


Por favor, escriba otras cosas que su pareja hizo para comprobar si usted hizo lo él/ella le había 

exigido/pedido que hiciera 

14. Otro (_______________________________________________________________________________


15. Otro (_______________________________________________________________________________


16. Otro (_______________________________________________________________________________


50982 

Page 7 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 2C 

En los últimos 12 meses con su pareja o con su pareja más reciente, ¿su pareja le hizo 

pensar que tal vez él (o ella) haría algunas de las siguientes cosas si usted no hacía lo que 

él (o ella) quería que usted hiciera? 

Daño a usted


1. Decirle algo cruel, humillante o vergonzoso/penoso.------------------------->
 Si
 No


2. No dejarle ver o hablar con su familia o amistades.------------------------->
 Si
 No


3. Contarle a alguien información personal o privada suya.--------------------->
 Si
 No


4. No dejarle salir de la casa.------------------------------------------------>
 Si
 No


5. Limitarle su acceso a transportación.--------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


6. Hacerle daño físico.-------------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


7. Tratar de matarla.---------------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


8. Asustarla.------------------------------------------------------------------>
 Si
 No


9. Tener relaciones sexuales con otra persona.--------------------------------->
 Si
 No


10. Dejar la relación o divorciarse.----------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


11. No dejarle tomar un medicamento o medicina recetada.--------------------->
 Si
 No


12. Internarle/Ingresarle en un hospital mental.----------------------------->
 Si
 No


13. Hacer que perdiera su trabajo.------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


14. No dejarle ir a su trabajo.---------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


15. Hacer que perdiera su vivienda.------------------------------------------>
 Si
 No


16. Hacerle daño económico/de dinero.---------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


17. Causarle problemas legales.---------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


18. Hacer que le arrestaran.------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


19. Amenazar con que le deportaran a su país.-------------------------------->
 Si
 No


20. Obligarle a tener relaciones sexuales de formas que usted no quería.----->
 Si
 No


21. Obligarle a participar en u observar actos sexuales con otras personas.-->
 Si
 No


22. Destruir documentos legales.--------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


23. Destruir o llevarse algo suyo.------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


50982 

Page 8 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

En los últimos 12 meses con su pareja o con su pareja más reciente, ¿su pareja le hizo 

pensar que tal vez él (o ella) haría algunas de las siguientes cosas si usted no hacía lo que 

él (o ella) quería que usted hiciera? 

25. (No conteste si no tiene hijos/niños) No dejarle ver a sus hijos/niños o 

quitarle a sus hijos/niños-----------------------------------------------> 

Daño a usted 

24. Hacerle daño fisico o matar su mascota u otro animal.--------------------> Si No 

Si No 

Daño a sí mismo/a 

26. Amenazar con suicidarse.-------------------------------------------------> 

27. Intentar hacerse daño o suicidarse.--------------------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

28. Decirle algo cruel o hiriente a sus amistades o familiares.--------------> 

29. Hacer daño físico a algún/a amigo/a o familiar.--------------------------> 

30. Tratar de matar a algún/a amigo/a o familiar.----------------------------> 

31. Destruir propiedad de familiares o amistades.----------------------------> 

Daño a otros 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Por favor escriba otras cosas que su pareja le hizo creer que haría si usted no hacía lo que él/ella 

quería. 

32. Otro (________________________________________________________________________________ 

50982 

Page 9 of 28 MCC T1 S 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 2D 

Pregunta: En los últimos 12 meses con su pareja o con su pareja más reciente, ¿SU 

PAREJA le hizo pensar que buscaría la ayuda de alguien para que usted hiciera lo que 

él/ella quería? 

Si ¿ A quién le pediría ayuda (por ejemplo, amistades, hijos/niños)? ___________________________ 

No 

50982 

Page 10 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 2E 

Pregunta: En los últimos 12 meses con su pareja o con su pareja más reciente, ¿qué hizo 

usted cuando SU PAREJA esperaba o le exigía/pedía que hiciera algo que usted no 

quería hacer? 

1. Hizo lo que su pareja quería, aún cuando no quería hacerlo.----------------->
 Si
 No


2. Se negó a hacer lo que él/ella dijo.---------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


3. Trató de convencerlo/convencerla de que no quisiera que usted lo hiciera.--->
 Si
 No


4. Mintió sobre haber hecho lo que su pareja quería.--------------------------->
 Si
 No


5. Buscó la ayuda de alguien.-------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


6. Trató de distraer a su pareja.---------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


7. Trató de evitar encontrarse con su pareja.---------------------------------->
 Si
 No


8. Luchó/peleó físicamente con él/ella.---------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


9. Usó o amenazó con usar un arma en contra de él/ella.------------------------>
 Si
 No


10. Se fue de la casa para estar lejos de él/ella.--------------------------->
 Si
 No


11. Terminó (o trató de terminar) la relación.------------------------------->
 Si
 No


12. Discutió con él/ella.---------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


13. No hizo nada - simplemente no hizo lo que su pareja quería.-------------->
 Si
 No


14. Pidió una orden de protección.------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


15. Llamó a la policía.------------------------------------------------------>
 Si
 No


16. Trató de formularle cargos criminales a su pareja.----------------------->
 Si
 No


17. 17.Otro _______________________________________________________________________________


50982 

Page 11 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 3A 

Conteste las siguientes preguntas pensando en su relación con su pareja o en su pareja 

más reciente si no tiene pareja en estos momentos. 

A veces las personas exigen/piden a sus parejas algunas cosas aún sin decir nada. Nos 

interesa conocer qué USTED le ha exigido/pedido a su pareja. 

Pregunta:En los últimos 12 meses de su relación con su pareja o de su relación con su pareja más 

reciente, ¿le exigió/pidió USTED a su pareja algo relacionado con lo siguiente?: 

6. Usar la televisión, la radio, o la Internet.--------------------------------> 

7. Ver material sexualmente explícito.-----------------------------------------> 

8. Bañarse o usar el baño.-----------------------------------------------------> 

10. Leer ciertas cosas.------------------------------------------------------> 

9. Contestar el teléfono.------------------------------------------------------> 

Actividades personales/Apariencia 

1. Salir de la casa (por ejemplo, no desear que su pareja salga de la casa)----> 

2. Comer.----------------------------------------------------------------------> 

3. Dormir en ciertos lugares o a ciertas horas.--------------------------------> 

4. Ponerse cierta ropa.--------------------------------------------------------> 

5. Mantener cierto peso.-------------------------------------------------------> 

Si 

Si 

Si 

Si 

Si 

Si 

Si 

Si 

Si 

Si 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Apoyo/Vida Social/Familia 

11. Hablar por teléfono.-----------------------------------------------------> 

12. Pasar tiempo con sus amistades o familiares.-----------------------------> 

13. Ir a la iglesia, la escuela, o participar en otras actividades en la 

comunidad.---------------------------------------------------------------> 

14. Hablar con un/a consejero/a, pastor/a, sacerdote, o alguna otra persona 

sobre asuntos personales o familiares.-----------------------------------> 

Si 

Si 

Si 

Si 

15. Cuidar a familiares que dependan de usted.-------------------------------> 

16. Cuidar mascotas.---------------------------------------------------------> 

Si 

Si 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Hogar 

17. Ocuparse de la casa.-----------------------------------------------------> Si No 

50982 

Page 12 of 28 MCC T1 S 
50982 

Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER

Pregunta:En los últimos 12 meses de su relación con su pareja o de su relación con su pareja más 

reciente, ¿le exigió/pidió USTED a su pareja algo relacionado con lo siguiente?: 

Hogar 

18. Comprar o preparar comida.-----------------------------------------------> Si No 

19. Vivir en ciertos lugares.------------------------------------------------> Si No 

Trabajo/Dinero/Recursos 

20. Trabajar.----------------------------------------------------------------> Si No 

21. Gastar dinero, usar tarjetas de crédito o cuentas de banco.--------------> Si No 

22. Aprender otro idioma.----------------------------------------------------> Si No 

23. Ir a la escuela/estudiar.------------------------------------------------> Si No 

24. Usar el carro/auto/coche o camión.---------------------------------------> Si No 

Salud 

25. Usar drogas.-------------------------------------------------------------> Si No 

26. Usar alcohol.------------------------------------------------------------> Si No 

27. Ir al médico.------------------------------------------------------------> Si No 

28. Usar medicinas o drogas recetadas.---------------------------------------> Si No 

Relación de Pareja 

29. Hablar con usted.--------------------------------------------------------> Si No 

30. Pasar tiempo con usted.--------------------------------------------------> Si No 

31. Separarse o dejar la relación.-------------------------------------------> Si No 

32. Tener relaciones sexuales.-----------------------------------------------> Si No 

33. Usar anticonceptivos o condones.-----------------------------------------> Si No 

34. Hacer ciertas conductas sexuales.----------------------------------------> Si No 

35. Tener relaciones sexuales a cambio de dinero, drogas, u otras cosas.-----> Si No 

36. Tomarle fotografías desnudo/a o mientras tenía relaciones sexuales.------> Si No 

Asuntos Legales 

37. Hablar con la policía o con un/a abogado/a.------------------------------> Si No 

38. Hacer algo que esté en contra de la ley.---------------------------------> Si No 

39. Cargar una pistola/un revólver o un cuchillo.----------------------------> Si No 

50982 

Page 13 of 28 MCC T1 S 
_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

50982 

Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER

Pregunta:En los últimos 12 meses de su relación con su pareja o de su relación con su pareja más 

reciente, ¿le exigió/pidió USTED a su pareja algo relacionado con lo siguiente?: 

40. Hablar con su casero o con los administradores del departamento de la 

vivienda.----------------------------------------------------------------> Si No 

Asuntos Legales 

Inmigración [Conteste solamente si es inmigrante a los Estados Unidos] 

41. Pedir la ciudadanía americana.-------------------------------------------> 

42. Hablar con agentes de inmigración.---------------------------------------> 

43. Patrocinio de Inmigración.-----------------------------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Niños/Crianza de los Hijos/Niños 

44. Cuidar hijos/niños.------------------------------------------------------> 

45. Disciplinar a los hijos/niños.-------------------------------------------> 

46. Tomar decisiones de la vida diaria de los hijos/niños.-------------------> 

47. Tomar decisiones importantes sobre los hijos/niños.----------------------> 

48. Hablar con las autoridades/agencias de gobierno que protegen a los niños.> Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

50. 

49. 

Por favor, escriba cualquier otra cosa que usted quiera o haya querido que hiciera su pareja 

50982 

Page 14 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 3B 

¿Cómo usted podría saber si su pareja hizo lo que usted quería que hiciera? 

Por favor, marque "sí" o "no" para contestar qué cosas usted ha hecho para saber si su 

pareja hizo lo que usted quería que hiciera. 

1. Revisó o abrió la correspondencia o papeles personales/diario de su pareja.->
 Si
 No


2. Llevó cuenta de su uso del teléfono o del teléfono celular.----------------->
 Si
 No


3. Llamó a su pareja por teléfono.--------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


4. Le dijo a su pareja que tuviera un teléfono celular o un buscapersonas 
 Si
 No
 "bíper")-------------------------------------------------------------------->


5. Inspeccionó/Revisó la ropa de su pareja.------------------------------------>
 Si
 No


6. Inspeccionó/Revisó la casa.------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


7. Inspeccionó/revisó recibos/chequera/estados de cuenta del banco.------------>
 Si
 No


8. Inspeccionó/revisó el carro/coche/auto (el odómetro, dónde estaba


estacionado).--------------------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


9. Le preguntó a los niños, vecinos, amistades, familiares, o compañeros/as de


trabajo.-------------------------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


Si
 No


Si


10. Le dijo a su pareja que le tenía que informar lo que hacía.-------------->


No
 11. Usó una audio o videograbadora.------------------------------------------>


12. Espió, siguió, o acechó a su pareja.------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


13. No necesitaba revisar; usted simplemente sabía.-------------------------->
 Si
 No


Por favor, escriba otras cosas que usted hizo para comprobar si su pareja hizo lo que usted le había 

exigido/pedido que hiciera 

14. Otro _________________________________________________________________________________


15. Otro _________________________________________________________________________________


16. Otro _________________________________________________________________________________


50982 

Page 15 of 28 MCC T1 S 
50982 

Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER

Sección 3C 

En los últimos 12 meses con su pareja o con su pareja más reciente, ¿le hizo usted pensar a 

su pareja que TAL VEZ usted haría algunas de las siguientes cosas si él/ella no hacía lo 

que usted quería que hiciera? 

6. Hacerle daño físico a su pareja.--------------------------------------------> 

7. Tratar de matar a su pareja.------------------------------------------------> 

8. Asustar a su pareja.--------------------------------------------------------> 

9. Tener relaciones sexuales con otra persona.---------------------------------> 

10. Dejar la relación o divorciarse.-----------------------------------------> 

11. No dejar a su pareja tomar un medicamento o medicina recetada.-----------> 

14. No dejar que su pareja fuera a su trabajo.-------------------------------> 

13. Hacer que su pareja perdiera su trabajo.---------------------------------> 

15. Hacer que su pareja perdiera su vivienda.--------------------------------> 

12. Internar/Ingresar a su pareja en un hospital mental.---------------------> 

16. Destruir económicamente a su pareja.-------------------------------------> 

17. Causarle problemas legales a su pareja.----------------------------------> 

18. Hacer que arrestaran a su pareja.----------------------------------------> 

5. Limitar el acceso de su pareja a transportación.----------------------------> 

19. Amenazar con que deportaran a su pareja a su país.-----------------------> 

Daño a su pareja 

1. Contarle algo cruel, humillante o vergonzoso/penoso a su pareja-------------> 

2. No dejar a su pareja ver o hablar con su familia o amistades.---------------> 

3. Decirle a alguien información personal o privada de su pareja.--------------> 

4. No dejar a su pareja salir de la casa.--------------------------------------> 

Si No 

20. Obligar a su pareja a tener relaciones sexuales de formas que él/ella no 

quería.------------------------------------------------------------------> 

21. Obligar a su pareja a participar en u observar actos sexuales con otras 

personas.----------------------------------------------------------------> 

22. Destruir documentos legales.---------------------------------------------> 

23. Destruir o llevarse algo de su pareja.-----------------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

24. Hacerle daño fisico o matar la mascota de su pareja u otro animal.-------> Si No 

50982 

Page 16 of 28 MCC T1 S 
50982 

Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER

En los últimos 12 meses con su pareja o con su pareja más reciente, ¿le hizo usted pensar a 

su pareja que TAL VEZ usted haría algunas de las siguientes cosas si él/ella no hacía lo 

que usted quería que hiciera? 

25. (No conteste si no tiene hijos/niños) No dejar que su pareja vea a sus 

hijos/niños o quitarle a sus hijos/niños.--------------------------------> Si No 

Daño a su pareja 

Daño a sí misma 

26. Amenazar con suicidarse.-------------------------------------------------> 

27. Intentar hacerse daño o suicidarse.--------------------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

29. Hacer daño físico a algún/a amigo/a o familiar de su pareja.-------------> 

30. Tratar de matar a algún/a amigo/a o familiar de su pareja.---------------> 

28. Decirle algo cruel o hiriente a las amistades o familiares de su pareja.-> 

Daño a otros 

31. Destruir propiedad de familiares o amistades.----------------------------> 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Si No 

Por favor escriba otras cosas que usted le hizo creer a su pareja que usted haría si él/ella no hacía lo 

que usted quería. 

32. Otro _________________________________________________________________________________ 

50982 

Page 17 of 28 MCC T1 S 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 3D 

Pregunta: En los últimos 12 meses con su pareja o con su pareja más reciente, ¿usted 

hizo pensar a su pareja que buscaría la ayuda de alguien para que él/ella hiciera lo que 

usted quería que hiciera? 

Si ¿ A quién le pediría ayuda (por ejemplo, amistades, hijos/niños)?___________________________ 

No


50982 

Page 18 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Sección 4A ID NUMBER 

50982

En esta sección nos interesa saber cómo usted se ha sentido durante el último mes. 

M í lo para cad

R

o 

Algún 

ti

O i lmente 

o b

ti

L

te del 

ti

Todo el 

ti

1. Me mol b q l l

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

50982 

Pregunta: En el último mes... 

arque un c rcu a pregunta 

aras 

veces 

nunca 

o poco 

empo 

cas ona

astante 

empo 

a mayor 

par

empo o 

empo 

esta an cosas ue usua mente no me mo estan> 

2. No tenía ganas de comer; tenía poco apetito.-----> 

3. No me podía sentir mejor aún con la ayuda de mi 

familia o amistades------------------------------> 

4. Sentía que era tan buena como otras personas.----> 

5. Tenía problemas pensando en lo que estaba 

haciendo.----------------------------------------> 

6. Me sentía deprimida.-----------------------------> 

7. Sentía que todo lo que hacía era un gran esfuerzo> 

8. Tenía esperanzas para el futuro.-----------------> 

9. Pensaba que mi vida había sido un fracaso.-------> 

Me sentía temerosa.---------------------------> 

No podía dormir bien.-------------------------> 

Estaba feliz.---------------------------------> 

13.Hablaba menos que de costumbre.------------> 

Me sentía sola.-------------------------------> 

La gente era poco amigable.-------------------> 

Disfrutaba la vida.---------------------------> 

Tenía ganas de llorar por ratos.--------------> 

Me sentía triste.-----------------------------> 

Sentía que no le agradaba/gustaba/caía bien a 

la gente.-------------------------------------> 

No podía ponerme en movimiento.---------------> 

Page 19 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Sección 5A ID NUMBER 

50982 

En esta sección, le preguntamos si ha tenido alguna de las siguientes experiencias en los 

últimos 12 meses con su pareja o con su pareja más reciente. Por favor, marque "sí" o 

"no". 

1. Mi pareja me agarró con fuerza.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


2. Mi pareja me empujó.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


3. Mi pareja me lanzó/tiró algo que me podía hacer daño.------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


4. Mi pareja me dio una bofetada/cacheteada.----------------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


5. Mi pareja me jaló/haló un brazo o el pelo/cabello.-------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


6. Mi pareja me pateó.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


7. Mi pareja me dio un puño o me dio con algo que me podía hacer daño.----------------------------------------> Si
 No


8. Mi pareja me pegó contra la pared.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


Si
 No


Si


9. Mi pareja me asfixió o estranguló.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> 

No
 10. Mi pareja me quemó o echó un líquido caliente encima queriendo hacerlo.------------------------------------> 

11. Mi pareja me dio una paliza/golpiza/pela/tunda.-------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


12. Mi pareja usó o amenazó con usar una pistola/revólver o cuchillo.----------------------------------------------> Si
 No


13. Mi pareja me forzó a tener relaciones sexuales.------------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


Si
 No


Si


14. Mi pareja me amenazó para hacerme tener relaciones sexuales.---------------------------------------------------> 

No
 15. Mi pareja no quiso usar un condón mientras teníamos relaciones sexuales.------------------------------------> 

16. Tuve relaciones sexuales con mi pareja porque temía lo que podría pasar si no lo hacía.--------------------> Si
 No


17. Estaba adolorida al otro día por el abuso de mi pareja.--------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


18. Tuve una torcedura, un golpe, o una cortadura pequeña/un tajo pequeño por el abuso de mi pareja.---> Si
 No


19. Me desmayé por un golpe que mi pareja me dio en la cabeza.-----------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


20. Se me rompió un hueso por el abuso de mi pareja.-------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


21. Fui al médico por el abuso de mi pareja.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


22. ¿Cuándo fue la PRIMERA vez que usted fue abusada de CUALQUIERA de estas formas por CUALQUIER pareja? 

Hace años (si fue hace menos de un año, marque este círculo) ---> 

50982 

Page 20 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 5A1 

En esta sección le haremos preguntas sobre si usted hizo algo de lo siguiente en los 

últimos 12 meses con su pareja o con su pareja más reciente. Por favor, marque "sí" o 

"no". 

Si
 No
 1. Agarré con fuerza a mi pareja.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> 

2. Empujé a mi pareja.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


3. Lancé/tiré a mi pareja algo que podía hacerle daño.---------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


4. Le di una bofetada/cachetada a mi pareja.---------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


5. Le jalé/halé un brazo o el pelo/cabello a mi pareja.----------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


6. Pateé a mi pareja.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


7. Le di un puño a mi pareja o le di con algo que podía hacerle daño.--------------------------------------> Si
 No


8. Pegué a mi pareja contra la pared.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


Si
 No


Si


9. Asfixié o estrangulé a mi pareja.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------> 

No
 10. Quemé o eché un líquido caliente encima de mi pareja queriendo hacerlo.----------------------------> 

11. Le di una paliza/golpiza/pela/tunda a mi pareja.-----------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


12. Usé o amenacé con usar una pistola/revólver o cuchillo contra mi pareja.-----------------------------> Si
 No


13. Forcé a mi pareja a tener relaciones sexuales.------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


14. Amenacé a mi pareja para hacerlo/la tener relaciones sexuales.------------------------------------------> Si
 No


15. No quise usar anticonceptivos o un condón mientras teníamos relaciones sexuales.-----------------> Si
 No


16. Hice a mi pareja temer lo que podía pasar si no tenía relaciones sexuales conmigo.------------------> Si
 No


17. Mi pareja estaba adolorida/adolorido al otro día por mi abuso.------------------------------------------> Si
 No


18. Mi pareja tuvo una torcedura, un golpe, o una cortadura pequeña/tajo pequeño por mi abuso.--> Si
 No


Si
 No


Si


19. Mi pareja se desmayó por un golpe en la cabeza dado por mí.-------------------------------------------> 

No
 20. A mi pareja se le rompió un hueso por mi abuso.-------------------------------------------------------------> 

21. Mi pareja fue al médico por mi abuso.---------------------------------------------------------------------------> Si
 No


50982 

Page 21 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 5B 

En los últimos 12 meses de su relación con su pareja o con su pareja más 

reciente, ¿ha hecho SU PAREJA algo de lo siguiente? Por favor, marque "sí" 

o "no". 

