Coercive tactics 1

Running head: COERCIVE TACTICS

Cultivating dependence, denial, and self-blame:

The use and effects of coercive tactics in intimate partner violence

Cindy B. Veldhuis, Ph.D.

Columbia University

Corresponding author: Cindy B. Veldhuis, PhD [email protected] 630 West 168th St. New York, NY 10032

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Dr. Stephanie Riger and my classmates from our Violence against women class: Alaine Kalder, Cat Jacquet, Korin Isotalo, Candice Weber, Cherise Ruffin, Melissa Ponce-Rodas, and Kim Davidson for their very helpful comments and feedback on previous drafts. I would moreover like to thank Dr. Jennifer Freyd for her support and encouragement. Dr. Veldhuis’ participation in this research was made possible through an NIH/NIAAA Pathway to Independence K99/R00 Award (K99AA028049; PI C. Veldhuis). The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Disclosure: The author has nothing to disclose.

Key Words: intimate partner violence, LGBT relationships, same-sex couples, coercion, trauma Coercive tactics 2

Abstract

Little research has investigated coercive tactics in intimate partner violence, and even less has examined coercive tactics among LGBTQIA+ relationships despite their higher rates of intimate partner violence.

Abusers may consciously exploit these tactics to ensure dependence and enable continued abuse. To demonstrate this, I use research on abusers’ controlling and coercive tactics and delineate the predictable effects on victims such as lowering their awareness of the violence, decreasing the likelihood of disclosure, and locating blame for the abuse in the victim. In doing so, I also marshal the limited research on coercive tactics in LGBTQIA+ relationships to broaden understanding of coercive tactics in relationships outside of solely heterosexual couples. Abusive relationships in which coercive tactics are used to establish and maintain control may lead to worse mental and physical health outcomes for the victim and may be more violent than bi-directional violence and other forms of intimate partner violence.

These dynamics may have unique and pernicious effects on LGBTQIA+ couples. Understanding the patterns of coercive behaviors may help abused partners decrease self-blame and understand the broader context in which they and their abuser are situated which is vital to better understand the dynamics of violence and to end violence. Coercive tactics 3

INTRODUCTION

Across different violence and abuse types, the ways perpetrators assert power and control are terrifyingly similar (Herman, 1997). Strategies to assert power serve to systematically control the victim through “disempowerment and disconnection” (Herman, 1997). The intent is to create dependence by destroying the victim’s sense of self and isolating them completely. Rather than ensuring victims feel hatred and antipathy toward their captors, these methods may increase dependence and sympathy.

Although there has been research on abusers’ tactics and the resultant effects on the victim, there is little discussion of how these two interact to erode the abused partner’s agency and self-esteem while concurrently increasing dependence and reinforcing abuse in the relationship. In this article, I will examine the predictable effects abusers’ tactics have on abused partners: increasing dependence, decreasing the likelihood of disclosure, and locating blame for the abuse in the victim. Ultimately, these tactics, in concert, create a gradual process that makes it exceptionally difficult to clearly see that what is occurring is truly abusive.

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

In the United States, it is estimated that 44% of women and 25% of men have experienced violence in their relationships (Smith et al., 2018). Research on IPV has largely centered on cisgender

(gender is consistent with sex assigned at birth) presumably heterosexual (presumably because the gender composition of a couple is not necessarily indicative of the sexual identities of the partners) couples. Far less research has focused on same-sex couples and other couples within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual (LGBTQIA+) community (e.g., couples in which at least one person is transgender or nonbinary or identifies as bisexual). However, rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) are alarmingly high among LGBTQIA+ people. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence

Survey estimates that 44% of lesbian and 61% of bisexual cisgender women have been in violent relationships (Walters et al., 2013). Among men, 26% of gay and 37% of bisexual men report lifetime intimate violence. Among transgender individuals, rates are even higher with almost 60% of participants Coercive tactics 4 in the US Transgender Survey reporting lifetime violence (James et al., 2015). There appear to be no differences by sex assigned at birth or whether participants were transgender compared to nonbinary

(Peitzmeier et al., 2020); however, data that disaggregate by gender identity and sex assigned at birth are sparse. Further, most research tends to focus on physical violence, despite the fact that emotional or psychological abuse are far more widespread (Smith et al., 2018), and may even have more deleterious long-term effects (Mitchell & Raghavan, 2019).

