Measuring Coercive Control

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Numerous academic studies point to gender symmetry in the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV). Many of these studies report findings from surveys with small and/or unrepresentative samples that have insufficient questions to differentiate adequately between different types of abuse. Data from a large, nationally representative survey suggest that, while the prevalence of situational violence is fairly symmetrical, coercive controlling abuse is highly gendered, with women overwhelmingly the victims. The authors conclude that more comprehensive measures are required in national surveys that consider a wider range of controlling behaviors as well as the meaning and impact of abuse.

Related collections

Most cited references 22

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence against Women

Michael P Johnson (1995)

0 comments Cited 415 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Prevalence and Consequences of Male-to-female and Female-to-male Intimate Partner Violence as Measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey

P Tjaden, N Thoennes (2000)

0 comments Cited 232 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Conflict and control: gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence.

Michael P Johnson (2016)

Four types of individual partner violence are identified based on the dyadic control context of the violence. In intimate terrorism, the individual is violent and controlling, the partner is not. In violent resistance, the individual is violent but not controlling; the partner is the violent and controlling one. In situational couple violence, although the individual is violent, neither the individual nor the partner is violent and controlling. In mutual violent control, the individual and the partner are violent and controlling. Evidence is presented that situational couple violence dominates in general surveys, intimate terrorism and violent resistance dominate in agency samples, and this is the source of differences across studies with respect to the gender symmetry of partner violence. An argument is made that if we want to understand partner violence, intervene effectively in individual cases, or make useful policy recommendations, we must make these distinctions in our research.