Pregunta: En el último año: 

1. Mi pareja me insultó/ se burló de mi nombre.---------------------->
 Si
 No


2. Mi pareja me habló mal/ usó malas palabras conmigo.--------------->
 Si
 No


3. Mi pareja me gritó.----------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


4. Mi pareja me trató como si yo fuera menos que él/ella.------------>
 Si
 No


5. Mi pareja veló/vigiló mis actividades e insistía en que yo le


dijera donde estaba todo el tiempo.------------------------------->
 Si
 No


6. Mi pareja usó nuestro dinero o tomó decisiones importantes de uso


de dinero sin decírmelo.------------------------------------------>
 Si
 No


7. Mi pareja estuvo celoso/a o sospechaba de mis amistades.---------->
 Si
 No


8. Mi pareja me acusó de serle infiel.------------------------------->
 Si
 No


9. Mi pareja interfirió/ se entrometió en mi relación con mi familia.>
 Si
 No


10. Mi pareja trató de evitar que yo hiciera cosas para ayudarme.-->
 Si
 No


11. Mi pareja controló mi uso del teléfono.------------------------>
 Si
 No


12. Mi pareja me dijo que mis sentimientos eran locos.------------->
 Si
 No


13. Mi pareja me echó la culpa de sus problemas.------------------->
 Si
 No


14. Mi pareja trató de hacerme sentir loca.------------------------>
 Si
 No


50982 

Page 22 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 5B1 

En los últimos 12 meses de su relación con su pareja o con su pareja más reciente, ¿ha 

hecho USTED algo de lo siguiente? Por favor, marque "sí" o "no". 

Pregunta: En el último año: 

1. Insultó/ se burló del nombre de su pareja.------------------------>
 Si
 No


2. Le habló mal/ usó malas palabras con su pareja.------------------->
 Si
 No


3. Le gritó a su pareja.--------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


4. Trató a su pareja como si fuera menos que usted.----------------->
 Si
 No


5. Veló/Vigiló las actividades de su pareja e insistió en que le 


dijera donde estaba todo el tiempo.------------------------------->
 Si
 No


6. Usó su dinero o tomó decisiones importantes de uso de dinero sin


decírselo a su pareja.-------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


7. Estuvo celoso/a o sospechaba de las amistades de su pareja.------->
 Si
 No


8. Acusó a su pareja de serle infiel.-------------------------------->
 Si
 No


9. Interfirió/ se entrometió en la relación de su pareja con su


familia.---------------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


10. Trató de evitar que su pareja hiciera cosas para ayudarse.----->
 Si
 No


11. Controló el uso de su pareja del teléfono.--------------------->
 Si
 No


12. Le dijo a su pareja que sus sentimientos eran locos.----------->
 Si
 No


Si
 No
 13. Le echó la culpa de sus problemas a su pareja.----------------->


14. Trató de hacer a su pareja sentirse loco/a.-------------------->
 Si
 No


50982 

Page 23 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 5C 

Las siguientes preguntas tienen que ver con su relación con su pareja o con su pareja 

más reciente. Por favor, marque "sí" o "no" 

1. Usted tiene derecho a saber todo lo que hace su pareja.----------->
 Si
 No


2. Usted insiste en saber en dónde está su pareja todo el tiempo.---->
 Si
 No


3. Usted tiene derecho a ser parte de todo lo que hace su pareja.---->
 Si
 No


4. Usted trata de evitar que su pareja pase tiempo con amistades del 


sexo opuesto.----------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


5. A usted le daría coraje si su pareja hiciera algo que usted le dijo 


que no hiciera.--------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


6. Usted tiende a ser celosa.---------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


7. Su pareja no debería tener secretos para usted.------------------->
 Si
 No


8. Usted entiende que hay algunas cosas que su pareja tal vez no


quiera decirle.--------------------------------------------------->
 Si
 No


9. A usted le molesta cuando su pareja hace planes sin hablar primero


Si
 No
 con usted--------------------------------------------------------->


50982 

Page 24 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 5D 

En esta sección, le preguntamos sobre sus relaciones con las personas en 

general. 

Marque una respuesta


para cada pregunta.


1. Conozco por lo menos una persona que me puede dar consejos en los que


puedo confiar.--------------------------------------------------------> Cierto Falso 

2. No puedo confiar en nadie que me pueda dar buenos consejos sobre 

dinero.---------------------------------------------------------------> Cierto Falso 

3. No hay nadie que me pueda decir cómo estoy manejando mis problemas.---> Cierto Falso 

4. Se que puedo contar con alguien cuando necesito sugerencias/ideas sobre 

cómo manejar un problema personal.------------------------------------> Cierto Falso 

5. Me siento cómoda con alguien para pedirle consejos sobre problemas 

sexuales.-------------------------------------------------------------> Cierto Falso 

6. Puedo pedirle consejos a alguien para cómo manejar disputas/peleas 

sobre responsabilidades de la casa.-----------------------------------> Cierto Falso 

7. Siento que no tengo a nadie con quien compartir mis preocupaciones y 

miedos más privados.--------------------------------------------------> Cierto Falso 

8. No muchas de mis amistades me podrían dar buenos consejos para manejar 

una crisis en mi familia si la tuviera.-------------------------------> Cierto Falso 

9. No hay muchas personas en las que puedo confiar para que me ayuden a 

resolver mis problemas.-----------------------------------------------> Cierto Falso 

10. Hay alguien que me puede aconsejar para cambiar de trabajo o 

encontrar un trabajo nuevo.----------------------------------------> Cierto Falso 

50982 

Page 25 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 5E 

Las siguientes preguntas incluyen una lista de problemas o dificultades que 

las personas tienen a veces después de sufrir un trauma, como, por ejemplo, 

un ataque o abuso. Usando la escala de la derecha, donde 1 quiere decir 

"nunca" y 5 quiere decir " todo el tiempo", marque cuánto usted ha sentido lo 

siguiente. Marque una respuesta para 

cada pregunta. 

Pregunta: En el último mes cuánto usted...


nunca	<--------------> todo el


1. Ha tenido recuerdos, pensamientos o imágenes del abuso o	 tiempo


violencia incómodos que se repiten.--------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


2. Ha tenido sueños incómodos sobre abuso que se repiten.--------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


3. Actuó o se sintió de pronto/de momento como si el abuso que


había vivido anteriormente se estaba repitiendo (como si lo


estuviera viviendo de nuevo).---------------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


4. Se alteró cuando algo le recordó el abuso.--------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


5. Tuvo reacciones físicas (por ejemplo, palpitaciones del corazón,


problemas respirando, sudando mucho) cuando algo le recordó el


1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 abuso.--------------------------------------------------------->


6. Evitó pensar o hablar de abuso.-------------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


7. Evitó actividades o situaciones porque le recordaban el abuso.->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


8. Tuvo problemas recordando partes importantes del abuso.-------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


9. Perdió interés en actividades que antes le gustaban.----------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


10.	 Se sintió distante o separada de otras personas.------------>
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


11.	 Se sintió adormecida emocionalmente o incapaz de tener


sentimientos amorosos hacia las personas más cerca de usted.>
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


12.	 Se sintió como si su futuro fuera a terminar antes de


tiempo.----------------------------------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


13.	 Tuvo dificultades para dormirse o para continuar durmiendo.->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


14.	 Se sintió irritable o tuvo arranques/estallidos de coraje.-->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


15.	 Tuvo dificultad para concentrarse.-------------------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


16.	 Estaba "super-alerta", vigilante, o en guardia.------------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


17.	 Se sentía agitada o que se podía asustar fácilmente.-------->
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5


50982 

Page 26 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Por favor, marque así Por favor, marque así

 No así

ID NUMBER 

50982 

Sección 5F 

En su opinión, ¿qué probable es que su pareja o su pareja más reciente trate 

de hacer lo siguiente durante el próximo año? Por favor, conteste usando la 

escala que se indica y marque solamente un círculo para cada pregunta. 

Marque una respuesta para cada


Pregunta: En el próximo año, ¿qué probable cree usted pregunta.


que su pareja ... 

1. Amenazará con hacerle daño físico?-----------------------> 0 1 2 3 4 

2. La atacará físicamente?---------------------------------> 

3. Le hará daño físico?-------------------------------------> 

4. Tratará de matarla?--------------------------------------> 

5. La controlará o dominará?--------------------------------> 

6. La humillará o degradará?--------------------------------> 

7. Le causará problemas financieros (de dinero)?------------> 

8. Amenazará o hará daño fisico a alguien importante para 

usted? --------------------------------------------------> 

9. Le causará problemas con la ley?-------------------------> 

10. Destruirá propiedad suya?-----------------------------> 

11. Herirá fisicamente a alguien importante para usted?---> 

12. Violará una orden de protección teniendo contacto con 

usted, de usted tener una orden o conseguir una?------> 

13. La rastreará o la encontrará si usted lo/la dejó o si 

lo/la fuera a dejar?----------------------------------> 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

0 1 2 3 4 

14. Tratará de llevarle o secuestrarle sus hijos/niños?---> 0 1 2 3 4 

15. Tratará de tener la custodia de sus hijos/niños?------> 0 1 2 3 4 

16. Le causará daño emocional a sus hijos/niños?----------> 0 1 2 3 4 

Nada Algo Un 

poco 

Bastante Mucho 

No le Le tengo 

tengo muchísimo 

miedo <---------------> miedo 

17. ¿Cuánto miedo le tiene a su pareja o a su pareja más


0
 1
 2
 3
 reciente?------------------------------------------->


50982 

Page 27 of 28 MCC T1 S 

4 
ID NUMBER 

50982 

Por favor escriba cualquier comentario que tenga sobre el cuestionario (por ejemplo, frases o palabras 

que usamos en el cuestionario o algo que debamos incluir). 

Muchas gracias por participar. Su tiempo es muy valioso para ayudarnos a desarrollar un mejor 

entendimiento de las relaciones de pareja. 

50982 

Page 28 of 28 MCC T1 S 
Appendix J-4 

In-depth Interview Consent Form, Protocol, and Debriefing—Spanish 
In-Depth Interview, Page 1 of 3 IRB No.: 02-280 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Aprobación Para Participar en el Estudio 

Nombre del Proyecto: Desarrollo y Validación de una Medida del Control Coercitivo 

 en Violencia Entre Parejas Intimas 

Investigadora Principal: Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D. Teléfono: 202-687-1997 

Coordinadora de Proyecto: Darci Terrell Teléfono: 405-969-3078 

Patrocinador: Instituto Nacional de Justicia 

El Consejo de Revisión Institucional de la Universidad de Georgetown ha aprobado el conducto del presente 

estudio. Para mas información sobre sus derechos como contribuyente al estudio, puede llamar a la oficina 

del Consejo de Revisión Institucional, al teléfono: 202-687-1506. 

Introducción: Esta usted invitada/o a considerar participar en una parte adicional del estudio. Estaremos 

haciéndole preguntas acerca de la encuesta de Control Coercitivo que recién acabo. El presente documento 

explica el propósito y naturaleza del estudio, sus posibles riesgos y beneficios, otras opciones para usted, y 

sus derechos como participante en el estudio. Por favor tome el tiempo necesario para discutir el estudio con 

cualquier otra persona que quiera. La decisión de participar o de no participar es suya. Si usted decide no 

participar, por favor anote la fecha y firme en la ultima línea del documento. 

Antecedentes y propósito del estudio: Estamos realizando el estudio para mejor entender los diferentes 

efectos que tienen en una relación intima, las maneras en cuales los hombres y mujeres intentan controlarse a 

si mismos. Estudios previos que investigaban relaciones violentas se han enfocado principalmente en el 

nivel de la violencia, y no en el nivel de control en la relación. Al realizar el presente estudio, se espera 

aprender las diferencias que existen entre parejas violentas, aun más que el nivel de violencia. 

Numero de participantes: Un total de 50 personas participaran en esta fase del estudio. 

Plan de estudio: Investigadores le harán preguntas a personas que hayan acabado y entregado una encuesta 

de Control Coercitivo. Le deberá llevar 30 minutos para contestar todas las preguntas que se le harán en 

privado. Se les harán preguntas como, “Me puede dar un ejemplo de una situación cuando su pareja le 

exigió que hiciera algo?” “Que cree que el/ella le hubiera hecho si no hubiera hecho lo que le pidieron?” Si 

usted se siente mal y quiere hablar con alguien acerca de su seguridad personal o de las emociones y 

sentimientos que sintió después de acabar la entrevista, nosotros le daremos información de recursos o 

personas con quien puede hablar. 

Duración del estudio para cada participante: Estimamos que le lleve 30 minutos para contestar todas las 

preguntas. 

Posibles beneficios de participar en el estudio: No hay beneficios directos de participar en esta fase del 

estudio. La información que usted nos proporcione durante la entrevista nos ayudara a entender mejor las 

relaciones cuando uno o dos miembros de la pareja intenta controlar al otro. Los resultados del estudio 

también ayudara a mejorar los programas de intervención de violencia domestica. 
In-Depth Interview, Page 2 of 3 IRB No.: 02-280 

Posibles riesgos de participar en el estudio: Si su pareja sabe de su participación en el estudio, usted 

pudiera estar en riesgo de que el/ella se vengue de alguna manera. También, las preguntas de la encuesta 

pudieran hacerle pensar en cosas que le molesten o hagan sentir mal. A la vez, el tener la oportunidad de 

pensar en sus experiencias le pudiera resultar de benefició, pero debe saber que su participación en esta fase 

del estudio no va a resultar en consejos o terapia. 

Quien puede participar en la entrevista: Cualquier persona que cumpla los requisitos de participación en 

la encuesta de Control Coercitivo (personas mayores de los 18 años de edad, quien esta en una relación en 

cual ha tenido por lo menos un incidente de violencia en los últimos 12 meses), y que haya completado una 

encuesta de Control Coercitivo. 

Confidencialidad de la información reunida para el estudio: Las respuestas que nos de en la entrevista 

permanecerán confidenciales. No usaremos su nombre o características personales que se puedan usar para 

identificarla/lo con sus respuestas. Ya que firme este documento, será guardado en un archivo con candado y 

estará separado de su entrevista. Los investigadores serán las únicas personas que puedan identificar su 

nombre con su numero de entrevista. Las respuestas de la entrevista se guardaran en un archivo y se va a 

destruir cuando termine el estudio. Solamente los investigadores tendrán acceso a sus respuestas. Los 

nombres do los participantes del estudio no serán usados en documentos que resulten del estudio. Toda la 

información reunida para el estudio se presentará por grupo, así que ninguna persona o individuo podrá ser 

identificado. 

Si durante la entrevista nos cuenta de un niño a quien le están causando abuso, o de su intención de dañar a 

alguien o asi misma/o, estamos obligados a reportar esa información a las autoridades. 

Cumplimientos de HIPPA: El presente proyecto no requiere que le pidamos información de sus archivos 

médicos. 

Gastos de participación: No existen gastos para que usted participe en el estudio. 

Pagos por su participación: A usted se le pagaran otros $20 por su tiempo por participar en la entrevista. 

Sus derechos como participante en el estudio: Su participación en el estudio es completamente voluntaria. 

Usted tiene el derecho de terminar con el estudio cuando usted guste. No es necesario que conteste las 

preguntas que no quiera contestar. El dejar el estudio no le resultara en ningún castigo o perdida de 

beneficios a cuales tiene derecho de recibir. Si decide no continuar con el estudio, dígale a la persona que 

la/lo entrevisto y dígale que no quiere continuar con el estudio. 

Preguntas: Si tiene alguna pregunta durante el estudio, por favor hable con la doctora Mary Ann Dutton al 

teléfono 202-687-1997. Para mas información sobre sus derechos como contribuyente al estudio, puede 

llamar a la oficina del Consejo de Revisión Institucional de la universidad de Georgetown, al teléfono: 

202-687-1506. 

Declaración del investigador: Yo le he explicado el estudio al participante. Hemos platicado acerca del 

procedimiento del estudio, sus posibles riesgos y beneficios, los aspectos de la investigación, y le he 

contestado todas las preguntas que el participante y sus familiares me han hecho. 

Firma del investigador ___________________________ Fecha _________________ 
In-Depth Interview, Page 3 of 3 IRB No.: 02-280 

Aprobación del participante 

Yo he leído la información dada en el presente documento, o la información fue leída por el investigador. 

Todas mis preguntas fueron contestadas y estoy satisfecha/o con las respuestas. Yo voluntariamente acepto 

participar en el estudio. 

[Al firmar, le darán una copia del documento. El original será guardado en una cajón con llave y será 

destruido cuando acabe el estudio.] 

Su firma _______________________________________ Fecha _____________ 

Firma del investigador/testigo __________________________________ Fecha _____________ 

Rev. 1/27/04 

ID Number: Interviewer Name: 

Site: Date: 

IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 

Instruction to Interviewer: 

Use the following script to introduce the In-depth Interview Protocol after the participant 

has completed the Coercive Control Survey 

Si le interesa, nos gustaría hacerle una entrevista que le llevara 

aproximadamente 30 minutos. Si acepta le daremos $20 dólares mas por su 

participación. En la entrevista le haremos preguntas de seguimiento que son 

similares a las de la encuesta. Le gustaría participar en este segundo paso? 

If the participant would like to participate, they must read and sign the In-depth Interview 

Protocol Consent Form. 

The Interviewer will use the participant’s completed Coercive Control Survey as a 

foundation for guiding the In-depth Interview. Refer to Section 2A of the completed 

survey. Pick at least 3 (three) items where the participant indicated “YES” that their 

partner DEMANDED something of them (there may be more than 3 items in this section 

where the participant noted “YES”; pick only 3 for the purpose of this interview (if 

possible, select items from different “categories” if there are more than 3 items). You 

will ask follow-up questions for each of the 3 items. 

1/27/04 
IN-DEPTH ITEM #1: 

1.1 Usted indico que su pareja a veces le exigía que usted: (interviewer: write here the 

item that is being addressed, e.g., “leaving the house”) 

1.2 ¿Que tan seguido le pedio su pareja que hiciera eso?

1.3 Me puede dar un ejemplo de una situación cuando su pareja le pidió que hiciera eso? 

1.4 ¿Que paso antes de que le pidiera hacer eso?

1.5 ¿Cómo le hizo saber a usted lo que el/ella quería que usted hiciera?

1.6 ¿Que piensa que el/ella le hubiera hecho si usted NO hacia lo que le pedia?

1.7 ¿Que piensa que hubiera pasado si usted Sí hubiera hecho lo que le pedía?

1.8 ¿Que hizo usted cuando le pedieron hacer esa exigencia?

1.9 ¿Cómo le hizo sentir el hacer [participant’s response to demand]?

1.10 ¿Tiene alguna otro comentario o cosa que decir de la esta exigencia que le 

pidieron?

1/27/04 
IN-DEPTH ITEM #2: 

2.1 Usted indico que su pareja a veces le exigía que usted: (interviewer: write here the 

item that is being addressed, e.g., “leaving the house 

2.2 ¿Que tan seguido le pedio su pareja que hiciera eso?

2.3 Me puede dar un ejemplo de una situación cuando su pareja le pidió que hiciera eso. 

2.4 ¿Que paso antes de que le pidiera hacer eso?

2.5 ¿Cómo le hizo saber a usted lo que el/ella quería que usted hiciera?

2.6 ¿Que piensa que el/ella le hubiera hecho si usted NO hacia lo que le pedia?

2.7 ¿Que piensa que hubiera pasado si usted SI hubiera hecho lo que le pedían?

2.8 ¿Que hizo usted cuando le pedieron hacer esa exigencia?

2.9 ¿Cómo le hizo sentir el haber [participant’s response to demand]?

2.10 ¿Tiene alguna otro comentario o cosa que decir de la esta exigencia que le 

pidieron?

1/27/04 
IN-DEPTH ITEM #3: 

3.1 Usted indico que su pareja a veces le exigía que usted: (interviewer: write here the 

item that is being addressed, e.g., “leaving the house”) 

3.2 ¿Que tan seguido le pedio su pareja que hiciera eso?

3.3 Me puede dar un ejemplo de una situación cuando su pareja le pidió que hiciera eso. 

3.4 ¿Que paso antes de que le pidiera hacer eso?

3.5 ¿Cómo le hizo saber a usted lo que el/ella quería que usted hiciera?

3.6 ¿Que piensa que el/ella le hubiera hecho si usted NO hacia lo que le pedia?

3.7 ¿Que piensa que hubiera pasado si usted SI hubiera hecho lo que le pedían?

3.8 ¿Que hizo usted cuando le pedieron hacer esa exigencia?

3.9 ¿Cómo le hizo sentir el hacer [participant’s response to demand]?

3.10 ¿Tiene alguna otro comentario o cosa que decir de la esta exigencia que le 

pidieron?

1/27/04 
Platica de Salida 

Muchas gracias por su participación en este estudio. Esperamos que los resultados nos 

ayuden a adquirir un mejor entendimiento de las maneras que parejas que están en 

relaciones intimas usan para controlarse a si mismos. 

Las preguntas que le hicimos quizás le hayan producido a usted cuestiones e instantes 

desagradables. Si usted se siente mal y quiere hablar con alguien acerca de su seguridad 

personal o de las emociones y sentimientos que sintió después de acabar el cuestionario, 

los investigadores que le hicieron las preguntas y le dieron la encuesta les encantaría 

platicar con usted. También le pedimos que le hable a la doctora Lisa Goodman, la 

investigadora principal del estudio y profesora en la universidad deBoston College. Su 

teléfono es el 617-552-1725. 

