disability, difficulty finding a job, or being laid off), and 21 (11.1%) were unemployed by choice (e.g., student). Twenty six mothers had a high school degree or less (13.7%), 70 (36.8%) had some college, 64 (33.7%) had Bachelor’s degree, and 30 (15.8%) had a Master’s or Doctoral degree. Sample demographics in each study were comparable with one exception: Mothers in the first study were more likely to report being unemployed at the time of the baseline interview in comparison to mothers in the second study, X2 (3, N = 190) = 11.55, p = 0.009. Measures Coercive control during marriage. The Dominance-Isolation Subscale of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory – Short Form (PMWI; Tolman, 1992), a widely used measure of coercive control, was used to measure the degree of coercive control in the last year before separation. Mothers rated how often they experienced each of seven acts by their partner on a scale from of 1 = never to 5 = always (see Table 1). Responses were summed to calculate the frequency with which control tactics were used for a maximum possible score of 35. Dichotomous versions of the items were created by changing responses so that 0 = never and 1 = sometimes through always. Then, a count of control tactics was calculated by summing the total number of tactics endorsed for a maximum possible score of 7. Fear during marriage. Mothers’ degree of fear in the last year before separation was assessed with the Women’s Experiences of Battering (WEB) Scale (Smith, Earp, & DeVillis, 1995). Mothers indicated how much they agreed with each of 10 items that describe how their partner made them feel (e.g., “He made me feel unsafe even in my own home,” “He could scare me without laying a hand on me”) on a scale of 1 = disagree strongly to 6 = agree strongly. A total score was calculated by summing responses for a maximum possible score of 60, with higher scores indicating higher levels of fear.
methods. These studies have added to our empirical understanding of coercive control, but the inconsistent approaches used limit our ability to compare findings and build off of prior studies. Although replication of our cutoff in diverse and larger samples is needed to establish reliability, our study provides a foundation from which to start. Third, our results contribute to the substantive literature on IPV by providing further evidence of the centrality of coercive control for making sense of differences in IPV experiences, namely frequency and severity of violence, harassment and violence after separation, fear, and perceived threat of future harm. These results were consistent with theory and prior research on IPV types as reviewed earlier. Nonetheless, studies are needed that specifically focus on situational couple violence in the postseparation context, as our results suggest greater distress for these mothers compared to mothers without violence and control. Similarly, as suggested by Anderson (2008), our results point to the importance of considering coercive control in relationships without violence. Contributions should be considered in the context of study limitations. Results for mothers with nonviolent coercive control should be interpreted with caution given the small number, which limited power. Moreover, our results are only generalizable to women with children ending their marriages. Mothers, however, may be particularly vulnerable to violence and harassment after separation due to continued contact with former partners related to children (author citation). Given the recent call for examining IPV types among separated women in general samples (Johnson et al., 2014), the nature of our sample may be particularly relevant to future work in this area. Also, selection bias may mean that the most highly controlled mothers are underrepresented in our sample. Waltermaurer, Ortega, and McNutt (2003) found that severely abused women were less likely to participate in in-person interviews; however, they
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001 Tolman, R. M. (1992). Psychological abuse of women. In R. T. Ammerman & M. Hersen (Eds.), Assessment of family violence: A clinical and legal sourcebook (pp. 291-310). New York: Wiley. Waltermaurer, E., Ortega, C., & McNutt, L. (2003) Issues in estimating the prevalence of intimate partner violence: Assessing the impact of abuse status on participation bias. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(9): 959-974. doi:10.1177/0886260503255283