Understanding the dynamics of violence among diverse couples, including LGBTQIA+ couples, is critically important in order to reduce risks. Raghavan and colleagues note in a recent paper that violence research among LGBTQIA+ couples has only recently investigated more complex research questions outside of prevalence of IPV (Raghavan et al., 2019) such as mechanisms or understanding the context of abuse in the relationship. As the bulk of research on IPV focuses on violence in different-sex couples, most example quotes are from relationships between men and women. There is some evidence that similar abuse-related dynamics exist among LGBTQIA+ couples, but the dearth of research limits our knowledge. In the absence of adequate research, this review makes an assumption that these dynamics may have some applicability to violence within LGBTQIA+ couples; however, more primary research is needed.

Typologies of abusers

There have been many attempts at classifying IPV based on types of violence or characteristics of the abuse (Ali et al., 2016). Johnson and Leone (2005) delineated at least two typologies of intimate violence: common couple violence and coercive controlling violence; these typologies have been recently validated (Mennicke, 2019). Table 1 delineates the key aspects of each typology. Violence in common/situational couple violence is not rooted in an overarching desire to control the other partner— rather, it arises in response to conflicts. Contrastingly, coercive controlling violence (CCV; also called intimate terrorism) is defined as one partner’s desire to control the other through violence and coercive means. Control is maintained through the constant threat of violence, as the victim is often so terrified of Coercive tactics 5 violence they will do whatever they can to avoid it (Johnson & Leone, 2005). These perpetrators

“methodically plan and control their hostility for maximum effect” (Gortner et al., 1997). CCV is significantly more likely to result in higher levels of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; K. L.

Anderson, 2008), missed work, abuse of painkillers in victims (Johnson & Leone, 2005), and more likely to have long-term impacts on mental health (Crossman & Hardesty, 2018; Hines & Douglas, 2018).

Although IPV generally may involve the use of coercive controlling behaviors, in CCV the controlling behaviors are part of a larger effort to exert control over the partner (Raghavan et al., 2019) and thus CCV is the focus of this article.

It is widely believed that LGBTQIA+ couples who experience IPV almost wholly experience mutual and situational violence (Edwards et al., 2015; Frankland & Brown, 2014; Stanley et al., 2006).

This may be partially because the IPV literature typically frames violence as being between a man

(abuser) and a woman (victim) in presumably heterosexual relationships. However, there is some evidence that among same-sex couples, 4-7% may fit in the CCV typology and slightly less than a quarter report using high levels of controlling behaviors in their relationships (Frankland & Brown, 2014; Stanley et al., 2006). Among heterosexual couples, 15% of abusers may use controlling behaviors in the relationship.

Examinations of gender in CCV suggest that coercive control is gendered and used in different- sex relationships, because it is “made possible by the historical and current oppression of women”

(Crossman & Hardesty, 2018). The lack of sex/gender differences in many LGBTQIA+ couples may suggest a lack of power differential and mutual violence. However, gender is not the only way to evince power differences in a relationship (Donovan & Hester, 2014; Stark & Hester, 2019). Differences in social locations such as education, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or physical or mental health can lead to increased or lowered power in relationships. Conceivably, coercive control may be potentiated by

LGBTQIA+ people’s historical and current marginalization, and abusive partners may leverage this oppression to exert control. For example, homo-/bi-/transphobia can be used to convince the partner that Coercive tactics 6 the abuse should not be disclosed, that no one else is trustworthy, or to threaten to out their partner (e.g., reveal the partner is LGBTQIA+; Cook-Daniels, 2015; Peitzmeier et al., 2020). There is also some evidence that LGBTQIA+ couples are not immune to hegemonic gender roles (Cook-Daniels, 2015;

Sanger & Lynch, 2018), suggesting that gendered violence may not just affect different-sex relationships.

INTENTIONALITY OF ABUSIVE TACTICS

Although there is some theorizing about abusers’ strategies for gaining and maintaining control in relationships, there is little extant empirical research. Moreover, it remains unclear how much of the control exertion is purposeful. Knowing whether coercive and controlling behaviors are intentional for gaining control and diminishing resistance could help frame abuse within a larger context and demonstrate the potential effects of these strategies on non-violent partners. Although there is evidence from perpetrators of other kinds of violence (such as child sex offenders) that there are some common and methodical means of grooming victims and ensuring abuse occurs without detection, there is debate about whether violent partners’ methods are similarly strategic (Hamberger et al., 2017). However, given enough reinforcement, abusers may come to see violence as not just effective, but necessary to create the desired behaviors in a partner.