Si siente que necesita mas tiempo para explorar los sentimientos que recordó a causa de 

su participación en el estudio, existen recursos a cuales puede acudir. Puede llamar a 

Safelink, la línea telefónica del estado de Massachusetts para la violencia domestica, al 

1-877-785-2020 (llamada gratuita). Tambien hemos incluido una lista de recursos 

disponibles en el estado de Massachussets para victimas de violencia y coerció. Por 

favor pásele esta información a cualquier persona que usted piense la pueda necesitar. 

Si sabe de alguien que usted crea quisiera participar en el estudio, por 

favor pásele la siguiente información o hable con una de las personas 

que la/lo entrevisto o le dio el cuestionario: 

Lisa Goodman 

617-552-1725 

Muchas gracias! 
Appendix K 

Training Materials for Survey Administration 

K-1 Survey Administration Training Manual 

K-2 Training Outline for MCC Survey Administration at DC Superior Court 
Appendix K-1

Survey Administration Training Manual 
Appendix K-1 

Development and Validation of a 

Coercive Control Measure for 

Intimate Partner Violence

Survey Administration 

Training Manual 
Contents 

Page 

Section 

1. Introduction to the Project ......................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ................................................ 1-1

1.2 Definitions ................................................. 1-2

2. Introduction to the Coercive Control Survey ........................... 2-1

2.1 Overview of the Coercive Control Survey ........................ 2-1

2.2 Scan Format of the CCS ...................................... 2-1

3. Informed Consent and Confidentiality ................................ 3-1

3.1 Risks to Respondents ......................................... 3-1

3.2 Risk Management ........................................... 3-1

3.3 Informed Consent ........................................... 3-2

3.4 Confidentiality and Data Monitoring Procedures ................... 3-2

4. Logistics of Survey Administration .................................. 4-1

4.1 Respondent Recruitment and Survey Sites ........................ 4-1

4.2 Preparation for Survey Administration ........................... 4-1

4.3 Onsite Administration of the Survey ............................. 4-3

4.4 Administering the In-Depth Interviews ........................... 4-5

4.5 RA Activities to be Conducted Following each Survey Session ........ 4-6

4.6 Activities to be Conducted at COSMOS Following Submission

of the Complete Envelope ................................... 4-7

5. Technical Proposal - Development and Validation of a Coercive Control 

Measure for Intimate Partner Violence ............................... 5-1

6. COSMOS Corporation Organizational Capability Statement .............. 6-1

7. Additional Resources ............................................. 7-1

COSMOS Corporation ii 
Exhibits 

Section 1:

Model of Coercive Control

Development of Coercive Control Measure: Conceptual Framework

Section 2:

Coercive Control Survey (CCS)

Section 3:

Detailed Safety Protocol

Consent Form for Coercive Control Survey

Domestic Violence Resources

Section 4:

Subject Recruitment Flyer

Payment Funds Receipt

Raffle Receipt

Survey and Payment Logs

Consent Form for In-depth Interviews

In-depth Interview Protocol

COSMOS Corporation iii 
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT 

1.1 Introduction 

In 2001, the team of COSMOS, Georgetown University Medical Center, and Boston 

College were awarded a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to develop a 

measure of coercive control in intimate partner relationships. Until now, the field has yet 

to develop a clear theoretical understanding of coercive control, and there exists no 

adequate measure of “nonviolent coercive control” in intimate partner violence (IPV). 

The specific objectives of this grant are to: 1) develop a conceptual model of coercive 

control, 2) develop an ecologically and statistically valid instrument to measure coercive 

control; 3) evaluate the psychometric properties of the coercive control measure by 

administering the instrument in the field, and 4) conduct a preliminary test of the 

usefulness of the measure. 

The team has developed a conceptual model of coercive control (objective 1). This 

“conceptual framework” includes an annotated description of the coercive process and 

mediating and moderating constructs related to coercion. 

Using the conceptual framework, the team developed an instrument to measure 

coercive control (objective 2). A national domestic violence panel of 20 experts assisted 

in the drafting and review of the measure, and more than 100 professionals in the field have 

provided the team with feedback to refine the measure. 

The next (and current) step in the process is to have individuals complete the 

instrument (a survey) to see how well the measure captures the experience of coercive 

control (objective 3). The survey will be administered to five heterogenous subgroups: 

1. Identified male IPV perpetrators (n = 100); 

2. Identified female IPV perpetrators (n = 100); 

3. Identified female IPV victims (n = 100); 

4. A community sample of IPV male adults (n = 100); and 

5. A community sample of IPV female adults (n = 100). 

The community samples will include respondents who report either IPV victimization 

or perpetration by either or both partners. In addition, the survey will be administered to a 

comparison group of male adults (n = 50) and female adults (n = 50) involved in a current 

intimate relationship, but with no reported IPV. 

Thus, our target within both the heterogenous subgroups and the comparison group is 

600 responses, though the survey will be administered to more than 600 to achieve the 

target response in each group. 

COSMOS Corporation 1-1 
Respondents will be paid $20 for submission of the completed survey. Additionally, 

each respondent will be eligible to receive one of three $100 raffles. Travel and child care 

expenses will be paid, though funds for this purpose are limited. 

In-depth Interviews. One of every 10 of the 500 respondents (n = 50) will be 

administered an in-depth interview as part of the assessment of construct validity. The 

request for an in-depth interview will be made after the participant has completed the 

survey. The interviewer will explore the respondent’s answers to obtain more information 

about the issues that the item was intended to measure. This procedure will help determine 

validity in two ways: 1) by identifying whether the item adequately captured the 

respondent’s actual experience; and 2) by determining whether the item has a substantially 

similar meaning to the respondent’s actual experience, thus capturing similar phenomena 

for different people. Participants will be offered an additional $20 for completion of the indepth interview. 

1.2 Definitions 

Intimate partner violence (IPV): Actual or threatened physical or sexual violence or 

psychological and emotional abuse directed toward a 

spouse, ex-spouse, current or former boyfriend or 

girlfriend, or current or former dating partner. 

Intimate partners (or relationships) may be 

heterosexual or of the same sex. Some of the 

common terms used to describe intimate partner 

violence are domestic abuse, spouse abuse, domestic 

violence, courtship violence, battering, marital rape, 

and date rape. 

Coercive control: The communication of a threat of contingent and 

meaningful negative consequences for 

noncompliance with a demand, request, or 

expectation. 

Subjects or respondents: The persons taking the survey will be referred to in 

this Training Manual, and thereafter, as either 

subjects or respondents. 

COSMOS Corporation 1-2 
• 

demand or expectation 

• 

consequence for 

• 

to carry out threatened consequence, 

A

• Target’s perception of 

i

ion 

including party 

• 

- Communicate readiness 

IPV) 

- Manipulation 

-Creating indebtedness 

• • • Facilitating

Agent Target 

MOTIVATION / INTENTION / 

SOCIAL ECOLOGY 

d

COERCIVE THREAT 

Communication of 

Communication of threat 

of meaningful negative noncompliance 

Communication of ability 

including involvement 

of third party 

PPRAISAL (OR UNDERSTANDING) 

OF COERCIVE THREAT 

likelihood that 

the agent w ll carry out threat of contingent and meaningful negative consequences for noncompliance with a demand or expectat

SURVEILLANCEinvolvement of thi

SETTING THE STAGE 

Creating vulnerabilities 

- Communicate willingness 

- Communicate ability (e.g., prior

Exploiting existing vulnerabilities Wearing down resistance 

 attachment 

VULNERABILITY TO COERCION 

PERSONAL GAIN 

MODEL OF INTIMATE PARTNER 

COERCIVE CONTROL 

B
Draft 2/26/03. Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

1

DEVELOPMENT OF COERCIVE CONTROL MEASURE: 

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 

Working Definition of Coercion: 

IPV COERCION: Communication of a credible threat of contingent and negative 

meaningful consequences for an intimate partner’s noncompliance with a demand or 

expectation. 

APPRAISAL OF IPV COERCION: Understanding or perception of the likelihood that 

one’s partner would (or would try) to deliver contingent and meaningful negative consequences 

for one’s noncompliance with a demand or expectation. 

Other Components of the IPV Coercion Model

RESPONSE TO COERCION: The act of responding to IPV coercion and/or the 

appraisal of IPV coercion along two non-orthogonal dimensions of compliance and 

resistance. 

SURVEILLANCE: The act of monitoring an intimate partner’s response to coercion. 

DELIVERY OF THREATENED (OR OTHER) CONSEQQUENCES: Carrying out 

threatened (or other) consequences for an intimate partner’s actual (or assumed) 

noncompliance with a demand or expectation. 

OUTCOMES OF IPV COERCION: The emotional, cognitive, behavioral, social or 

physiological outcomes associated with exposure to IPV Coercion or with meaningful 

levels of Appraisal of IPV Coercion. 

SETTING THE STAGE FOR IPV COERCION: Exploiting or creating 

vulnerabilities in one’s intimate partner that reduces the capacity or likelihood of 

resistance to IPV Coercion. 

VULNERABILITY TO COERCION: Emotional, cognitive, behavioral, social, or 

physiological conditions that reduce one’s capacity or likelihood of resistance to IPV 

Coercion. 

MOTIVATION, INTENTION, OR PERSONAL GAIN FOR IPV COERCION: The 

conscious or unconscious motivation or intention to engage in IPV Coercive acts or the 

potential of personal gain for doing so. 
Draft 2/26/03. Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

2

Underlying Assumptions / Points of Clarification or Discussion : 

1. Social power plays a role in all interpersonal relationships, including intimate partner 

relationships (French & Raven, 1959). 

2. Coercion is one of several forms of social power. Both social power and coercion are 

found in most intimate partner relationships, although there is a great deal of variance 

in forms and severity of coercion (Molm, 1997; Raven, 1993; Raven, Center, & 

Rodriguez, 1975). Distinguishing “acceptable” vs. “unacceptable” forms of coercion 

is determined by social norms. An example of “unacceptable” coercion might be the 

threat of a beating for not coming home on time. An example of an “acceptable” 

coercion might be the threat of calling the police if the abusive partner does not put 

down the gun. 

3. Control is influencing someone to do something they would not otherwise do. Control 

is neither positive nor negative; it is the product of inevitable social power in 

relationships. The construct of control encompasses coercion, as well as force, 

persuasion, and authority, and other forms of social power. It is coercion that is the 

focus of the development of this measure. 

4. Coercion is a fluid process. An individual can be both a “target” and an “agent” of 

coercion – sometimes within the same interaction. The level or severity of coercion 

between the two partners may or may not differ dramatically. 

5. Coercion is the act of getting someone to act or think in a particular way by using or 

threatening with negative consequences for noncompliance. As such, coercion is a 

specific mechanism of control. An act of coercion requires a “target” and an “agent.” 

6. Coercion is different from “force.” Force involves “lack of volition” where – given 

sufficient force - it is physically impossible to resist. 

7. Coercion involves “choice,” but not “free choice.” By definition, there is a “cost” for 

choosing noncompliance. When that “cost” is meaningful to the “target” of coercion, 

then socially or clinically significant coercion exists. 

8. The agent’s awareness of his/her intention or motivation to control the target through 

coercion is not necessary for the coercive process to occur or for coercive outcomes 

to result. 

Purpose of Developing a Measure of Coercive Control

1. To develop a measure capable of assessing the type, severity, and extent of coercion 

within intimate partner relationships. 

2. To apply the new measure of coercive control in the study of violent intimate partner 

relationships in order to test a range of hypotheses, including, for example that types 
Draft 2/26/03. Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

3

of intimate partner violence can be distinguished by the level of coercive control they 

involve (Johnson, 1995; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000) or that some criminal conduct is 

the result of coercive control in intimate relationships (Colvin, Cullen, & Vander 

Ven, 2001; Stark, 1995). 
Draft 2/26/03. Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

4

Elaboration of the Model of Coercive Control in Intimate Relationships

COERCIVE PROCESS 

1. Communication of Demand, Request, or Expectation 

a. Coercion requires that the “agent” demand, request, or expect the “target” to 

do something that the target does NOT want to do. 

b. Coercion doesn’t require – although may involve - an explicit “demand,” 

especially in ongoing relationships where current expectations are made clear 

through past interactions. Likewise, a seemingly pleasant “request,” that appears 

to be non-coercive when observed from outside the interaction, may functionally 

be a demand, again depending on past interactions between the target and agent. 

(Komter, 1989) 

c. Demands, requests, or expectations can occur in any domain. The more 

domains in which coercion occurs, the more pervasive is the pattern of coercion in 

the relationship. 

(1. Personal activities (e.g., coming and going, eating, sleeping, dressing) 

(2. Social life 

(3. Household (nuclear family and extended family living in same house) 

(4. Family members (extended family not living in same house) 

(5. Work related/economic/money 

(6. Children/parenting 

(7. Intimate/romance 

2. Communication of the Threat of a Meaningful Negative Consequence 

a. Coercion requires the communication of a contingent “meaningful” negative 

consequence for noncompliance. 

b. Communication of a contingent negative consequence for noncompliance may 

be established through a) a prior actual contingent negative consequence delivered 

by the agent for noncompliance or b) a threatened one. 

c. Communication of the threat of future negative consequence may be explicit 

(e.g., direct verbal statement) or implicit (e.g., gesture or words that carry the 

meaning of threat, even though they are not overtly stated). 

d. Communication of a threat of a contingent negative consequence may involve 

“invoking the power of third parties” (Raven, 1993). 

e. The contingent negative consequence may be the application of an aversive 

consequence (i.e., punishment) or the removal of something positive (i.e., 

response cost) – both of which function to increase the likelihood of compliance. 
Draft 2/26/03. Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

5

The “meaningfulness” of the threatened consequence helps to determine “how 

much cost.” Some negative consequences may be slight (e.g., refusal to talk), 

while others may have tremendous impact on the target’s life (e.g., having one’s 

children taken away), and yet others are life-threatening (e.g., being killed). 

Understanding the “weight” or “cost” of the consequence to the target is essential 

to understanding the coercive process. The weight or meaning of a particular 

negative consequence is unique to the target – determined by many factors 

(Cartwright, 1959). 

COERCIVE OUTCOME 

3. Perceived Threat of Coercion

a. The target’s perception that her/his partner is sufficiently ready, willing, and 

able to engage in a threatened and meaningful negative consequence for 

noncompliance with a demand, request, or expectation by the agent provides the 

cognitive component of the definition of coercive outcome (Outcome1). That is, 

coercion has been “successful” when the target behaves “as though” the 

contingent punishment would occur, regardless of whether it actually would 

occur. 

b. The perception of “sufficiently ready, willing, and able” should incorporate 

the potential for doubt – since the criteria would not likely need to be 100% 

certain in order that one modify one’s behavior (e.g., comply) with a demand, 

request, or expectation. Given a sufficiently high threshold consequence (e.g., 

being killed, having one’s children taken away), the target’s perceived likelihood 

that such an consequence for noncompliance would occur may need only be 

minimal in order to coerce compliance. 

c. It is probably necessary that the agent has engaged in at least some form of 

coercive acts – allowing for disagreement in report between agent and target. 

Otherwise, the target may be experiencing the situation as coercive, but it would 

be based on other factors (e.g., prior relationship experience, disordered 

psychological state). 

4. Compliance / Resistance as Coercive Outcome 

a. The target’s response to the demand, request, or expectation may be in the 

form of compliance or resistance. Note that resistance may not be sufficiently 

strong and eventually lead to compliance, so both may occur in response to threat. 

b. Coercion is an interactive process – not a static phenomenon. The 

“demand/response interaction” is iterative and several sequences may occur in the 

coercive process. For example, the sequence may be 
Draft 2/26/03. Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

6

demand/resist/demand/resist/demand/comply – each time the demand becoming 

stronger. 

c. The target’s behavioral response to coercion involves elements of two 

dimensions, which may occur alone or together. 

(1. Compliance – doing what the target demands 

(2. Resistance – resisting what the target demand. 

a) Direct resistance may involve confrontation or an overt 

resistance of the demand 

b) Indirect resistance involves resisting, but in a way that is 

“softer” or doesn’t involve a direct confrontation of the agent (e.g., 

delaying, rather than refusing; saying “yes” to the “request” but 

then not doing it). 

5. Delivery of Threatened Negative Consequences 

a. In some cases, the threat of negative consequence is actually delivered – for 

actual or perceived noncompliance. Generally, these acts fit the definitions of 

various forms of IPV. 

MEDIATING AND MODERATING CONSTRUCTS RELATED TO COERCION 

6. Other Effects Of The Coercive Process 

a. Emotional and cognitive responses associated with compliance or resistance 

are many. Examples include sadness, fear, helplessness, futility, anger, hope). 

b. The “meaning” of the compliance and resistance behavior is also important. 

Compliance now may be viewed as an interim step (e.g., to buy time) until the 

target can resist more successfully later. Or, compliance may mean to the target 

she/he has “given up” resisting the agent’s demands, at least for now. 

7. Agent’s Surveillance 

a. Coercive power requires the agent to be able to conduct surveillance to detect 

compliance vs. noncompliance. Examples of this in intimate partner violence 

include the batterer checking the odometer to determine whether the partner came 

right home as demanded, frequent phone calls to determine whether the partner 

has left the home, required reports by the target to the agent, or “checking” 

underwear to determine whether the partner had had sex with someone else. 

8. Setting The Stage For Coercion 

Coercion often involves some type of “setting the stage” or preparation of the 

target to increase the likelihood that subsequent coercive tactics will be effective. 
Draft 2/26/03. Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

7

a. Creating Vulnerability. The agent may soften the target – that is, 

communicating to the target that the agent is “willing,” “able,” and “ready” to 

impose a negative consequence. It is “important to demonstrate to the target that 

not only are the means available for coercion (i.e., ability), but that the agent is 

ready and willing to pay the costs that coercion implies” (Raven, 1993). 

(1. Communication of “willingness” of agent to engage in threatened 

negative consequence. 

a) Communication of willingness occurs when the agent has 

previously imposed negative consequences (i.e., has done it 

before) on the target or someone else that the target knows about. 

b) Communication of willingness occurs when the target states 

explicitly that he/she is going to engage in threatened negative 

consequence (i.e., has said he/she will do it). 

(2. Communication of “ability” of agent to engage in threatened negative 

consequence. 

a) Agent’s ability to administer the negative consequence is based 

on the target’s perception of an uneven power difference between 

the agent and the target. Perceived power differences – which 

alone or in combination provide a basis from which to persuasively 

communicate the ability to engage in the threatened negative 

consequences - can be derived from one or more sources, 

including, but not limited to the following: 

• Actual IPV 

• Physical size and strength 

• Access to money and other economic resources 

• Access to weapons 

• Ability to utilize third party resources (e.g., individuals, 

institutional systems, INS, IRS) to invoke consequences 

• Access to the “target” or “target’s” family and friends 

• Access to other resources that increase power 

(3. Communication of agent’s “readiness” to engage in threatened 

negative consequence against agent (Raven, 1993). 

a) Communication of readiness answers the “why now?” question 

in terms of the target’s response to coercion. This is especially 

important when explaining the target’s resistance (vs. compliance). 
Draft 2/26/03. Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

8

b) Communication of readiness may occur by means of the agent 

saying explicitly - or in some other way communicating - that 

he/she is going to impose the threatened negative consequence 

(i.e., has said he/she will do it) within a particular timeframe. 

b. Softening the target/Wearing down target’s resistance. Setting the stage 

for coercion may also occur through wearing down the target’s resistance. 

Wearing down resistance can involve the agent’s reducing the target’s emotional 

(e.g., inducing a state of terror/fear, emotionally wearing down), physical (e.g., 

injury, sleep deprivation), cognitive (e.g., creating mental confusion in the target), 

or economic (e.g., making it necessary for the target to use up her/his resources) 

resources -- some of which may be necessary to resist.

c. Exploiting target’s prior vulnerabilities. Coercion may also be made more 

possible because the agent exploits the target’s prior vulnerabilities (e.g., 

childhood abuse, prior victimization, mental disorder or disability, physical 

disability). 

9. Social Ecology Surrounding Coercion 

Coercion occurs in the context of a relationship. Characteristics of intimate coercive 

relationships may vary enormously. An ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 

Dutton, 1996) is helpful to organize these contextual factors, as potential moderators 

and mediators of the impact of coercion, as well as on coercive tactics, per se. 

Examples are: 

a. Economic and Tangible Resources Context 

i. Level of economic and tangible resources available to the target 

independent of the agent (e.g., threats to withhold child support payments 

will be more salient for someone with no job). 

b. Institutional Context 

i. Level and type of institutional involvement of each partner 

ii. Public policies, including, but not limited to: 

1. Public housing policy of zero tolerance for violence (“one strike 

and you’re out” initiative). 

2. Welfare reform 

iii. Institutonal support of ideology of family patriarchy [see work by Michael 

D. Smith and Walter DeKeseredy] 

c. Cultural and Social Context 

i. Socioeconomic / social class status 

ii. Race/ethnicity 

iii. Religion 

iv. Immigration status / citizenship / country of origin 

v. Sexual orientation 
Draft 2/26/03. Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

9

vi. Urban/suburban/rural 

vii. Age cohort 

d. Social Network 

i. Family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and acquaintances 

1. Social networks may influence coercion. Example: The agent’s 

extended family that lives with the target may make 

noncompliance more costly, since it may invoke the disapproval of 

others, in addition to the agent’s threat. 

2. Isolation from social network may increase vulnerability of the 

target, or serve to increase agents’ coercive tactics and motivation 

to coercion. 

3. Target’s social support may bolster the target’s efforts at 

noncompliance with coercive threats. 

4. Agent’s involvement in patriarchal all-male social networks – and 

the pro-abuse male peer support it may provide – may provide 

support to bolster the agent’s coercive (and other violent and 

abusive) tactics. 

ii. Partner 

1. Other forms of social power ascribed to the partner– in addition to 

coercion - that may form the basis of coercion, influence, or other 

forms of control. 

a) Reward power - ability to provide or withhold positive social 

consequence directly or indirectly (e.g., through third party). 

b) Legitimate power to influence is seen as legitimate by means of 

social norms (e.g., gender roles), status in the community (e.g., 

religious or community leader), position of authority (e.g., police 

officer), and agent’s legal immigration status. Thus, the agent’s 

greater legitimate status relative to the target provides an 

opportunity for coercion (e.g., the religious community supports 

the role of husband in making demands of female partner, agent 

threatens to withhold information about filing immigration papers 

unless the target complies). Legitimate power can also be used by 

the partner to the benefit of the other. 

c) Expert power to influence is based on target’s perception of 

agent’s specific expertise (e.g., black belt, skillful verbal 

negotiation skills). Thus, an agent’s greater expertise, relative to 

the target, provides an opportunity for coercion (e.g., agent has 

knowledge about cars which support his threats to tamper with the 
Draft 2/26/03. Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

10

car to make it unsafe). The partner can also use her/his expert 

power to the benefit of the other. 

d) Referent power to influence based on target’s identification or 

emotional connection with agent (e.g., emotional attachment, 

identity as “husband”). An agent’s lesser attachment or 

commitment to the relationship relative to the target provides an 

opportunity for coercion (e.g., agent threatens to leave the 

relationship unless the target complies) by the partner. 

e) Informational power to influence based on agent’s access to or 

control over information that is important to the target (e.g., where 

the checkbook is kept). Thus, the agent’s access to or control over 

information that is important to the target provides the opportunity 

for coercion (e.g. partner tells target that she will lose custody of 

the children if she calls the police because he is a citizen and she is 

not). The partner may also use his/her informational power to the 

benefit of the other. 

(2. Physical power 

a) The agent’s physical size and strength, relative to the target, 

enhances the agent’s ability to use physical force as a threat. 

(3. Economic autonomy and resources 

a) The agent’s economic autonomy and resources, relative to the 

target, enhances the agent’s ability to use economic reasons as a 

tool of coercion. 

e. Individual Context 

i. Target’s strengths / resilience and vulnerabilities 

1. Cognitive 

a. Target’s intellectual problem-solving abilities may enhance 

her/his ability to not comply, without incurring the 

threatened consequence. 

2. Physical status / physiological state 

a. Alcohol / drug use and abuse 

i. Intoxication may impair her/his ability to resist a 

coercive demand. 

ii. Chronic alcohol/drug use or addition 

b. Physical disabilities 

c. Chronic illness (e.g., cancer, HIV/AIDS) 

3. Mental health / mental status 
Draft 2/26/03. Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

11

a. Chronic mental illness 

b. Disorientation or confusion 

c. Depression 

d. PTSD and anxiety 

4. Behavioral Skills / Deficits 

a. Proficiencies and abilities (e.g., karate, firearms) 

b. Skill deficits (e.g., inability to drive a car) 

9. Target’s Increased Vulnerability 

This element of the target’s increased vulnerability following “setting the stage” tactics is 

not essential to the model of coercive control in that it is not essential that it occur. 

However, it may be of interest in better studying the dynamics of the coercion process. 

10. Motivation, Intention, Personal Gain 

The question of the agent’s motivation, intention, or personal gain is complex, and 

difficult to assess, especially given social desirability and psychological defense (e.g., 

denial, projection) considerations. An awareness of intent to coerce seems not necessary 

in order to engage in acts that would be objectively judged as coercive. Yet, this 

construct is an important one to consider further. 

 
Draft 2/26/03. Please Do Not Cite or Quote Without Permission 

12

References 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature 

and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Cartwright, D. (1959). A field theoretical conception of power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), 

Studies in social power (pp. 183-220). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social 

Research. 

Colvin, M., Cullen, F. T., & Vander Ven, T. (2001). Coercion, social support, and crime: 

An emerging theoretical consensus. Criminology, 40(1), 19-42. 

Dutton, M. A. (1996). Battered women's strategic response to violence: The role of 

context. In J. L. E. Z. C. Eisikovits (Ed.), Future interventions with battered 

women and their families (pp. 105-124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright 

(Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social 

Research. 

Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of 

violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294. 

Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: 

Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 948-963. 

Komter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender & Society, 3(12), 187-216. 

Molm, L. D. (1997). Coerceive poser in social exchange. Cambridge, United Kingdom: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of 

Social Psychology, 49(4), 227-251. 

Raven, B. H., Center, & Rodriguez. (1975). The bases of conjugal power. In D. H. Olson 

(Ed.), Power in families. New York: Wiley. 

Stark, E. (1995). Re-presenting woman battering: From battered woman syndrome to 

coercive control. Albany Law Review, 58, 973-1026. 
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE COERCIVE CONTROL SURVEY 

2.1 Overview of Coercive Control Survey (CCS) 

The Coercive Control Survey (CCS) is a 34-page instrument that is divided into the 

following sections: 

1. Sample description (demographic variables and items to assess the extent of 

involvement in institutional systems that address IPV) 

2. Coercive control measure - Target

2a. Partner expectation or demands

2b. Partner surveillance methods

2c. Threatened consequences

2d. People that helped enforce demands

2e. Response to partner’s threats

3. Coercive control measure - Agent

3a. Expectations or demands

3b. Surveillance methods

3c. Consequences

3d. People that helped enforce demands

4. Correlates and Consequences of Coercion 

• Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory 

• The Dominance Scale (Restrictiveness Subscale) 

• Conflict Tactics Scale 

• Marlowe Crown Social Desirability Scale 

• Threat Appraisal Scale 

2.2 Scan Format of the CCS 

The survey will be printed on a form that can be scanned directly into a database. The 

selected responses should be denoted by filling in the corresponding circle next to the 

question using a #2 pencil. In order for information to be scanned correctly, the circles 

need to be filled out as directed. Stray marks may result in error; thus, the Research 

Assistant (RA) must proof every completed survey before it is submitted. 

COSMOS Corporation 2-1 
3. INFORMED CONSENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY

Due to the sensitive and personal nature of the Coercive Control Survey, subjects will 

be required to read and sign an Informed Consent document before completing the survey. 

Also, procedures have been developed to protect the identity of respondents and the 

information they provide. Safety concerns will be paramount in all contacts with 

respondents. 

3.1 Risks to Respondents 

The Coercive Control Survey asks respondents to provide personal and sensitive 

information about their lives and relationships. As part of the consent procedure, subjects 

who are victims of violence will be asked to consider the possibility that if their abusive 

partner learns of their involvement in the study, she (or he) could become angry and even 

physically or psychologically abusive. Also, it is possible that participants may become 

upset by the nature of the survey or in-depth interview. 

3.2 Risk Management 

A Detailed Safety Protocol has been developed to codify the procedures for 

minimizing the risks to respondents and others. In addition, the following procedures will 

be in place: 

• If at any point, the Research Assistant or the subject herself (or himself) believes 

that the subject might be in increased danger due to her (or his) participation 

in the study, the subject’s involvement must be terminated immediately. 

• If the subject tells the Research Assistant of a child who is being abused or of 

their intent to harm someone else or themselves, the Research Assistant is 

obligated to report that information to the appropriate authorities. In this 

case, the Research Assistant should immediately contact the Project Director 

for further instruction. If the Project Director is not available, the Research 

Assistant should contact the Project Coordinator. 

• All in-depth interviews will be conducted in private. A careful debriefing will 

be conducted to ensure that participants have not been upset by the nature of 

the interview, and to provide a referral to a mental health counselor or other 

helper if appropriate. 

• All participants will be given referrals to community agencies that can provide 

emergency service or other assistance to participants. 

COSMOS Corporation 3-1 
The investigators believe that any foreseeable risks involved can be managed so that 

subjects will not be placed at increased risk of serious physical or psychological jeopardy. 

The investigators have conducted similar studies with the same population and have never 

received any reports that the study caused emotional difficulties or safety risks for any 

subject. In fact, many subjects have expressed appreciation for the opportunity to talk 

about their situation. 

3.3 Informed Consent 

Respondents must be over 18 years of age to participate. An Informed Consent 

document was developed to ensure that participants understand the purpose of the study, 

the nature of participation in the study, procedures, potential risks and benefits to them, and 

persons who they may contact to inquire further about their participation. Prior to survey 

administration, the research assistant will explain the survey administration procedures, 

assure confidentiality (with the exceptions above under Risk Management), answer any 

questions, and obtain written informed consent for participation in the study. 

The informed consent document assures respondents that their participation is 

voluntary and they may elect to not complete any or all of the survey or in-depth interview. 

3.4 Confidentiality and Data Monitoring Procedures 

The Informed Consent document will contain a participant identification (ID) number 

that will also appear on the survey. The ID number is the only identifying information that 

will appear on the survey or in-depth interview questionnaire. Information obtained about 

an individual respondent will not be shared as individual data. All information will be 

summarized as group data. Data will not be stored in identifiable form. 

The informed consent document will be stored separately from the survey and indepth interview documents in a locked and secure location at COSMOS Corporation. Only 

the Principal Investigator and Project Coordinator will have access to these confidential 

documents. 

COSMOS Corporation 3-2 
Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure 

for Intimate Partner Violence 

Detailed Safety Protocol 

1. Informed consent procedures will follow all requirements of the Georgetown University 

Medical Center (who will conduct IRB review for COSMOS), which comply with all 

Federal mandates for protecting the rights and welfare of human participants. Informed 

consent will be obtained for all contacts at each interview. In addition, consent will be 

obtained for advocates to be present at the research interview for purposes of support and 

translation, as needed. No information obtained from the research interview will be 

placed in the agency file unless the participant so requests. 

2. An individualized follow-up protocol will be developed with each participant to account 

for individual dynamic circumstances potentially contributing to participants’ risk. 

3. The notification of the three raffle awards will be made via a method selected by the 

participant. If contact is made by mail, the mail will not bear identifying information 

concerning the nature of the research project. The notification will reference “Women’s 

Community Study” only, so as not to provide information about the nature of the study. 

If contact is made by phone, a dedicated line will be used. The phone number available 

for research purposes will be answered using a standard protocol (“Women’s Community 

Study”) so as not to provide any identifying information in the event that an abuse partner 

or someone else obtains sufficient information to call and inquire about the project. 

Participants may choose to not participate in the raffle. 

4. Participants will be asked to provide identifying information (e.g., answer to question 

suggested by the participant that abuser is unlikely to know) before any information 

revealing the nature of the project is provided. This procedure will be utilized for calls 

originating with the project as well as calls made to the project to minimize the likelihood 

of someone other than the participant obtaining information about the nature of the 

project. Advocates making contact with participants will utilize their routine procedure 

for contacting clients. 

5. No protected health information (PHI) will be collected as part of the proposed protocol, 

nor is COSMOS or Georgetown University a “covered entity” in terms of the proposed 

research activity. 

Rev. 10/14/03 
Coercive Control Measure, Page 1 of 2 IRB No.: 02-280 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Consent to Participate in Research 

Project Name: Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure for Intimate Partner Violence 

Principal Investigator: Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D. Telephone: 202-687-1997 

Project Coordinator: Darci Terrell Telephone: 405-969-3078 

Sponsor: The National Institute of Justice 

The Georgetown University Institutional Review Board has given approval for this research project. For 

information on your rights as a research subject, call the Institutional Review Board office: 202-687-1506. 

Introduction: You are invited to consider participating in this research study. We will be evaluating aspects 

of control in relationships. This form will describe the purpose and nature of the study, its possible risks and 

benefits, other options available to you, and your rights as a participant in the study. Please take whatever 

time you need to discuss the study with anyone you care to talk with. The decision to participate or not is 

yours. If you decide to participate, please sign and date the last line of this form. 

Background and purpose of the study: We are conducting this study to better understand ways in which 

men and women’s attempts to control each other affect their relationships. Prior studies on violent 

relationships have focused mostly on the level of violence in the relationship and not as much on the level of 

control in the relationship. By conducting this study, we hope to learn about the differences in violent 

couples beyond the level of violence alone. 

Total number of people: A total of about 600 people will take part in this phase of the study. 

General plan of the study: Researchers will administer questionnaires to individuals over 18 years of age. 

It should take you about one hour to fill out the questionnaire and we will provide a space where you can do 

so in privacy. You will be asked to answer such questions as “Were there times in your relationship when 

you felt controlled by your partner?” After you fill out the questionnaire, we will spend a few minutes 

talking about what participating in this study was like for you. If you feel upset or would like to talk with 

someone further about your safety or about the feelings you might have after completing the questionnaire, 

we will give you information about resources where you can talk with someone. 

Length of the study for each subject: We expect that you will be in the study for one hour. 

Possible benefits of participating in the study: There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this 

study. However, the information you share with us during the study will help us to understand more about 

relationships where one or both partners attempt to control the other. The results of this study will also be 

helpful to improve the effectiveness of intervention programs. 

Possible risks of participating in the study: If your partner finds out about your participation in the study, 

you could be at increased risk if he or she chooses to retaliate in some way. Also, the questions in the 

questionnaire may raise uncomfortable or upsetting issues for you. However, you may find that having the 

opportunity to think about your experiences is helpful to you in some way, although participation in this 

study is not considered counseling or any other type of therapeutic service. 
Coercive Control Measure, Page 2 of 2 IRB No.: 02-280 

Who can participate in the study: Anyone over 18 years of age who is in a relationship in which at least 

one incident of violence has occurred within the last 12 months may participate in the study. 

Confidentiality of the data collected during the study: Your responses to the interview questions will 

remain confidential. No names or personally identifying characteristics will be recorded on the questionnaire 

you fill out. This form will be stored in a locked cabinet separately from your completed questionnaire. The 

researcher will code your questionnaire with a number. The researcher will be the only one who can link 

your name to the number. The questionnaire will be kept in a locked drawer and will be destroyed at the end 

of the study. Only the research team will have access to the questionnaire. No names or identifying details 

will be used in any publication or other documents resulting from this study. All data collected from this 

study will be presented as a group, so that no one can identify any one individual within the study. 

If you tell us of a child who is being abused or of your intent to harm someone else or yourself, we are 

obligated to report that information to the appropriate authorities. 

HIPPA Compliance: This project does not involve obtaining any information about you from any medical 

or other health care records. 

Costs to you for participating: There are no costs to you for participating in this study. 

Payments to you for participating: You will be paid $20 for your time for participating in this study, and 

additionally, by completing and submitting the survey you will be eligible to receive one of three $100 

raffles. Also, if needed, child care and transportation costs of up to $10 will be provided. 

Your rights as a participant in the study: Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You have the 

right to leave the study at any time. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. 

Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Should you 

decide to leave the study, just tell the interviewer that you no longer wish to participate. 

Questions: Should you have any questions at any time about this study, please contact Dr. Mary Ann 

Dutton at 202-687-1997. If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, call the 

Georgetown University Institutional Review Board office at 202-687-1506. 

Investigator's statement: I have fully explained this study to the subject. I have discussed the procedures, 

the possible risks and benefits, the standard and research aspects of the study, and have answered all of the 

questions that the subject and the subject's family members have asked. 

Signature of investigator ___________________________ Date _________________ 

Subject's consent 

I have read the information provided in this Informed Consent Form or it was read to me by the investigator. 

All my questions were answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. 

[Upon signing, you will receive a copy of this form. The original will be kept in a locked drawer and will be 

destroyed at the end of the study.] 

Your signature _______________________________________ Date _____________ 

Signature of investigator/witness __________________________________ Date _____________ 
Domestic Violence Resources 

Legal 

3⁄4 Domestic Violence Intake Center (202) 561-3000 

Greater Southeast Satellite Office-located Med Office Building-Suite 311 

(offers resources for temporary protection orders, civil protection orders, 

Legal Aid Society-legal counsel, Victim’s Assistance Program) 

3⁄4 Emergency Domestic Relations Project (202) 879-7859 

(legal advocacy; drafts petitions and affidavits for persons seeking 

protection orders and related motions for Domestic Violence) 

3⁄4 Georgetown Univ. Law Center Domestic Violence Clinic (202) 662-9640 

(legal representation for domestic violence victims temporary

 and civil protection cases) 

3⁄4 George Washington Univ. Community Legal Clinics (202) 994-7463 

(legal representation for domestic violence victims in temporary 

and civil protection order cases) 

3⁄4 American University Domestic Violence Clinic (202) 274-4140 

(legal assistance with temporary and civil protection orders) 

3⁄4 DC Superior Court-Domestic Violence Intake Center (202) 879-0152 

(court based support center that provides legal information 

 and domestic violence advocacy) 

3⁄4 DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence (202) 879-7851 

(located at courthouse, assistance with obtaining protection orders) 

3⁄4 Crime Victim’s Assistance (202) 879-2893 

(temporary housing, lost wages, medical, dental and medication 

 reimbursement; mental health counseling reimbursement) 

(Note: limited to persons who have made a police report of domestic violence incident) 

3⁄4 The Legal Aid Society of DC (202) 628-1161 

(provides free legal services-family law, landlord tenant laws, 

and help to get public assistance – i.e.-SSI, SSDI) 

Counseling 

3⁄4 WEAVE (Women Empowered Against Violence, Inc.) (202) 452-9550 

3⁄4 DC Dept. of Mental Health Access HelpLine 1-888-7-WE-HELP 

(24 hour/7 day a week helpline for residents in the DC 

metropolitan area, including women and children.) 

3⁄4 AYUDA Clinical Legal Latina (202) 387-0434 

(Latina battered women) 

Youth & Children Services 

3⁄4 Center for Child Protection & Family Support (202) 547-6175 

(offers counseling services to children who have been physically 

abused, neglected, or witnessed domestic violence, free food, help 

w/ funding for rent and utility) 
3⁄4 DC Superior Court (202) 328-2191 

(advocacy for abused and neglected children) 

Temporary Housing 

3⁄4 House of Ruth (202) 347-2777 

(24-hour shelter for battered women and their children) 

3⁄4 My Sister’s Place (202) 529-5991 

(24-hour shelter for battered women and their children) 

3⁄4 Calvary Women’s Shelter (202) 783-6651 

(24-hour shelter for homeless women) 

3⁄4 Alexander Social Services Corporation (202) 783-5332 

(temporary shelter for homeless families for 90 days) 

3⁄4 Mary House (family shelter) (202) 635-0354 

3⁄4 Sasha Bruce (202) 518-8488 

(provides 24-hour shelter and counseling support for youth ) 

3⁄4 Covenant House (202) 610-9600 

(provides 24-hour emergency housing assistance, ages 16-20) 

Substance Abuse 

3⁄4 Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration (202) 727-0668 

(provides DC residents with vouchers for clinics; do NOT need 

insurance) 

Job Training and Education 

3⁄4 Citywide Computer Training Center (202) 667-3719 

(offers various classes; A+ Certification, Network Certification, 

MS Office, GED and English as a second language) 

Hotlines 

3⁄4 Crisis & Family Help Hotline (202) 223-2255 

3⁄4 Crisis Hotline (202) 561-7000 

3⁄4 National Domestic Violence Hotline (800) 799-SAFE 

General Support 

3⁄4 DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence (202) 299-1181 

(domestic violence information, resources and referrals) 

3⁄4 SOS Center (202) 783-3003 

(support services to battered women and their children; 

individual and group counseling, children’s programs) 
4. LOGISTICS FOR SURVEY ADMINISTRATION 

4.1 Respondent Recruitment and Survey Sites 

The investigators have secured permission to administer the survey to clients at a 

number of different local programs and to students at Montgomery College. Contact 

persons at these sites will post Subject Recruitment Flyers onsite prior to the scheduled 

survey administration date in order to alert potential subjects of the date, time, and 

specifics of the survey administration. The site contacts also will share information about 

the survey—by word-of-mouth—with clients (in the case of the programs) and with 

students (in the case of Montgomery College) prior to the scheduled administration date. 

The sample of identified male IPV perpetrators (n = 100) and identified female IPV 

perpetrators (n = 100) will be recruited from court-based and offender treatment programs. 

Identified female IPV victims (n = 100) will be recruited from community-based programs 

that serve a wide range of victims. 

The community sample of IPV male adults (n = 100), IPV female adults (n = 100), 

and the comparison group of male adults (n = 50) and female adults (n = 50) will be 

recruited from the Rockville and Germantown campuses of Montgomery College. The 

community samples will include respondents who report either IPV victimization or 

perpetration by either or both partners. Participants in the comparison groups will be 

currently involved in an intimate relationship and report no IPV by either partner at any 

time during the relationship. 

4.2 Preparation for Survey Administration 

Project Coordinator 

• Schedule Survey Administration Sessions. The Coordinator will schedule each 

survey administration session and will confirm date/time/location with 

designated RA(s) by telephone and email (cc to Mary Ann and site). 

Some survey administration sessions will require the presence of more than one 

RA (due to volume of subjects or more than one administration site at the 

location), while some sessions will require only one. 

• Post Subject Recruitment Flyers. The Coordinator will provide the customized 

subject recruitment flyer to the site for posting/distribution prior to the survey 

administration date. 

COSMOS Corporation 4-1 
• Obtain Payment Funds. The Coordinator will submit a purchase order for the 

incentive funds to the COSMOS Accounting Department by Thursday of the 

week preceding the scheduled session. The COSMOS Accounting 

Department will obtain $500 cash to distribute to the designated RA per 

survey administration session (funds for 25 completed surveys). 

• Compile Survey Package. The Coordinator will compile the following materials 

(Survey Package) to give to the RA for each scheduled survey administration 

session: 

Contents of Survey Package 

1. 30 blank surveys 

2. 60 blank consent forms 

3. Incentive Payment Log 

4. Child Care/Transportation Payment Log (if necessary) 

5. Survey Log 

6. 2 In-depth Interview Protocols 

7. In-depth Interview Payment Log 

8. 25 Raffle Receipts 

9. Paper clips 

10. Masking Tape 

11. 25 #2 pencils 

12. Customized Subject Recruitment Flyer 

13. Pre-labeled Complete Envelope (white tyvex-for returning all materials back 

to Coordinator following session) 

14. 25 copies of Domestic Violence Resources (flyer for distribution to subjects; 

provides contact information for local emergency and domestic violence 

resources). 

Research Assistant 

• Notification of a Scheduled Session. The Coordinator will notify the designated 

RA by telephone and email of the date/time/location of the scheduled session, 

and provide directions to the location and information about the site contact 

person. 

• Pick-up Payment Funds and Survey Package. The RA is responsible for 

picking up the Payment Funds and the Survey Package (see description of 

Survey Package, above) at COSMOS prior to the scheduled survey 

administration session. 

COSMOS Corporation 4-2 
Payment Funds. The Coordinator will notify the RA when the funds are 

available for pickup at COSMOS. The RA should contact Rennie Okoh in 

COSMOS’s Accounting Department (301-215-9100, x260) to confirm the 

pickup date and time. When picking up the funds, the RA will be required to 

sign a form to acknowledge the receipt of payment funds; Rennie must be 

present for the RA to receive the funds. 

Child care/transportation costs of up to $10.00 per subject will be available on a 

limited basis, and will only be available for survey administration at court or 

program sites. The Coordinator will determine if these payments will be 

necessary, and if so, funds will be added to the Incentive Payment funds. 

Survey Package. The RA should pick up the Survey Package and payments 

funds at the same time. The RA should inform the Coordinator of the date and 

time when the RA will be at COSMOS, so the Coordinator will have sufficient 

time to prepare the Survey Package. The Survey Package will contain all the 

materials needed for one survey administration session (see description above). 

4.3 Onsite Administration of the Survey 

• Plan to arrive at the survey administration location at least 15 minutes prior to 

the start time confirmed by the Coordinator. 

• Post a copy of the flyer at or near the survey administration site if one is not 

already posted. 

• Please wear the yellow Survey Administrator name tag, identifying you as a 

member of the project team. 

As respondents arrive to take the survey, please follow these procedures: 

• Make Introductions. Introduce yourself. Tell the respondent(s): “The survey 

will take about an hour to complete. You will receive $20 for submission of 

a completed survey and a chance to win one of three $100 raffles. To 

participate, you must first read and sign a consent form which describes the 

study, any associated risks to you, and outlines what you are requested to 

do.” 

• Obtain Informed Consent and Provide Subject with a Copy of the Consent. 

Tell the respondent(s): “You must provide informed consent in order to take 

the survey. The consent document tells you about the purpose of this survey, 

COSMOS Corporation 4-3 
and the possible risks and benefits to you of taking the survey.” Offer to read 

the consent document to the subjects or let them read the consent document 

themselves. Answer any questions the subjects have about the Consent 

document. The subjects must sign the consent document in order to take the 

survey. After the subjects have signed the consent document, give them one 

copy of a blank consent form to keep. 

• Explain the Raffle and Have Subject Sign the Raffle Receipt. Explain the 

optional raffle to the subjects. Subjects who submit a completed survey will 

be eligible to win one of three $100 raffles (in addition to the $20 payment 

subjects receive completing the survey). However, entry into the raffle is 

optional; if subjects choose to not be entered into the raffle, they will still 

receive the $20 payment for submission of a completed survey. To be 

entered into the raffle, subjects will have to provide their name and a 

telephone number so they can be contacted if they win. One winner will be 

randomly selected every two months, until all three raffles are complete. 

If the subject wants to be entered into the raffle, they must complete the 

information (name and telephone number, or other optional contact information) 

on the Raffle Receipt (on blue paper). Once the top portion of the Raffle Receipt 

is complete, write the subject’s survey ID# on the top and bottom portions of the 

Raffle Receipt, and detach the bottom portion of the receipt and give to the 

subject. Attache the top portion of the Raffle Receipt to the completed Consent 

document. 

• Distribute the Survey. You may give subjects the survey only after they have 

signed the Consent document and noted whether they want to be entered into 

the Raffle. 

• Collect Completed Survey. When the survey is returned to you, review the 

survey for the following: 

Survey Completion Checklist 

Check each page to make sure: 

1. All items have been completed; 

2. The circles are filled in properly; 

3. Each page is present; and 

4. The correct ID# is listed on each page. 

Every item on each page must be filled out. If not, ask the respondent to fill out 

any missing sections/items. Be prepared to explain any sections that the subject 

may not have completed because they did not understand the question(s). 

COSMOS Corporation 4-4 
• Distribute and Log Payments. If the survey is complete, have the respondent 

sign the Incentive Payment Log to acknowledge payment and provide the $20 

incentive payment. If the respondent is eligible for child care/transportation 

reimbursement, have the subject sign the Child Care/Transportation Payment 

Log and provide $10. 

• Log Survey. Log the survey as “complete” on the Survey Log next to the correct 

ID#. If the subject wishes to be entered into the Raffle and has completed the 

Raffle Receipt, note this on the Log in the space provided. 

• Package Completed Surveys. Attach the survey, consent, and Raffle Receipt 

together with a paper clip, and check to make sure ID#s match on all three 

items. Insert clipped packet into the Complete Envelope. For privacy 

purposes, do not leave completed surveys, consent forms, or Raffle Receipts 

laying or stacked in view of the public. 

4.4 Administering the In-Depth Interviews 

The RA will administer the In-depth Interview to 1 of every 10 of the survey subjects 

as part of the assessment of construct validity. After each subject submits their completed 

survey and receives their Incentive Payment, the RA will ask the subject if they are 

interested in completing a follow-up interview for which they will receive an additional 

$20. The RA should attempt to complete 2-3 In-Depth Interviews per session. The Indepth Interview will take approximately 20 minutes and will consist of open-ended 

questions. The RA will note the subject’s responses and survey ID# on the In-Depth 

Interview Protocol. The In-Depth Interview Protocol is still under development. 

• Once the In-depth Interview is complete, have the subject sign the In-depth 

Interview Payment Log and provide $20. 

• Attach the In-depth Interview Protocol to the Survey, Consent, and Raffle, and 

place in the Complete Envelope. 

COSMOS Corporation 4-5 
4.5 Activities to be Conducted Following Each Survey Administration Session 

• The RA should stay at the survey location until the agreed upon time is expired 

for the day or until you run out of incentive funds. Under normal 

circumstances, the RA will be provided with enough Incentive Funds for 25 

surveys. 

• When the session is ended, count the completed surveys, consent forms, and indepth interviews, and make sure that the Payment Logs and Survey Log are 

complete, and that all funds and surveys are accounted for. 

• Place completed survey packets (each survey packet consists of the completed 

survey, the signed consent form, in-depth interview protocol (if applicable) 

clipped together), Incentive Payment Log, Child care/Transportation 

Payment Log, In-depth Interview Payment Log, Survey Log, and the 

remaining materials (pens, tape, etc.) in the Complete Envelope provided 

(pre-labeled white Tyvex envelope) and fill out the label on the Complete 

Envelope: 

MCC CCS

RA(s) Name:

Survey Date:

Location:

Number of completed surveys:

Number of completed In-Depth Interviews:

Please return within 2 days of survey session to: 

MCC Coordinator 

COSMOS Corporation 

3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 950 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

ph: 301-215-9100 

• Return the Complete Envelope AND unused payment funds to the Coordinator 

at COSMOS Corporation within 2 days of the survey session. 

COSMOS Corporation 4-6 
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS 

NEEDED 

$20 Cash

FOR A STUDY OF INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS 

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice; Conducted by Georgetown University 

Medical Center, Washington, DC, Boston College, Boston, MA, and COSMOS Corporation, Bethesda, MD 

SURVEY DATES AND LOCATIONS: 

Name of Program or Court 

Dates and Times 

ELIGIBILITY: 

You are eligible to participate if: 

• You are 18 years of age or older, and 

• You have been involved in an intimate relationship during the past 2 years. 

REQUIREMENTS: 

Complete a confidential paper and pencil survey about your experience in an intimate relationship. 

The survey will take approximately 45-60 minutes to complete. All materials needed to complete 

the survey will be provided. 

PAYMENT: 

Participants will receive $20 cash for same day, on-site completion and submission of the survey, 

and will be eligible to receive one of several $100 raffles. Additionally, funds are available to 

reimburse participants for travel or child care costs. 

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY: 

The purpose of the study is to develop an instrument that measures aspects of power and control in 

relationships. 

TO LEARN MORE, PLEASE CONTACT: 

Darci Terrell, Project Coordinator, at COSMOS Corporation, 301-215-9100, x268. 

Note to Program Staff: Please display flyer at program locations. Do not mail flyer to possible participants. 
MCC - Coercive Control Survey 

Payment Funds Receipt 

I, , have received the following funds 

from COSMOS Corporation for the purpose of reimbursing subjects who complete the 

Coercive Control Survey for COSMOS’s MCC project: 

Incentive Payment Funds: $ 

Child Care/Transportation Payment Funds: $ 

In-depth Interview Payment Funds: $ 

TOTAL: $ 

I understand that by receiving these Payment Funds I am responsible for disbursing 

the proper payments to subjects who complete the Coercive Control Survey, documenting 

the disbursement of these funds on the Logs provided to me, and returning unused funds to 

COSMOS following each session. 

Signature of Person Receiving Funds 

Signature of Authorized COSMOS Representative 
ID Number: 

CCS SURVEY-RAFFLE 

(Participation is Optional) 

$100 raffles. The three winners will 

be randomly selected. 

Participants who submit a completed survey are eligible to win one of three 

Participation in the raffle is optional. 

One winner will be selected every two months. 

If you would like to participate in the raffle, please provide the information 

requested below so that we may contact you. The bottom portion of the 

page is your receipt. 

Name: __________________________________________________________ 

Phone number: 

Alternate contact instructions: 

-----------cut here---------------------------cut here---------------------------cut here-----------

CCS Survey Raffle -- RECEIPT 

ID Number: 
RA name: Survey Date: 

Total Incentive Payments this session: $ Survey Location: 

Incentive Payment Log 

I acknowledge receipt of $20 as payment for completion of the MCC Coercive Control Survey. 

Print Name (in pen) Sign Name (in pen) 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

11/10/03 
RA name: Survey Date:

Total CC-Trans Payments this session: $ Survey Location:

Child Care/Transportation Payment Log 

I acknowledge receipt of $10 as reimbursement for child care and/or transportation costs during my 

participation in the MCC Coercive Control Survey. 

Print Name (in pen) Sign Name (in pen) 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

11/10/03 
RA name: Survey date:

Total number of surveys completed this session: Survey location:

Survey Log 

Survey 

ID number 

Status 

(Complete, Not used, Void) 

* 

Subject Entered into 

Raffle (Receipt 

Completed - YES/NO) 

Comments 

* Complete = survey for this ID# was completed and submitted; Not used = survey for this ID# was not distributed during this 

session; Void = survey for this ID# was not usable (pages missing, survey illegible, etc.). Please note any explanation in the 

Comments column. 

11/10/03 
RA name: Survey date:

Total In-depth interview payments this session: $ Survey location:

In-Depth Interview Payment Log 

I acknowledge receipt of $20 as reimbursement for completing the In-depth Interview as part of my 

participation in the MCC Coercive Control Survey. 

Print Name (in pen) Sign Name (in pen) 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

11/10/03 
In-Depth Interview, Page 1 of 3 IRB No.: 02-280 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Consent to Participate in Research 

Project Name: Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure for Intimate Partner Violence 

Principal Investigator: Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D. Telephone: 202-687-1997 

Project Coordinator: Darci Terrell Telephone: 405-969-3078 

Sponsor: The National Institute of Justice 

The Georgetown University Institutional Review Board has given approval for this research project. For 

information on your rights as a research subject, call the Institutional Review Board office: 202-687-1506. 

Introduction: You are invited to consider participating in an additional component of this research study. 

We will be asking follow-up questions about the Coercive Control Survey that you just completed. This 

form will describe the purpose and nature of the follow-up questions, the possible risks and benefits, other 

options available to you, and your rights as a participant in the study. Please take whatever time you need to 

discuss the study with anyone you care to talk with. The decision to participate or not is yours. If you decide 

to participate, please sign and date the last line of this form. 

Background and purpose of the study: We are conducting this study to better understand ways in which 

men and women’s attempts to control each other affect their relationships. Prior studies on violent 

relationships have focused mostly on the level of violence in the relationship and not as much on the level of 

control in the relationship. By conducting this study, we hope to learn about the differences in violent 

couples beyond the level of violence alone. 

Total number of people: A total of about 50 people will take part in this component of the study. 

General plan of the study: Researchers will ask follow-up questions to selected individuals who have 

completed the Coercive Control Survey. It should take you about 30 minutes to answer these questions and 

we will provide a space where you can answer the questions in privacy. You will be asked to answer such 

questions as “Can you give me an example of a situation where your partner demanded that you do 

something?” “What were you afraid he/she would do if you didn’t do it? If you feel upset or would like to 

talk with someone further about your safety or about the feelings you might have after answering the 

questions, we will give you information about resources where you can talk with someone. 

Length of the study for each subject: We expect that you will be in the follow-up interview for 30 

minutes. 

Possible benefits of participating in the study: There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this 

component of the study. However, the information you share with us during the study will help us to 

understand more about relationships where one or both partners attempt to control the other. The results of 

this study will also be helpful to improve the effectiveness of intervention programs. 

Possible risks of participating in the study: If your partner finds out about your participation in the study, 

you could be at increased risk if he or she chooses to retaliate in some way. Also, the questions in the 

questionnaire may raise uncomfortable or upsetting issues for you. However, you may find that having the 

opportunity to think about your experiences is helpful to you in some way, although participation in this 

study is not considered counseling or any other type of therapeutic service. 
In-Depth Interview, Page 2 of 3 IRB No.: 02-280 

Who can participate in the in-depth interview: Anyone who has met the requirements to participate in the 

Coercive Control Survey (anyone over 18 years of age who is in a relationship in which at least one incident 

of violence has occurred within the last 12 months), and who has completed the Coercive Control Survey. 

Confidentiality of the data collected during the study: Your responses to the interview questions will 

remain confidential. No names or personally identifying characteristics will be recorded on the questionnaire 

you fill out. This form will be stored in a locked cabinet separately from your completed questionnaire. The 

researcher will code your questionnaire with a number. The researcher will be the only one who can link 

your name to the number. The interview questions will be kept in a locked drawer and will be destroyed at 

the end of the study. Only the research team will have access to the interview questions. No names or 

identifying details will be used in any publication or other documents resulting from this study. All data 

collected from this study will be presented as a group, so that no one can identify any one individual within 

the study. 

If you tell us of a child who is being abused or of your intent to harm someone else or yourself, we are 

obligated break to report that information to the appropriate authorities. 

HIPPA Compliance: This project does not involve obtaining any information about you from any medical 

or other health care records. 

Costs to you for participating: There are no costs to you for participating in this study. 

Payments to you for participating: You will be paid an additional $20 for your time for participating in 

this component of study. 

Your rights as a participant in the study: Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You have the 

right to leave the study at any time. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. 

Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Should you 

decide to leave the study, just tell the interviewer that you no longer wish to participate. 

Questions: Should you have any questions at any time about this study, please contact Dr. Mary Ann 

Dutton at 202-687-1997. If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, call the 

Georgetown University Institutional Review Board office at 202-687-1506. 

Investigator's statement: I have fully explained this study to the subject. I have discussed the procedures, 

the possible risks and benefits, the standard and research aspects of the study, and have answered all of the 

questions that the subject and the subject's family members have asked. 

Signature of investigator ___________________________ Date _________________ 

Subject's consent 

I have read the information provided in this Informed Consent Form or it was read to me by the investigator. 

All my questions were answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. 

[Upon signing, you will receive a copy of this form. The original will be kept in a locked drawer and will be 

destroyed at the end of the study.] 

Your signature _______________________________________ Date _____________ 
In-Depth Interview, Page 3 of 3 IRB No.: 02-280

Signature of investigator/witness __________________________________ Date _____________ 

Rev. 1/27/04 
ID Number: Interviewer Name: 

Site: Date: 

IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 

Instruction to Interviewer: 

Use the following script to introduce the In-depth Interview Protocol after the participant 

has completed the Coercive Control Survey 

If you are interested, we would also like to conduct a follow-up interview with 

you, which would take about a half hour. We would pay you an additional $20 

for your participation if you choose to do this. For the interview, we will be 

asking you some follow-up questions on the same topic as the survey itself. 

Would you be interested in participating in this second step? 

If the participant would like to participate, they must read and sign the In-depth Interview 

Protocol Consent Form. 

The Interviewer will use the participant’s completed Coercive Control Survey as a 

foundation for guiding the In-depth Interview. Refer to Section 2A of the completed 

survey. Pick at least 3 (three) items where the participant indicated “YES” that their 

partner DEMANDED something of them (there may be more than 3 items in this section 

where the participant noted “YES”; pick only 3 for the purpose of this interview (if 

possible, select items from different “categories” if there are more than 3 items). You 

will ask follow-up questions for each of the 3 items. 

1/27/04 
IN-DEPTH ITEM #1: 

1.1 You indicated that your partner sometimes demanded that you: (interviewer: write 

here the item that is being addressed, e.g., “leaving the house”) 

1.2 How often would your partner make this kind of demand?

1.3 Can you give me an example of a particular situation where he/she would do that?

1.4 What led up to this demand that time?

1.5 How did he/she actually let you know what he/she wanted you to do?

1.6 What did you think he would do if you did NOT do what he/she wanted?

1.7 What did you think would happen if you DID do what he/she wanted? 

1.8 What did you end up doing in response to this demand?

1.9 How did it [participant’s response to demand] leave you feeling? 

1.10 Is there anything else you’d like to say about his particular demand?

1/27/04 
IN-DEPTH ITEM #2: 

2.1 You indicated that your partner sometimes demanded that you: (interviewer: write 

here the item that is being addressed, e.g., “leaving the house”) 

2.2 How often would your partner make this kind of demand?

2.3 Can you give me an example of a particular situation where he/she would do that?

2.4 What led up to this demand that time?

2.5 How did he/she actually let you know what he/she wanted you to do?

2.6 What did you think he would do if you did NOT do what he/she wanted?

2.7 What did you think would happen if you DID do what he/she wanted?

2.8 What did you end up doing in response to this demand?

2.9 How did it [participant’s response to demand] leave you feeling? 

2.10 Is there anything else you’d like to say about his particular demand?

1/27/04 
IN-DEPTH ITEM #3: 

3.1 You indicated that your partner sometimes demanded that you: (interviewer: write 

here the item that is being addressed, e.g., “leaving the house”) 

3.2 How often would your partner make this kind of demand?

3.3 Can you give me an example of a particular situation where he/she would do that?

3.4 What led up to this demand that time?

3.5 How did he/she actually let you know what he/she wanted you to do?

3.6 What did you think he would do if you did NOT do what he/she wanted?

3.7 What did you think would happen if you DID do what he/she wanted? 

3.8 What did you end up doing in response to this demand?

3.9 How did it [participant’s response to demand] leave you feeling? 

3.10 Is there anything else you’d like to say about his particular demand?

1/27/04 
COSMOS Corporation’s Technical Proposal—Not Included for Final Report 
COSMOS Corporation’s Organizational Capability Statement—Not Included for Final 

Report 
Additional Resources—Not Included for Final Report 
Appendix K-2 

Training Outline for MCC Survey Administration at DC Superior Court 
Appendix K-2 

TRAINING OUTLINE FOR MCC SURVEY ADMINISTRATION AT DC 

SUPERIOR COURT 

• Training should take no more than 1 to 1.5 hours 

• Training can be accomplished via telephone conference call, which will be less 

expensive than having RAs come to COSMOS; though in-person training is a 

viable option. 

• Training should precede the field trip to DC Superior Court 

I. Target audience for the DC Superior Court administration 

a. We will administer the survey and follow-up interview to litigants leaving 

the Domestic Violence and Family Courts. 

b. Our response rate goal for the DC Superior Court administration is 

n=100-150; which will be accomplished over a number of administration 

sessions. 

II. Overview of preparations for DC Court administration 

a. Mary Ann first made contact with the Chief Judge of DC Superior Court 

and judges from the DV and Family Courts during fall 2003 to introduce 

them to our research project, and begin the process of acquiring 

permission to administer the survey at the court. 

b. During March 2004, the research team sent letters to court stakeholders in 

order to introduce them to our research project and get their support. The 

court stakeholders contacted include the District of Columbia Bar; law 

clinics from American University, George Washington University, 

Georgetown University, and Catholic University; and community-based 

organizations including Ayuda, WEAVE, and the DC Coalition Against 

Domestic Violence. None of these organizations contacted us in response 

to our introductory letter. 

c. On May 13, 2004, Mary Ann and Oscar (the task leader for the DC Court 

Administration) met with Judge Satterfield of the Family Court to review 

the research project and discuss administration logistics and schedule. 

d. Judge Satterfield will speak to the other Family Court judges to alert them 

to the research project and review the process for referring litigants to the 

project. 

e. Mary Ann is hoping to meet with Judge Jackson of the DV Court in the 

near future. 

III. Context for survey administration at DC Superior Court 

a. Survey respondents are litigants in the Domestic Violence or Family 

Court, and thus are involved in cases that are assumed to be emotionally 

COSMOS Corporation 1 

July 6, 2004 
charged. It is always important to treat research subjects with respect; but 

beyond that, the RAs need to be sensitive to the circumstances of the 

research subjects. Specifically, RAs should adopt a demeanor appropriate 

to the court, i.e., conservative, business-like, even serious. 

b. Litigants who have just completed an initial hearing and have been 

mandated to attend mediation, must make an appointment with the 

mediation office before participating in our study. 

c. The judges have informed us that we are allowed to be in the courtroom 

for certain hearings. It is our understanding that at the conclusion of the 

hearing, the judge will inform the litigants that study personnel wearing 

yellow name badges may approach them to ask if they want to participate 

in a study where they can earn $20 for responding to a survey. 

d. We will target litigants leaving status hearings, which are generally open 

to the public and last a short time. We will not be targeting litigants who 

are leaving their actual trial, which may be closed and can last a long time. 

Domestic neglect cases are closed and RAs may not attend any hearings. 

A judge can close a case at any time. 

e. Once we are ready to begin administration, the judges will provide us a 

schedule, which will indicate those cases for which we are allowed to 

recruit the litigants. The judges will make clear to us which courtrooms 

we can target and which we must avoid. 

f. The courtrooms where DV and Family Court take place are scattered 

throughout the DC Superior Court building, and at least one courtroom is 

in another building. The layout will be specified during the field trip. 

g. It is our understanding that DV and Family Court alternate by week, i.e., 

only DV cases are scheduled one week, and the next week only Family 

Court cases are scheduled. 

IV. Logistics for survey administration at DC Superior Court 

a. The logistics for survey administration outlined in Section 4 of the 

Training Manual still apply, with the following exceptions. 

b. At least 3 RAs will be present for each administration session. Oscar 

Espinosa will serve as the lead RA for all court administration sessions. 

He will likely be present at all sessions as we begin administration. 

c. Each survey package will include sufficient materials and funds to 

administer 10 surveys and 1 follow-up (i.e., if 3 RAs attend a training, 

there will be enough materials and funds for 30 surveys and 3 follow-ups 

interviews). Although it is difficult to estimate the number of completed 

surveys we will be able to obtain from each session, we are estimating the 

number at not more than 30. If the numbers are higher or lower, we will 

make adjustments to the survey package. 

d. Litigants may fill out the survey in the corridors outside the courtrooms; 

the judges have indicated we may utilize the witness rooms directly 

outside the courtrooms for administration of the in-depth interview OR if 

the survey must be read to the participant. There are two witness rooms 

per courtroom. 

COSMOS Corporation 2 

July 6, 2004 
e. RAs must wear their YELLOW name badges at all times while in the 

Court. 

f. The team will customize the flyer for each session and provide copies to 

the judges who will pass them out to litigants as they leave the court. 

g. Neither child care nor transportation costs will be provided to participants 

at the court administration. It is assumed that the participants would have 

already made those arrangements in order to be present for the court 

hearing/trial. 

h. As the lead RA, Oscar will be responsible for making individual 

assignments on site and deciding the best use of resources. 

COSMOS Corporation 3 

July 6, 2004 
Appendix L 

Letters to Court Stakeholders 


















Appendix M 

Dissemination Products 

M-1 Coercion and IPV: Development of a New Measure 

M-2 Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization 
Appendix M-1 

Coercion and IPV: Development of a New Measure 
Coercion and IPV: Coercion and IPV:

Development of a New Measure Development of a New Measure

Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D. Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D.

Georgetown University Georgetown University

Lisa A. Goodman, Ph.D. Lisa A. Goodman, Ph.D.

Boston College Boston College
Introduction Introduction

Coercive control at center of analysis of I

Coercive control at center of analysis of I

valid measure of it valid measure of itPotentially distinct from physical, sexual, Potentially distinct from physical, sexual, psychological abuse, or stalking psychological abuse, or stalkingViolence and abuse alone cannot adequa

Violence and abuse alone cannot adequa

characterize the experience of battered v

characterize the experience of battered v

Gender symmetry controversy may be ad

Gender symmetry controversy may be ad

by attention to coercion as central by attention to coercion as central
Introduction Introduction

Working conceptual definition based o

Working conceptual definition based o

of social power of social powerDefined as “credible threat for noncom

Defined as “credible threat for noncom

with (implicit or explicit) demand (or with (implicit or explicit) demand (orexpectation)” expectation)”Perceived contingent event Perceived contingent event
Research Aims Research Aims

Develop and validate a measure of Develop and validate a measure ofcoercion in intimate partner relations

coercion in intimate partner relations
Major Steps Major Steps

Generate theoretical conceptualization Generate theoretical conceptualizationIndividual narrative interviews (n = 30) Individual narrative interviews (n = 30)National advisory panel conceptual developmen

National advisory panel conceptual developmen

Generate measurement items Generate measurement itemsPilot interviews, including narrative feedback Pilot interviews, including narrative feedbackExpert panel consensus of items (n = 100) Expert panel consensus of items (n = 100)Validity study (n = 763) Validity study (n = 763)
Conceptual Model of Coercive C

Conceptual Model of Coercive C

Demands 

Credible threat for 

noncompliance 

Cognitive 

Emotional 

Behavioral 

response to 

coercion 

Agent 

Target 

Setting 

the 

stage 

Vulnerability 

to coercion 

Outcomes 

coercion 

Surveillance 

D

t

co

Social Ecology 

Dutton & Goodman, Sex Roles (forthcoming) 
Measure of Coercion Measure of Coercion

(

α = .91, partner; = .91, partner;

α =.90, self) =.90, self)

In the last 12 months...did your part

In the last 12 months...did your part

make you think that s/he might do th

make you think that s/he might do th

following if you didn’t do what s/he following if you didn’t do what s/hewanted? wanted?31 items 31 items

– Harm to you (25 items) Harm to you (25 items)

– Harm to partner (2 items) Harm to partner (2 items)

– Harm to others (4 items) Harm to others (4 items)
Put in mental hospital 

Force sex with others Not allow to take medication Kill or hurt pets Destroy legal papers Try to kill you Cause to lose housing Cause to lose job Keep from going to work Limit access to transportation Cause legal trouble Keep from leaving house Leave, get divorce Hurt you financially Take something of yours Keep from family, friends Use personal info against 
Prevalence of Coercion by Pa

Prevalence of Coercion by Pa

Sex Differences in Individual i

Sex Differences in Individual i

Force unwanted sex Force unwanted sex .08 

Have arrested Have arrested .17 

Threaten deportation Threaten deportation .06 

Have sex with someone else Have sex with someone else .18 

Scare you Scare you .18 

Physically hurt you Physically hurt you .16 

Say something mean, humiliating Say something mean, humiliating .41 

Malesample
Measure of Demands Measure of Demands

(

α = .86, partner; = .86, partner;

α =.91, self) =.91, self)

In the last 12 months...did your partner a deman

In the last 12 months...did your partner a deman

related to ... related to ...

48 items 48 items

Personal activities/appearance (10) Personal activities/appearance (10)Support/social life/family (6) Support/social life/family (6)Household (3) Household (3)Work/economic/resources (5) Work/economic/resources (5)Health (4) Health (4)Intimate relationship (8) Intimate relationship (8)Legal (4) Legal (4)Immigration (3) Immigration (3)Children/parenting (5) Children/parenting (5)
Measure of Surveillance Measure of Surveillance

(

α = .86, partner; = .86, partner;

α =.86, self) =.86, self)

...which of the things have you done 

...which of the things have you done 

order to see whether...partner did wh

order to see whether...partner did w

you demanded. you demanded.
Measure of Surveillance Measure of Surveillance

13 items 13 items – Check or opened mail or journal Check or opened mail or journal

– Kept track of telephone/cell phone use Kept track of telephone/cell phone use

– Called on phone Called on phone

– Told partner to carry cell phone or pager Told partner to carry cell phone or pager

– Checked partner’s clothing Checked partner’s clothing

– Checked the house Checked the house

– Checked receipts/bank books Checked receipts/bank books

– Checked the car Checked the car

– Asked others (children, neighbors, family) Asked others (children, neighbors, family)

– Told partner to report behavior to you Told partner to report behavior to you

– Used recording device Used recording device

– Spied or followed Spied or followed

– Didn’t need to check; just knew Didn’t need to check; just knew



Validity Study: Validity Study:

Methods Methods

2 geographic locations 2 geographic locations

– Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.

– Boston, MA Boston, MA

Recruitment sites Recruitment sites

– Domestic violence courts Domestic violence courts

– Family courts Family courts

– Community social service programs Community social service programs

– Community colleges Community colleges

– Public gathering places Public gathering places
Sample Description: Sample Description:

IPV Victimization and Perpetration IPV Victimization and Perpetration

Male 46 216 37 14 TOTAL 113 513 105 30 Female 67 297 68 16 

Neither Neither Both Victim Perp T

Ethnicity Ethnicity

58.1% African American African American23.4% Caucasian Caucasian12.0% Latina/Latino Latina/Latino12.5% Other

Employment / Educatio

Employment / Educatio

18.1%Unemployed Unemployed29.0% Fed or state assistance Fed or state assistance20.0%< 12th grade education grade education16.2% Completed 2+ yrs colle

Completed 2+ yrs colle
Relationship Status Relationship Status

62.3%Currently Currently

involved involved

33.4% Currently Currently

living with partner living with partner

23.2% Married Married44.5% Committed Committed

relationship relationship

0 5 10 15 20 

How Long Relationship? 

0 

20 

40 

60 80 

100 120 140 

Frequency 

Histogram 
Convergent Convergent andDiscrimina

Discrimina

Validity Validity

Partner Report Partner Report Self-Report

.60.44

Surveil Surveil

.49phy

.40psy

.73phy

.71psy

IPV

.47.76

Surveil Surveil

.44.61

Demand

.6

.5

.53 Coercion: Coercion:

Self

Report

.4

.4

.47 Coercion: Coercion:

Partner Partner

Report

Demand 
Predictive Validity Predictive Validity

.13.30

Depression Depression

.22.45

IPV Threat IPV Threat

Appraisal Appraisal

Own.20 

Coercion Coercion

Partner’s Partner’s .43 Coercion Coercion

PTSD 

Beta values in cells, all significant at p < .001 
Predictive Validity, Predictive Validity,

Controlling for CTS and PM

Controlling for CTS and PM

.06.06

.36*

(a

2R = .20) R

.30*

(a

2R = .13) R

Depression Depression

(a

.21*.35*.17*

(a

2R = .43) R

.18*.26*.24*

(a

2R = .38) R

Partner’s Partner’s

Coercion, Coercion,

controlling for controlling for

CTS

PMWI

(total sample) (total sample)

.45*

(a

2R = .34) R

IPV Threat IPV Threat

Appraisal Appraisal

(a

.43*

(a

2R = .30) R

Partner’s Partner’sCoercion Coercion

(total sample) (total sample)

PTSD 
Predictive Validity: Male vs. Fe

Predictive Validity: Male vs. Fe

.23*.37*

Depression Depression

.38*.49*

PTSD

.43* 

Partner’s Partner’sCoercion Coercion

(male sample) (male sample)

.47* 

Partner’s Partner’sCoercion Coercion

(female sample) (female sample)

IPV Threat IPV Threat

Appraisal Appraisal

Beta values in cells, all significant at p < .001 
Predictive Validity: Male vs. Fe

Predictive Validity: Male vs. Fe

Controlling for CTS and PM

Controlling for CTS and PM

.07.06

.21*

(a2R = .09) R

.10.00

.43*

(a2R = .26) R

Depression Depression

.18*.31*

.09

(a2R = .27) R

.21*.19*.32*

(a2R = .44) R

PTSD

.24*.44*

.01

(a2R = .40) R

Partner’s Coercion

controlling for controlling for

CTS

PMWI

(male sample) (male sample)

.19*.28*.27*

(a2R = .45) R

Partner’s Coercion

controlling for controlling for

CTS

PMWI

(female sample) (female sample)

IPV Threat IPV Threat

Appraisal Appraisal
Conceptual Model of Coercive C

Conceptual Model of Coercive C

Demands 

Credible threat for 

noncompliance 

Cognitive 

Emotional 

Behavioral 

response to 

coercion 

Agent 

Target 

Setting 

the 

stage 

Vulnerability 

to coercion 

Outcomes 

coercion 

Surveillance 

D

t

co

Social Ecology 

Dutton & Goodman, Sex Roles (forthcoming) 
Appendix M-2 

Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization 
P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

Sex Roles, Vol. 52, Nos. 11/12, June 2005 ( C 2005) 

DOI: 10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6 

Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: 

Toward a New Conceptualization 

Mary Ann Dutton1,3 and Lisa A. Goodman2 

For decades, battered women’s advocates have placed coercive control squarely at the center 

of their analysis of intimate partner violence. Yet, little work has been done to conceptualize and measure the key construct of coercive control. In this article, we apply French and 

Raven’s social power model to a conceptualization of coercive control in intimate partner 

Central elements of the model include: social ecology; setting the 

stage; coercion involving a demand and a credible threat for noncompliance; surveillance; ONLY

violence relationships. 

discussed. 

KEY WORDS: ROOFREADING

For decades now, battered women’s advocates individual pathology or mental illness but rather just 

have placed the notion of coercive control squarely one part of a system of abusive and violent behaviors 

at the center of their analysis of intimate partner vio- to control the victim for the purposes of the abuser” 

lence (IPV). Indeed, they have defined IPV as a “pat- (p. 30). And, in an eloquent description of “battered 

tern of coercive control” (Pence & Paymar, 1986) in women’s” responses, Stark (1995) wrote, 

which the batterer asserts his power over the victim “Physical violence may not be the most signifithrough the use of threats, as well as actual violence. cant factor about most battering relationships. In all 

Violence is simply a tool, within this framework, that probability, the clinical profile revealed by battered 

the perpetrator uses to gain greater power in the re- P

women reflects the fact that they have been subjected 

lationship to deter or trigger specific behaviors, win to an ongoing strategy of intimidation, isolation, and 

arguments, or demonstrate dominance (Dobash & control that extends to all areas of a woman’s life, indelivery of threatened consequences; and the victim’s behavioral and emotional response to 

coercion. These elements occur in spiraling and overlapping sequences to establish an overall situation of coercive control. The implications of this model for theory and practice are 

A1 

Dobash, 1992). Other tools might include isolation, 

intimidation, threats, withholding of necessary 

sources such as money or transportation, and abuse 

of the children, other relatives, or even pets. Explaining the Duluth Model, a widely used batterer treat- FOR

A2 cluding sexuality; material necessities; relations with 

re- family, children, and friends; and work. Sporadic, 

even severe violence makes this strategy of control 

effective. But the unique profile of ‘the battered 

woman’ arises as much from the deprivation of libment program, Pence (1989), one of its founders, 

wrote that the program “assumes battering is not an 

1Department of Psychiatry, Georgetown University Medical 

Center, Washington, DC. 

2Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. 

3To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychiatry, Georgetown University Medical Center, 620 

Kober Cogan Hall, Washington, DC, 20007; e-mail: mad27@ 

georgetown.edu. 

erty implied by coercion and control as it does from 

violence-induced trauma” (p. 987). 

Yet, despite this common assumption, borne out 

every day in the horrific stories told by battered 

women throughout the country, surprisingly little 

work has been done to conceptualize and measure 

the key construct of coercive control. In the absence of a clear conceptualization, measures of coercion, usually embedded within broader measures 

743 0360-0025/05/0600-0743/0 C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 
P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

744 

of psychological abuse, are neither comprehensive 

nor internally consistent. Researchers have variously 

included behaviors ranging from verbal put-downs 

to intimidation to kidnapping under the rubric of 

coercion. For a number of reasons, detailed below, 

the need for a tighter conceptualization and operationalization of this notion has gained new urgency 

in recent years. 

First, despite over two decades of research 

on intimate partner violence (IPV) controversy 

concerning “gender symmetry,” or the relative use of 

violence by men versus women is more heated than 

ever. This controversy has come to a head recently, 

as more and more women are being arrested in cases 

that police officers perceive as “mutual violence.” 

One tradition of research—mainly conducted by 

family researchers—has consistently produced results indicating that women and men use violence at 

equal rates, and in some cases, women use violence 

A2 more often (Straus & Gelles, 1990). Another body 

of research has demonstrated that men use violence, 

including homicide, against their female partners 

more often than women use violence against their 

male partners (Bachman & Saltzman, 1995) and that 

women’s use of violence largely involves self-defense 

A2 or fighting back (DeKeseredy et al., 1998; Saunders, 

1986). Many researchers have pointed out that one 

reason (among many) for the absence of consensus 

on the relative use of violence by men versus women 

is that measurement of violent acts alone cannot 

adequately characterize violence in intimate partner 

relationships (DeKeseredy, 1998; Dutton, 1996; 

Edleson & Tolman, 1992; Smith, Smith, & Earp, 

1999; Yoshihama, 2000). Rather, it is necessary 

to understand the use of, and response to, IPV in 

the context of the relationship and the cultural, 

social, and institutional systems within which the 

perpetrator and victim live (Dutton, 1996; Edleson 

& Tolman, 1992). Central to this context is the role 

of coercion. Greater attention to the role of coercion 

would enable researchers to sort out gender differences in the very nature of topographically similar 

acts, as well as their effects on victims’ psychological 

wellbeing and future behavior. 

A second and related reason for the urgent need 

to conceptualize and measure coercive control in violent relationships is the growing interest in developing subtypes of intimate partner violence, rather than 

lumping them together under one common rubric. A 

rubric that would enable us to make better distinctions could be extremely useful in numerous arenas, 

including batterer treatment, risk assessment, and 

Dutton and Goodman 

safety planning for victims. A leader in this effort, 

Johnson (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000) has noted that 

“Partner violence cannot be understood without acknowledging important distinctions among types of 

violence, motives of perpetrators, the social locations of both partners, and the cultural contexts in 

which violence occurs” (p. 948). 

Three chief features of Johnson’s typology are: 

(1) his consideration of the couple as the unit of analysis; (2) his inclusion of women’s potential use of violence; and, most relevant for this paper, (3) his focus 

on the broader context of potential coercion and control in intimate partner relationships. 

Finally, and perhaps most urgently, the role of 

coercive control in IPV needs to be more thoroughly 

understood in the legal context. In that context, 

domestic violence is usually understood as a onesize-fits-all category, based on acts of assault alone 

without regard to the coercive context in which 

they occur. Moreover, the role of coercive control 

in extracting criminal conduct is rarely considered 

in criminal cases (Colvin et al., 2001). Much work 

needs to be done to bring the notion of coercion in 

IPV into the legal arena. Without attention to this 

critical element of IPV, legal actors hear only parts 

of the stories that victims bring them every day in 

court. A more discriminating understanding of the 

nature of specific IPV crimes, including the element 

of coercion, would help secure more appropriate 

sentencing, as well as treatment for the perpetrators, and more effective safety planning for victims 

(Erskine, 1999). 

THE SOCIAL BASES OF POWER 

As we will elaborate below, theoretical work exists on the concepts of coercion and control; however, 

few have attempted to integrate this work with our 

current understanding of violent intimate relationships. In the 1950s, stimulated by Lewin’s work on 

power, which he defined as “the possibility of inducing forces of a certain magnitude on another person” 

(Lewin, 1935, p. 131), the Research Center for Group A2 

Dynamics began work on different aspects of group 

power and influence. In that context, French and 

Raven began to meet to develop a general theory of 

social power, defined, consistent with Lewin’s work, 

as “potential influence” or the ability of an “agent” 

to influence a “target” (French & Raven, 1959). 

French and Raven were interested in what sorts 

of resources a person might draw upon to exercise 
745 

P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization 

influence. Eventually, in a key paper (1959), they developed five bases of power, each involving one person’s ability to impose, give, or administer tangible 

or intangible outcomes on another. In this model, we 

refer to the person who is doing the influencing is 

the “agent,” and the person being influenced is the 

“target.” Both men and women may be agents of coercion in their intimate relationship, as well as the 

targets of it from their intimate partners. We assume 

that coercion exists not only in intimate heterosexual 

relationships, but also in lesbian and gay male relationships as well. 

Coercive power involves the agent’s ability to 

impose on the target things the target does not desire, or to remove or decrease desired things. Reward power involves the agent’s ability to give to the 

target things the target desires, or to take away or 

decrease things not desired. Neither of these bases 

of power can be used to change a target’s privately 

held beliefs or values. Instead, only behavioral compliance is obtained, which depends on surveillance. 

The remaining bases of power can be used to actually change the target’s beliefs. Legitimate power involves the agent’s ability to impose on the target feelings of obligation or responsibility. Referent power 

involves the agent’s ability to provide feelings of personal acceptance or approval based on the target’s 

identification with the agent. Expert power involves 

the agent’s ability to provide skill or expertise and 

arises from the target’s belief that the expert has such 

expertise. A sixth basis, informational power, involving the agent’s ability to provide knowledge or information, was added later (Raven, 1965). 

More recently, Raven (1992) extended the original model into a Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence. This model’s main advance was 

to offer a more dynamic view of power, distinguishing between bases of power (i.e., ability or potential 

to control), power processes (i.e., attempts to control), and outcomes of power (i.e., compliance or resistance; Bruins, 1999). This distinction adds clarity 

not previously articulated, indicating that the potential for abuse of power, the attempt to use power to 

coerce, and the achievement of control through compliance should be considered separately. 

Coercive power is most central to theorizing about coercive control in violent relationships, 

although the remaining bases of power may also apply. Both can be distinguished from force in that 

force involves a complete lack of volition on the part 

of the target (Raven, 1993). That is, if sufficient force 

is imposed, the target has no discretion in responding 

(e.g., being forcefully held down while being raped). 

However, the target’s response to coercion does involve choice, although not “free choice.” Coercive 

power is based on the target’s belief that the target 

can and will experience negative consequences for 

noncompliance (e.g., getting beaten for not having 

dinner on the table, partner will have sex with someone else; Raven, Center, & Rodriquez, 1975). The 

target can “choose” to comply (and hope to avoid 

threatened negative consequences) or risk punishment for noncompliance. Thus, the opportunity for 

resistance exists, but at a cost. Reward power also 

has a connection to coercive control in violent relationships since it is based on the target’s belief that 

the agent can and will provide a reward in return 

for compliance (Raven, 1975). Thus, the agent’s access to reward power (e.g., providing financial support, transportation, emotional intimacy) can be used 

to increase the target’s probability of complying with 

the agent’s coercion. 

Several ancillary notions are essential to French 

and Raven’s theory of social power. First, Raven 

(1993) argued that coercion may require softening 

the target or “setting the stage,” where the agent 

demonstrates to the target that he has the means 

to exert coercion and is ready and willing to pay 

any associated costs. This might be demonstrated, 

for example, through a history of escalating IPV. 

Raven (1993) further stated that coercion could occur through invoking the power of a third party. 

In the case of IPV, for example, an agent could 

threaten to withdraw a petition for a visa or green 

card, or report false child abuse charges, thereby 

involving Immigration and Naturalization Services 

(INS) or Department of Social Services (DSS) officials, respectively. 

Second, as noted above, central to the French 

and Raven’s theory of social power is the notion 

that both coercion and reward power require surveillance. The agent needs to have information about the 

target’s behavior to know whether or not the contingency for failure to comply needs to be imposed 

(Raven, 1993). 

Third, both compliance and resistance are possible responses to coercion. Based on a program of 

empirical research regarding the processes of coercion with a college student sample in a laboratory design, Molm (1997) found, not surprisingly, that compliance increases over time when the probability of 

contingent punishment is high. More unexpectedly, 

however, greater power to punish and greater likelihood of being punished predicts greater resistance, 
P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

746 

as well as compliance (Molm, 1997). That is, compliant victims do not retaliate less and vice versa. 

Similarly, in a community-based study of IPV victims’ responses to violence, we (Goodman, Dutton, 

Weinfurt, & Cook, 2003) found that battered women 

use increasing levels of both resistance and placating 

strategies as the violence increases in intensity. Together, these findings suggest that seemingly opposite 

responses to coercion co-occur as the level of threat 

increases. 

These points serve to clarify the limitations of 

current measures of psychological abuse as measures 

of the distinct concept of coercive control. First, current measures of psychological abuse, for example, 

the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (Tolman, 1989, 1999) and the Work/School 

Abuse Scale (Riger, Ahrens, & Blickenstaff, 2001) 

typically are composed of items characterizing abusive acts or tactics without regard to their ability to 

actually control the partner. That is, these measures 

do not assess the contingent possibility of negative 

sanctions inherent in coercion. Second, current psychological abuse measures do not separate coercion 

(e.g., threat not to allow contact with family if a 

woman talks about past violence) from other forms 

of nonphysical abuse (e.g., humiliation, not allowed 

Dutton and Goodman 

out of the house). Third, current measures do not 

distinguish the process of control (i.e., coercive 

tactics) from outcomes (i.e., compliance or resistance 

as end results). Verbal threats or a raised voice 

may constitute control tactics, but are not coercive 

unless they signal the threat of subsequent consequences for noncompliance (e.g., violent assault). 

Gender differences may be especially salient here, 

since women and men may differ in their ability 

to convey a credible threat, while they may differ 

less in their use of verbal insults or statements of 

humiliation. 

MODEL OF COERCION IN INTIMATE 

PARTNER VIOLENCE 

In the next section, we apply the social power 

model (Raven, 1993; Molm, 1997), particularly its 

characterization of coercion, to a conceptualization 

of coercive control in relationships involving intimate 

partner violence. The resulting theoretical model of 

coercion in intimate partner violence is illustrated in 

Fig. 1. 

Coercive control in intimate partner violence is 

a dynamic process linking a demand with a credible 

Fig. 1. Model of coercion in intimate partner violence. 
747 

P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization 

threatened negative consequence for noncompliance. A new measure of coercion in intimate relationships, under development by the authors,4 identifies eight domains of control in which demands 

may be made. These domains were developed on 

the basis of the authors’ clinical and forensic experience and with the help of a National Advisory Panel 

of 20 domestic violence experts. These domains include personal activities/appearance (e.g., demand to 

wear certain clothing or hairstyles), support/social 

life/family (e.g., refusal to allow target to seek help 

of counselor or talk with family members), household (e.g., demanding only specific foods be purchased), work/economic/resources (e.g., not allowing non-English speaking partner to learn English), 

health (e.g., not allowing target to obtain needed 

medications), intimate relationship (e.g., demanding 

target not use birth control), legal (e.g., demanding 

that the target engage in illegal activities), immigration (e.g., threats to report target to immigration officials), and children (threats to report target to child 

protective services). Examples from the authors’ clinical and forensic experience of severe coercion in an 

intimate partner violent relationship may include the 

threat of physical assault for failure to engage in sexual demands, the threat of taking the children away 

from their mother if she fails to allow the abusive 

partner to return to the home following a separation, the threat of withdrawing immigration papers if 

an immigrant woman calls the police when her husband is violent, or a woman’s threat of disclosing 

private information about her partner for failure to 

agree to send the children to the school of her choice. 

Less serious coercion in terms of physical harm— 

but psychologically harmful nevertheless—include a 

partner’s threat to embarrass a woman in front of her 

family or friends, or to seek sex outside the relationship if a woman doesn’t allow her partner to engage 

in unwanted sexual behaviors with her. In the next 

sections, we break down this broad conceptualization 

into the components of the model outlined in Fig. 1. 

The upper portion of the figure represents the agent’s 

verbal or behavioral responses, while the lower portion characterizes the target’s responses. 

Social Ecology 

To understand the dynamics of coercive control 

requires attention to the social context in which it 

occurs. Economic, political, cultural, familial, social, 

4Funded by the National Institute of Justice. 

and individual factors—as well as their interactions— 

give meaning to an abuser’s coercive behavior (i.e., 

setting the stage for coercion, coercive threats, 

surveillance, carrying out threatened consequences) 

(Edleson & Tolman, 1992) and the partner’s responses to it (i.e., the immediate cognitive, behavioral and emotional responses to coercive threats, 

ongoing traumatic effects of exposure to coercion; 

Dutton, 1996). Indeed, each of the components of 

our model, described below, can be understood only 

within the context of the social ecology that gives 

it meaning. Our own clinical experience has demonstrated that a man’s threat to leave his partner means 

one thing if his partner is a new immigrant, entirely 

emotionally or economically dependent on him, but 

quite another if she is a wealthy American with 

plenty of social and emotional resources. 

Virtually all relationships involve persuasion 

and influence according to theories of social power 

(French & Raven, 1959; Raven, 1992). At some point 

or another, many people even say things to their partners like, “If you don’t X, I will Y. . . , with X ranging 

from “let me take you out to dinner” to “sell drugs 

for me,” and Y ranging from “sulk” to “kill you.” So 

whether a demand and contingent threat can be characterized as coercive is contextually dependent. For 

example, threatening to call the police unless one’s 

partner puts down a weapon involves a demand (put 

down the weapon) followed by a threat of contingent 

negative consequences (call to police). No doubt, the 

individual brandishing the weapon would perceive 

the threat to be an aversive event. Yet, calling the police for protection and demanding that one’s partner 

stop threatening with a weapon may be expected by 

others who believe that one should “do something” 

to stop the violence. Similarly, threatening to leave 

a relationship unless one’s partner stops his abusive 

behavior would likely be viewed by most as socially 

acceptable behavior. Therefore, not only is context 

required to understand the nature of coercive behaviors and responses to them, but it is required even to 

determine whether a particular behavior should be 

considered as coercion at all. 

Setting the Stage 

Given a sufficiently serious threat, coercion can 

occur in a relationship even when there has been no 

prior violence or threat to “soften” the partner’s resistance. However, one might assume that the occurrence of violence in a relationship might make the 

victim particularly vulnerable to coercion, even when 
P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

748 Dutton and Goodman 

the immediate threat is minor. Once intimate partner credible if there was some basis in behavioral history 

violence occurs, a line has been crossed and the pos- to suggest that it was plausible. For example, somesibility remains that it will happen again, even though one who previously has used serious violence with 

a woman may try to believe that it won’t. The stage his partner, or with others, and who threatens to kill 

has been set. In these cases, the dynamics of coercion his partner— or to seriously injure her—would likely 

may be difficult to observe directly. Without an ap- require little else to communicate credibility based 

preciation of the many ways in which the stage has on his ability (i.e., prior act), willingness (i.e., threat 

been set to “prime” the target for coercion, recog- to do it again), and readiness (i.e., threat to do it at 

nizing a coercive threat and understanding a target’s any moment) to carry out the threat. Importantly, deresponse to it may not be obvious. For example, it is pending on the nature of a threat, previous physical 

difficult to appreciate the power of a threat to “give or sexual assault by the partner might be sufficient to 

her what she deserves” if a woman looks at another indicate credibility of a subsequent threat. 

man without knowing that her boyfriend previously 

had beaten her and held a knife to her throat because she looked at one of his friends in a way that Creating or Exploiting Vulnerabilities 

he perceived as flirtatious. Thus, understanding coercive control necessitates knowing the foundations Vulnerabilities increase a victim’s susceptibility 

upon which coercion is built. to certain forms of coercion. Our clinical experience 

Four ways in which a partner can “set the stage” has repeatedly demonstrated that economic liabilifor coercion in the relationship include (1) creating ties increase vulnerability to threats involving money, 

the expectancy for negative consequences, (2) cre- credit, health insurance, child care and employment. 

ating or exploiting the partner’s vulnerabilities, (3) Illness, injury, physical disability, pregnancy, or small 

wearing down the partner’s resistance, and (4) facili- physical stature increase vulnerability to the threat of 

tating attachment. These are described in more detail physical assault. Motherhood increases vulnerability 

below. to threats involving children. Substance abuse or 

mental health problems increase vulnerability to 

all forms of abuse (Kilpatrick, Acierno, Resnick, 

Creating the Expectancy for Coercive Outcomes Saunders, & Best, 1997), likely because these conditions may reduce one’s ability to act effectively on 

Communicating the ability, willingness, and one’s own behalf. Illegal immigration status or legal 

readiness to control one’s partner by punishing her or problems increase vulnerability to threats involving 

him or withholding rewards for noncompliance is de- exposure to police or other authorities (Gold, 2000; 

fined here as creating an expectancy of coercion. Our Hass, Dutton, & Orloff, 2000). Language barriers in- A2 

own clinical experience has shown us that commu- crease vulnerability to threats that involve increased 

nication may be made through the abusive partner’s social isolation. History of childhood abuse or other 

previous actions directed toward his current partner dysfunctional family history can increase vulnerabil-

(e.g., prior serious violence) or toward others (e.g., ity to threats involving relationship termination or 

having seriously injured a previous partner). Simi- psychological manipulation (Gold, 2000). 

larly, the expectancy can be created through explicit An individual may enter into a relationship 

statements, for example, that the abusive partner has with existing vulnerabilities or acquire them indeconnections with others who would harm her if he pendently of her partner. These vulnerabilities can 

instructed them to do so; or that the abusive partner in turn be exploited by her abusive partner. In, one 

has a particular method in mind for killing his part- case, a woman with breast cancer was exploited when 

ner. In one forensic case example, a husband told his her abusive partner insisted that she remain in the rewife in detail how he was going to kill her after her lationship, stating that no one would want a woman 

grandmother arrived home the next day. These mes- with those defects. The birth of a child can be exsages set the stage for the victim to believe that, when ploited if, for example, an abusive partner threatens 

it is threatened, the negative consequence will be de- to remove the child’s coverage on his medical insurlivered. It gives the coercive process credibility. ance if his partner does not comply with his desire for 

Communicating the credibility of a threat can be sex immediately following delivery of the child. 

done in an instant or cumulatively over the course An abusive partner may intentionally create 

of a relationship. That is, a threat would certainly be vulnerabilities in order to exert coercive control 
749 

P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization 

over his partner. Numerous clinical examples have 

shown that creating financial indebtedness by insisting that all expenses be charged on a credit card 

in the partner’s name is not uncommon. Forcing 

one’s partner to quit a job, become involved in 

illegal activities (e.g., fraud, elicit drugs) or engage 

in shameful experiences (e.g., sex with strangers, 

children, or animals) also can create vulnerabilities 

such as physical or mental health effects of traumatic 

violence exposure (Acierno, Resnick, Kilpatrick, 

Saunders, & Best, 1999; Stein & Kennedy, 2001), 

fear of future revictimization, or economic loss. 

Wearing Down Resistance 

Resistance to coercion is facilitated by tangible 

(e.g., economic resources, access to transportation, 

place to stay), social (e.g., emotional support) and 

personal (e.g., physical stamina, determination, willingness to take risks) resources. Abusers can undermine their partner’s ability to resist coercive control 

by depleting these resources. For example, interfering with victims’ social networks or using psychologically abusive tactics that damage a person’s physical 

and psychological well-being wear down one’s ability 

or will to resist. Separation from family and friends 

can create a sense of futility and despair. ’When resistance is lower, compliance with coercive demands 

may be more likely since there are fewer resources to 

combat the pressure to comply. 

Facilitating—and Then 

Exploiting—Emotional Attachment 

. 

Healthy relationships involve mutual emotional 

interdependence (Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, & Hannon, 

2001; Walsh, 1982). However, when the emotional 

dependence in the relationship is extreme and unbalanced, the individual who is less dependent has 

greater power in the relationship. Emotional dependency can then be exploited by the partner who is less 

attached to the relationship. 

The theory of traumatic bonding (Dutton & 

Painter, 1993) describes one example of this process, 

where the abusive partner simultaneously abuses and 

creates vulnerabilities in the victim, such that attachment to the abuser is required (e.g., beating one’s 

partner and then caring for her injuries). In some 

cases, an abusive partner creates an emotional imbalance in the relationship by facilitating emotional dependency to exploit it. An imbalance of emotional attachment in the relationship may also stem from one 

partner’s extreme emotional dependency as a personality style. Irrespective of how it develops, emotional dependency can be exploited by a coercive 

partner. 

Coercion 

We have operationalized coercion as a two-part 

construct involving a demand and a threat. Coercive 

threats are different from non-coercive threats, although they can be serious forms of abuse on their 

own. Coercive threats are contingent; they involve 

communication about both a demand and an associated credible threat (Molm, 1997; Raven, 1993; 

Raven, Center & Rodriques, 1995). 

Coercive Demand 

Central to the notion of coercive control is the 

idea of compliance with demands or expectations. A 

threatened negative outcome involved in coercion is 

contingent on one’s failure to comply with the partner’s “demand.” The Merriam-Webster online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/) defines “demand” as 

“to ask or call for with authority; to claim as due or 

just.” This definition encompasses the “entitlement” 

that often characterizes a demand in violent intimate 

partner relationships. 

Communication between human beings is complex and, thus, demands can be relayed in many different ways. The form of the statement that contains a demand can vary widely. Thus, demands may 

be communicated explicitly (e.g., “You’d better be 

home when I get here!”) or implicitly (e.g., “You 

know what you need to do”). They may be communicated with or without words (e.g. raised fist or glare 

from across the room). A demand (e.g., “Don’t walk 

out of this house ...”) may be communicated contemporaneously with a related threat (e.g., “... or I’ll 

file for custody and take the kids”) or years before 

the threatened consequence is to be carried out (e.g., 

“... or some day I’ll find you”). 

Assessing coercive demands in intimate partner 

violence requires identifying not only obvious and 

discrete demands, but those that are integrated seamlessly into the day-to-day interactions of the partners’ lives. Sometimes, demands don’t even have to 
P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

750 

be stated explicitly to be understood as existent. For 

many women in abusive intimate relationships, the 

rituals of everyday life are illustrated by “I just knew 

that I had to or else he would .” Expectations become coercive demands when the expectation is held by the coercive partner and understood 

as such by the target and the price of noncompliance 

with those expectations is a contingent punishment 

or opportunity cost. 

Credible threat 

A threat may be explicit (e.g., “If you’re not here 

when I get home, you’ll get it worse than last night”). 

Alternatively, a threat may be communicated implicitly, relying on the pattern of the abuser’s behavior over the course of the relationship (i.e., over 

time whenever a woman came home late form work, 

her partner started an argument, which often led to 

physical assault). In this example, an explicit statement of the threat is unnecessary after some period 

of time; it is clearly understood by both parties that 

when she doesn’t come home when he expects her 

to, there will be the threat of consequences. In this 

latter case, abused women often report, “I just knew 

what would happen if I didn’t do what he wanted me 

to do.” 

For a demand to be coercive, the contingent 

threat associated with it must be credible. Otherwise, the demand is without consequence; it is empty. 

The partner’s prior behavior, described as “setting 

the stage” for coercion can communicate the degree of credibility with which a threat is delivered. 

Or information about the credibility of a threat 

may be communicated contemporaneously with a 

demand. Whenever it occurs, the agent’s communication that he is able, willing, and ready to carry 

out a threat for noncompliance gives his threat 

credibility. 

Surveillance 

According to the theory of social power, coercion cannot work without surveillance (Raven, 

1992)—or perhaps just the “victim’s” belief that it is 

occurring. Since a threat is contingent on noncompliance, surveillance is required to determine whether 

compliance has occurred. Our clinical experience has 

shown that surveillance methods are commonplace 

in intimate partner violence. Abusers often use freDutton and Goodman 

quent phone calls to monitor their partner’s whereabouts. Inspections to determine whether a woman 

cleaned all surfaces in the house as she was told, 

whether she had sex with someone else, or whether 

she drove the car a greater number of miles than the 

distance between her house and her job are but a few 

examples of surveillance. Even when an abuser does 

not actually use surveillance tactics, he or she can enhance the controlling value of a threat by persuading 

his partner that he or she does. Some IPV victims believe that their partners will “just know,” or that he 

or she will inevitably find out, if one does what the 

other says or not. 

Third parties are also involved in the surveillance process. In many of the first author’s forensic 

cases, for example, children are recruited to report 

their mother’s behavior to her partner, when they are 

questioned about who came to the house, who their 

mother talked to on the telephone, or when she returned home. Enlisting other family and friends to report on one’s behavior allows an abuser to extend his 

or her surveillance far beyond that which one could 

reasonably conduct alone. 

Delivery of Threatened Negative Consequences 

The dispensing of threatened negative consequences can serve to set the stage for later coercive acts to be successful, that is, to result in compliance. For example, when a man threatens to “teach 

his wife a lesson” for not having sex with him, and 

then rapes her when she refuses, the likelihood of her 

compliance the next time is increased (Molm, 1997). 

Since coercive threats often involve various acts of 

IPV, when actually delivered, they contribute to the 

cumulative pattern of intimate partner violence and 

abuse in the relationship. Of course, coercive control 

doesn’t require a threatened consequence to be actually delivered—only creation of the belief that it 

could be enacted. 

Vulnerability to Coercion 

The proposed model of coercion recognizes that 

individuals enter intimate relationships with different levels of vulnerability to coercion. As described 

above, these vulnerabilities may vary in nature, but 

each constitutes a wedge which can be used to effectively coerce the person. Vulnerability to coercion does not necessarily reflect a weakness or deficit. 
751 

P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization 

Vulnerability to coercion can arise from something 

that the partner can exploit or take away. For example, someone with considerable independent financial resources is likely not easily coerced by the threat 

of withholding money for groceries, while someone 

who depends on a welfare check may be more easily 

coerced in this way. Similarly, having small children 

or elderly parents provides another target against 

which coercive threats can be made. In this model 

vulnerability to coercion may be created by the partner through years of maltreatment and abuse or the 

person may enter the relationship with notable vulnerabilities that provide a ready avenue for coercion 

by a partner who is so inclined. Numerous clinical 

cases by the first author have involved women who 

have revealed vulnerabilities (e.g., history of childhood abuse) to their partner in an effort to seek support or to gain greater intimacy only to find that the 

information is later used to threaten them with humiliation or a repeat of prior victimization. 

Cognitive, Emotional, and Behavioral 

Responses to Coercion 

Three different categories of short-term response to coercive acts include the extent of (1) victims’ cognitive appraisal of a coercive threat as signaling credible risk, (2) compliance or resistance as a 

behavioral response to an abuser’s demands, and (3) 

fear arousal. 

Threat Appraisal: Cognitive Response to Coercion 

Since coercion operates out of a threat of future negative consequences, the power of coercive 

control is tied to the perception a threat. Threat appraisal is a variable pertaining to the “victim’s” cognitive response, which is distinct from the acts of coercive threats by a “perpetrator.” A threat may yet 

to have been carried out (e.g., threat to kill, kidnap 

the children), but one can examine the response to 

the threat alone separate from the response to the 

consequences for compliance or noncompliance especially when the threatened consequence is not immediate. Thus, coercive control relies in part on the 

perception of threat by the target of coercive threats. 

Without the perception of a credible threat coercion 

cannot occur. 

A single threat may dictate a target’s behavior for years, while she or he holds the (accurate 

or inaccurate) assumption that the threat is real 

and ongoing. Further, one study of coping among 

women (Hudek-Knezevic & Kardum, 2000) found 

that threat appraisal was a central component of 

stress. Yet, why women take some threats seriously 

and not others is unclear. Some threats are nearly 

universally credible, for example threats to kill when 

an angry man holds a loaded gun at a woman’s 

head. Many others are less clear to observers who 

don’t have knowledge of the relationship history— 

especially intimate partner violence. 

While no formal theory has yet been developed 

to explain women’s own IPV risk assessment, recent 

research suggests that battered women’s violence 

threat appraisal is related to various risk factors, such 

as severity of prior violence (Mechanic, Weaver, & 

Resick, 2000) abuser characteristics (e.g., drunkenness, drug use, unemployment, relationship estrangement, and use of controlling behaviors; Gondolf & 

Heckert, 2003), social support and PTSD (Dutton, 

2003). Furthermore, a woman’s prior interpersonal 

relationships can teach her about the credibility of 

IPV threats. For example, she may have learned from 

a previous partner that when he got angry, he was 

more likely than not to beat or physically assault her. 

Through the process of generalization, she may have 

learned to expect that when men get angry, they will 

hurt her. In the case of a new partner, her threat appraisal may not be unreasonable, even if it is inaccurate. 

In coercion, the detection of risk is usually 

accompanied by the target’s belief that if he or she 

does something to keep the partner happy or not to 

make that person angry she could avoid further violence and abuse–or other threatened consequences. 

The understanding of this contingency suggests some 

level of perceived control over the risk of harm from 

their partner. However, in violent intimate partner 

relationships, this control is often elusive. First, in 

some cases, a coercive “demand” may be nonspecific 

and focus not on what a person is expected to do (or 

not do), but on what outcome she or he is expected 

to accomplish (i.e., not make the partner angry). 

Even if one intends to comply with a “nonspecific” 

demand, it is much more difficult—since knowing 

what would make the partner happy may be subtle or 

change over time. Indeed, many women report that 

they had complied with what they had been “told” 

to do, only to find out that their partner now wanted 

them to do something else – or to do it differently. 

Of course, nothing she does may ever satisfy her 

partner and, thus, her “noncompliance” is used to 
P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

752 

justify—in the mind of the abuser—the violence 

that follows. Secondly, one observation is that even 

when a threat is coercive (i.e., implies a contingency 

depending on the target’s compliance), it may actually matter little what the target does to comply. A 

threat may be meant to terrorize the partner, not to 

extract a particular response. By believing “if only 

I do what he or she wants, I can keep my partner 

from carrying out the threat,” one may attempt to 

gain some level of (perceived) control over both how 

one views their relationship with the partner, as well 

as feelings of terror. If one were to believe, instead, 

that the partner was intent on terrifying the other, 

that the partner will abuse regardless of what one 

does, and that she or he has little control over what 

the does or doesn’t do, she could no longer deny 

the danger to oneself and one’s children, nor avoid 

feeling the terror that comes with that recognition. 

Yet, as with both coercive and non-coercive threats, 

the target has no real control. Avoiding a threatened 

consequence is always in the control of the agent, not 

the target, even when the “victim” complies with a 

demand. 

Compliance and Noncompliance: 

Behavioral Response to Coercion 

Responding to a demand can involve compliance, noncompliance, or both. As discussed above, 

our previous research (Goodman et al., 2003) supports the findings of Molm (1997) which indicates 

that as the severity of violence increases, both battered women’s resistance and placating (i.e., compliance) increase. 

Experience working with battered women suggests that they frequently resist their partner’s demands, and they do so in a variety of ways. In some 

cases, noncompliance is oblique; one does not directly confront the partner with a refusal. At other 

times, one may quite explicitly and directly resist the 

partner’s control. In some cases, the failure to comply is about “giving up”—feeling desperation and 

lack of energy to respond to a partner’s incessant demands and abuse, such as when a woman says, “Go 

ahead and kill me, just get it over with— I’m not going to do what you want.” At other times, the defiance is a clear and simple “no, I won’t.” Of course, 

sometimes the abuser makes good on a threat. At 

other times, in that moment, the threatened consequence is not forthcoming. However, the abuser can 

taunt his or her partner by indicating that the threatDutton and Goodman 

ened consequence will occur—just in his or her own 

time. 

One may comply by “going along” with a partner’s demands. Sometimes, the person may find it 

to be easier than resisting. Complying doesn’t necessarily mean that one “wants” to do what the partner demands; more likely the individual is trying to 

create safety for oneself and one’s children. Sometimes compliance with expectations or demands can 

become internalized or routine—with those actions 

taking on the appearance of being “voluntary.” The 

day-to-day “rules” imposed by an abusive partner 

may be those that one becomes accustomed to as 

a personal risk management strategy—even without 

recognizing the extent of compliance. 

Fear Arousal: Emotional Response to Coercion 

Cognitive appraisals of threat are commonly associated with distressful affective responses including PTSD (Lobel & Gilat, 1998; Piotrkowski & 

Brannen, 2002). Further, some theories of threat appraisal (Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001) 

emphasize the role of affect, versus cognition, for explaining threat appraisal. Regardless, the interconnectedness between feelings, cognitions, and behavior suggests that fear, cognitive appraisals of threat, 

and behavioral responses to coercion cannot be understood without recognizing the influence of each 

on the other. 

Increased arousal can influence one’s thoughts 

and behavior (Lazarus, 1999). For example, fear may 

focus the woman’s attention on the narrow view of 

immediate danger, rather than on the long-term consequences of her response to it (e.g., fighting back, 

reaching for a knife). Emptying a revolver, rather 

than considering whether the first shot may have 

stopped an intruding abusive partner as he came 

through a barricaded door, is another example of fear 

taking precedent over cognitive problem-solving. 

Outcomes of IPV Coercion 

Exposure to coercive acts means exposure to 

threats of harm , including those that would be considered traumatic stressors such as threats of harm 

to self or others (American Psychiatric Association, 

2000). Many types of threatened consequence in 

violent intimate relationships meet the event criterion for posttraumatic stress disorder (American 
753 

P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization 

Psychiatric Association, 2000): 

“the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual 

or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to 

the physical integrity of self or others” (p. 467). 

It would not be surprising, then, to find that the 

consequences of coercive control include the range 

of mental health (e.g., posttraumatic stress symptoms, depression, anxiety) and physical health (gastrointestinal problems, sleep problems, hypertension 

headaches; Dutton, Haywood, & El-Bayoumi, 1997) 

problems associated with traumatic exposure (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Dutton et al., 

1997). 

Although few studies have explored this question, a large body of research does show that intimate 

partner violence is associated with more severe mental health consequences than is physical violence. In 

a recent meta-analysis of the mental health impact 

of IPV, the prevalence of PTSD ranged from 31 to 

84.4% (Golding, 1999). These rates are significantly 

higher than the estimated lifetime prevalence of 

10.4% in the general population of women (Kessler, 

Sonnega, Bromet, Hughes, & Nelson, 1995) and 

25.8% among women with a history of crime victimization (Resnick, Kilpatrick, Dansky, Saunders, 

A2 & Best, 1993). Further, PTSD rarely occurs alone 

(Kessler et al., 1995). One of the most common 

comorbid diagnoses among women with PTSD 

is major depression (Breslau, Davis, Peterson, & 

Schultz, 1997). In the same meta-analysis of the 

mental health outcomes of IPV, the prevalence 

of depression ranged from 15 to 70% (Golding, 

1999). These rates are compared to the lifetime rates 

observed in the general population (10.2–21.3%; 

A2 Kessler et al., 1995; Weissman, Bruce, Leaf, Florio, 

A2 & Holzer, 1991). In fact, IPV is a risk factor for 

suicide among women in general (e.g., Abbott, 

A2 Johnson, Koziol-McLain, & Lowenstein, 1995; 

A2 Bergman & Brismar, 1991) and specifically among 

A2 African American women (Kaslow et al., 1998). In 

addition to mental health outcomes, IPV is also associated with negative behavioral and health outcomes. 

Research has also shown that the adverse 

mental health outcomes of IPV are independently 

associated with psychological abuse, including both 

control/domination and emotional/verbal abuse 

(Dutton, Goodman, & Bennett, 1999). However, 

there is little research examining the impact of living 

with ongoing IPV threat such as in the case of coercion when a threat has been made, but the delivery 

of the threatened consequence has yet to occur. 

Our own research with battered women has shown 

that greater appraisal of future IPV threat is related 

to both subsequent PTSD and depression, even 

after controlling for prior levels of IPV (Dutton, 

Goodman, Weinfurt, & Vankos, 2001). The role of 

a woman’s own behavioral compliance (vs. resistance) and the extent to which she believes her own 

actions can control whether threats can be averted, 

is also an important line of research to consider in 

understanding the outcomes of IPV coercion. 

Physical health outcomes, including health promoting behaviors, risky health behaviors, and physical health status, are also relevant outcomes of exposure to IPV, although existing studies have yet 

to parcel out the impact of coercion from other 

forms of exposure. In addition to the physical injury that results from IPV, research has demonstrated a significant relationship between IPV and 

poor health outcomes, including self-reported health 

status, somatic symptoms, risk of illness, and exacerbated medical conditions (Campbell et al., 2002; 

Campbell, 2002; Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997). In 

a national sample, women who had experienced severe violence during the past year reported twice as 

many days in bed due to illness during the previous 

month than those who experienced minor or no violence (Gelles & Straus, 1988). In a primarily African 

American (62%), employed sample (85%) of women 

recruited from two university-affiliated family practice clinics, physical IPV was associated with selfreported poor physical health and having had more 

than five physician visits in the past year (Coker, 

Smith, Bethea, King, & McKeown, 2000). Physical violence was also associated with hearing loss, angina, 

other heart or circulatory conditions, frequent bladder or kidney infections, having a hysterectomy, and 

gastric reflux. Psychological violence was associated 

with self-reported poor physical health as well as 

other specific medical problems, including chronic 

neck or back pain, arthritis, migraines or other frequent headaches, and stomach ulcer. In a sample of 

234 primarily White battered women, participants 

retrospectively reported a decline in their physical 

health status during and after a violent relationship 

(Follingstad, Brennan, Hause, Polek, & Rutledge, 

1991). More than 50% of the sample reported specific 

physical complaints including persistent headaches 

(57%), back and limb problems (55%), and stomach problems (55%). The literature linking IPV to 

health outcomes is growing, but we still know very 

little about the long-term physical health status. 
P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

754 

IMPLICATIONS 

In this final section, we list a few potential uses of 

this model of coercive control in IPV. Both research 

and practice implications are discussed. 

Research 

The model of IPV coercion elaborated in this 

paper can guide researchers in their exploration of 

a number of important research questions. First, the 

model can serve as the basis for measurement development. Indeed, we are now developing and validating a measure that taps each of the model’s components, including setting the stage, surveillance, and 

responses to coercion, in addition to the demand and 

threatened consequence at the core of coercive control. We hope to use this measure to explore the nature of coercive control in a variety of populations. 

Second, this model can enrich our exploration 

of the complex context in which violence occurs, 

enabling us to move beyond an accounting of specific assaultive acts. Our conceptualization of coercive control can, for example, inform the debate 

over whether men and women use violence at the 

same rates. Women are reported to use violence at 

rates comparable to that of men (Archer, 2000), although research also suggests that women are significantly more likely to report experiencing severe, frequent levels and negative consequences of 

IPV (Archer, 2000; Berk, Berk, Loseke, & Rauma, 

1983; Campbell, 1993; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & 

Daly, 1992; Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 

1991; Holtzworth-Monroe, Smutzler, & Bates, 1997; 

Molidor & Tolman, 1998; O’Leary, 2000; Zlotnick, 

Kohn, Peterson, & Pearlstein, 1998). Indeed, the proposed model allows us to explore specific elements of 

the context in which men and women use coercion, as 

well as acts of violence and abuse. Topographically 

similar threat behavior may be accompanied by different contextual events (i.e., nature of demands and 

threats, “setting-the-stage,” surveillance, enactment 

of consequences) for men versus women. Differences 

in the nature of coercion between other groups (e.g., 

first vs. chronic offenders, heterosexual vs. lesbian vs. 

gay male couples) can also be examined using this 

model as a conceptual guide. 

Third, a model of coercion in IPV may allow 

us to deepen our understanding of the developmental sequence of IPV. Previous research has demonstrated the progression from psychological abuse to 

Dutton and Goodman 

physical assault (O’Leary, Malone, & Tyree, 1994). 

Yet, it is unclear how coercion fits into this developmental perspective. For example, does the severity of 

coercion progress on a trajectory along with physical 

and sexual assault or separately from it? Does coercion pre-date or follow the onset of severe physical 

violence? When abusers stop using physical assault 

following batterer treatment, for example, do they 

continue to use coercion? Do different components 

of the model become more salient? 

Fourth, this model could be helpful in furthering our understanding of whether there are different 

“types” of batterers. Existing typologies (Gondolf, 

1999; Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, & Tolin, 1996, 1997; 

Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, 

& Stuart, 2003; Holtzworth-Munroe, Rehman, & 

Herron, 2000) may be further refined by including 

coercion and control, along with severity of physical violence. Typologies of violent couple relationships that already take coercive control into account 

(Johnson, 1995; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000) might be 

enriched by this more refined conceptualization of 

that elusive construct. 

Practice 

The model of coercive control in IPV presented 

here can also be useful as a tool for advocacy and 

batterer intervention. Using this framework may allow service providers to talk with men and women 

in a more sophisticated way, unraveling the complex 

dynamics involved in coercion and partner violence 

more generally. Better information about the patterns of violence—including coercion—gained from 

both batterers and victims can help us to tailor our 

interventions with regard to safety planning with victims, batterer treatment, and mental health interventions with both victims and perpetrators. 

In the legal arena, this more refined conceptualization of coercion in relationships with IPV might 

assist prosecutors and defense attorneys to explain 

more adequately both victim and perpetrator behavior in physical and sexual assault cases involving intimate partners. Legal professionals might be able 

to understand more thoroughly the pattern of abuse 

within which specific violent acts take place; and 

therefore be able to make more informed decisions 

about perpetrator dispositions and victim safety. 

Over time, we have become better and better at 

understanding the complexities of IPV, bringing sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and stalking into our 
755 

P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization 

models. With this conceptualization of coercive control, we can take one more step in disentangling the 

phenomenon of intimate partner violence and come 

one step closer to stopping it. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Grant 2001-WT-BX-0503 from the National Institute of Justice supported the development of this 

model through a research grant. We gratefully acknowledge the guidance of our National Advisory 

Board. 

REFERENCES 

Acierno, R., Resnick, H., Kilpatrick, D. G., Saunders, B., & Best, 

C. L. (1999). Risk factors for rape, physical assault, and posttraumatic stress disorder in women: Examination of differential multivariate relationships. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 

13(6), 541–563. 

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: Author. 

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in physical aggression to partners: A reply to Frieze (2000), O’Leary (2000), and White, 

Smith, Koss, & Figueredo (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 

126(5), 697–702. 

Bachman, R., & Saltzman, L. (1995). Violence against women: Estimates from the redesigned survey, Special Report. (No. NCJ154348). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Berk, R., Berk, S., Loseke, D., & Rauma, D. (1983). Mutual combat and other family victim myths. In D. Finkelhor, D. Gelles, 

G. Hotaling, & M. Straus (Eds.), The Dark Side of Families 

(pp. 197–212). Beverly Hills: Sage. 

Campbell, J. (1993). Men, women and aggression. New York: Basic 

Books. 

Campbell, J., Snow Jones, A., Dienemann, J., Kub, J., 

Schollenberger, J., O’Campo, P., Carlson Gielen, A., & 

Wynne, C. (2002). Intimate partner violence and physical 

health consequences. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 

1157–1163. 

Campbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner 

violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331–1336. 

Campbell, J. C., & Lewandowski, L. A. (1997). Mental and physical health effects of intimate partner violence on women and 

children. Anger, aggression, and violence, 20, 353–369. 

Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., Bethea, L., King, M. R., & McKeown, 

R. E. (2000). Physical health consequences of physical and 

psychological intimate partner violence. Archives of Family 

Medicine, 9(451–457). 

Dobash, R., Dobash, R., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth 

of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 

71–91. 

Dutton, D. G., & Painter, S. (1993). Emotional attachments in abusive relationships: A test of traumatic bonding theory. Violence & Victims, 8(2), 105–120. 

Dutton, M. A. (1996). Battered women’s strategic response to violence: The role of context. In J. L. Edleson & Z. Eisikovits 

(Eds.), Future interventions with battered women and their 

families. (pp. 105–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Dutton, M. A. (2003, October). Determinants and Social Context 

of Battered Women’s Threat Appraisal. Paper presented 

at the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, 

Chicago, IL. 

Dutton, M. A., Goodman, L. A., & Bennett, L. (1999). Courtinvolved battered women’s responses to violence: The role of 

psychological, physical, and sexual abuse. Violence & Victims, 

14(1), 89–104. 

Dutton, M. A., Goodman, L. A., Weinfurt, K., & Vankos, N. 

(2001). IPV Threat Appraisal. Paper presented at the Annual 

Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress 

Studies, New Orleans, LA. 

Dutton, M. A., Haywood, Y., & El-Bayoumi, G. (1997). Impact 

of violence on women’s health. In Health care for women: 

Psychological, social, and behavioral influences. (pp. 41–56). 

Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. 

Edleson, J. L., & Tolman, R. M. (1992). Intervention for men who 

batter: An ecological approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Follingstad, D., Wright, S., Lloyd, S., & Sebastian, J. (1991). Sex 

differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. 

Family Relations, 40, 51–57. 

Follingstad, D. R., Brennan, A. F., Hause, E. S., Polek, D. S., 

& Rutledge, L. L. (1991). Factors moderating physical and 

psychological symptoms of battered women. Journal of 

Family Violence, 6, 81–95. 

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social 

power. In Studies in Social Power. (pp. 150–167). Oxford, 

England: University of Michigan, Oxford, England. 

Gelles, R., & Straus, M. (1988). Intimate violence: The causes and 

consequences of abuse in the American family. New York: 

Touchstone. 

Gold, S. N. (2000). Not trauma alone: Therapy for child abuse 

survivors in family and social context. New York, NY: 

Brunner-Routledge. 

Gondolf, E. W. (1999). MCMI-III results for batterer program 

participants in four cities: Less “pathological” than expected. 

Journal of Family Violence, 14(1), 1–17. 

Gondolf, E. W., & Heckert, D. A. (2003). Determinants of 

women’s perceptions of risk in battering relationships. 

Violence & Victims, 18(4), 371–386. 

Goodman, L. A., Dutton, M. A., Weinfurt, K., & Cook, S. (2003). 

The intimate partner violence strategies index: Development 

and application. Violence & Victims, 9(2), 163–186. 

Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. F. (1996). A 

large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and 

its relationship to dimensions of abuse. Violence & Victims, 

11(4), 277–292. 

Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. F. 

(1997). An empirical classification of motivations for 

domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 3(4), 401– 

423. 

Hass, G. A., Dutton, M. A., & Orloff, L. E. (2000). Lifetime 

prevalence of violence against Latina immigrants: Legal and 

policy implications. International Review of Victimology, 

7(1–3), 93–113. 

Holtzworth-Monroe, A., Smutzler, N., & Bates, L. (1997). A brief 

review of the research on husband violence. Aggression and 

Violent Behavior, 2(3), 285–307. 

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., 

& Stuart, G. L. (2003). Do subtypes of maritally violent men 

continue to differ over time? Journal of Consulting & Clinical 

Psychology, 71, 728–740). US: American Psychological Assn, 

US, http://www.apa.org. 

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Rehman, U., & Herron, K. (2000). 

General and spouse-specific anger and hostility in subtypes of 

martially violent men and nonviolent men. Behavior Therapy, 

31(4), 603–630. 

Hudek-Knezevic, J., & Kardum, I. (2000). The effects of dispositional and situational coping, perceived social support, and 

cognitive appraisal on immediate outcome. European Journal 

of Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 190–201. 
P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

756 

Johnson, M. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple 

violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of 

Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294. 

Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage 

& the Family, 62(4), 948–963. 

Kilpatrick, D. G., Acierno, R., Resnick, H. S., Saunders, B. E., 

& Best, C. L. (1997). A 2-year longitudinal analysis of the 

relationships between violent assault and substance use in 

women. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 

834–847. 

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New 

York, NY: Springer. 

Lobel, T. E., & Gilat, I. (1998). The relationship between 

perceived probability of personal harm and distressful reactions during the Gulf War. International Journal of Stress 

Management, 5(2), 93–102. 

Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). 

Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286. 

Mechanic, M. B., Weaver, T. L., & Resick, P. A. (2000). Intimate 

partner violence and stalking behavior: Exploration of patterns and correlates in a sample of acutely battered women., 

Violence & Victims, 15, 55–72). US: Springer Publishing, 

http://www.springerpub.com. 

Molidor, C., & Tolman, R. (1998). Gender and contextual factors 

in adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4(2), 

180–194. 

Molm, L. D. (1997). Coercive poser in social exchange. Cambridge, 

United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

O’Leary, D. (2000). Are women really more aggressive than men 

in intimate relationships: Comment on Archer. Psychological 

Bulletin, 126, 685–689. 

O’Leary, K. D., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1994). Physical aggression in early marriage: Prerelationship and relationship 

effects. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 

594–602. 

Dutton and Goodman 

Piotrkowski, C. S., & Brannen, S. J. (2002). Exposure, threat 

appraisal, and lost confidence as predictors of PTSD symptoms following September 11, 2001. American Journal of 

Orthopsychiatry, 72(4), 476–485. 

Raven, B. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. 

Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7(2), 217– 

244. 

Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent 

developments. Journal of Social Psychology, 49(4), 227– 

251. 

Riger, S., Ahrens, C., & Blickenstaff, A. (2001). Measuring interference with employment and education reported by women 

with abusive partners: Preliminary data. In Psychological 

Abuse in Violent Domestic Relations. (pp. 119–133). New 

York, NY: Springer, http://www.springerpub.com. 

Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., & Hannon, P. A. (2001). 

Commitment and relationship maintenance mechanisms. In 

Close Romantic Relationships: Maintenance and Enhancement. (pp. 87–113). Mahwah, NJ, US: Erlbaum. 

Stein, M. B., & Kennedy, C. (2001). Major depressive and posttraumatic stress disorder comorbidity in female victims of 

intimate partner violence. Journal of Affective Disorders, 

66(2, 3), 133–138. 

Tolman, R. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence 

and Victims, 4, 173–189. 

Tolman, R. (1999). The validation of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory. Violence and Victims, 14, 25– 

37. 

Walsh, F. (1982). Normal family processes. New York, NY, US: 

Guilford. 

Zlotnick, C., Kohn, R., Peterson, J., & Pearlstein, R.	 (1998). 

Partner physical victimization in a national sample of American families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(1), 156– 

166. 
P1: KEG 

sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) sjny165-sers-ny00004196 April 15, 2005 16:1 

Queries to Author: 

A1: Au: Please provide key words of this article.


A2: Au: Please include this reference in the reference list.


757