Research on the consequences of IPV suggests abusers experience both reinforcing (feeling in control or less stressed) and punitive (guilt, retaliation) consequences. In a study of women perpetrators of dating violence (Cornelius et al., 2015), 75% described consequences of their aggressive/violent behaviors that researchers coded as punishment (e.g., partner leaving them), but 100% described consequences that could reinforce violence. For example, 53% of participants reported that aggressive behaviors resulted in a partner’s compliance, “Then the next day, he did what I wanted him to do, so it was like a gap we left it alone but brought it back up the next day, and he did what I wanted him to do”

(Cornelius et al., 2015). Half reported that their aggressive behaviors resulted in their partner ceasing the behaviors that annoyed them, and 30% reported a decrease in physical tension. Reinforcement of violence Coercive tactics 7 as a “successful” strategy in meeting the abusers’ needs may lead to a purposeful continuation of violence as a tactic.

That violent and coercive behaviors have consequences reinforcing those behaviors does not necessarily equate intentionality; however, in a study of men in same-sex relationships, 58% of participants reported their violence was intended to help them achieve a desired end (Stanley et al., 2006)

Dibble and Straus (1980) found that 33% of abusers indicated their violence was “necessary, normal, and good,” reflecting both a positive view on violence and a sense it was efficacious. Interviews with abusers suggest they see violence as “rational, effective, and explosive” (K.L. Anderson & Umberson, 2001) indicating both intentionality and impulsivity. One abusive partner in this study contrasted their partner’s use of violence with their own; they minimized the severity of their partner’s violence and described it as incompetent and out of control, whereas the abuser saw theirs as purposeful and effective:

I’d just had enough so I went and grabbed her, pulled her back. And grabbed her back to

the bed and threw her on the bed and sat on her—told her I wasn’t going to let her up

until she came to her senses…she came back up again and I just grabbed her and threw

her down. After that she promised—she finally said that she had come to her senses and

everything. I went into the other room, and she went out to clean up the mess she had

made in the living room (K.L. Anderson & Umberson, 2001).

Because violence may be “effective” in gaining control over the partner and obtaining desired behaviors, violence as a control strategy is reinforced. One abuser in Wood’s study described the utility of violence, “A woman’s kind of like a dog. You got to break ‘em. A dog don’t do right, you beat it ‘til it do what you say. It either leave or be broke. Same with women” (Wood, 2004). Abusers may intentionally exploit coercive tactics to incrementally gain control while concomitantly normalizing and continuing the abuse.

THE GOALS AND EFFECTS OF COERCIVE TACTICS Coercive tactics 8

There is debate about whether perpetrators of IPV seek out more vulnerable partners who may be more malleable to coercive tactics. Bernatz and colleagues (YWCA, 2006) examined the methods used to set the stage for abuse and found those who attempted to exert psychological control over others tended to use “susceptibility” to choose a victim. Across different types of coercive relationships, choosing victims who are more easily controlled due to certain vulnerability factors (e.g., isolation, history of abuse) may be key in the grooming process. Partners who are more vulnerable at the outset may be easier to control and less resistant to the grooming process. However, partners who are not already vulnerable may be made more defenseless by coercive tactics designed to exert control (Velonis, 2016). Dutton and

Goodman (2005) call this “setting the stage” in which abusers “soften” potential resistance to violence and coercion. Some abused partners feel flattered by abusers’ interest in them in the beginning and special for being “chosen” (Gamache, 1998).

I always felt like the black sheep of the family…humiliated, shamed through all of this.

My husband was a neighbor, he saw what my parents did to me, how they abused me.

And he knew my parents would not accept me, pregnant. He took advantage of the

situation, he was warm to me. At first he made me into a queen. Afterwards, he put me

down, put me down real low. Before he beat me, he used to tell me “you are fat,” “look at

yourself,” “look at how much you eat,” “nobody ever looked at you that’s why you came

to me,” “even your parents thought that you are nothing” (Buchbinder & Eisikovits,

2003).

The abuser took advantage of the partner being isolated and vulnerable due to both her abuse history and pregnancy as a means to “transform her into easy prey” (Buchbinder & Eisikovits, 2003).

Another woman in the Buchbinder and Eiskovits (2003) study noted she felt she was not “worthy” of her abuser’s interest in her and that he “was doing her a favor that he married her” (Buchbinder & Eisikovits,

2003). She reported feeling inferior when they met and that he took advantage of that to groom her for violence. Coercive tactics 9

Ensuring dependence

Child sex offenders note that an important strategy in grooming victims for eventual abuse is ensuring they are so dependent upon the perpetrator that the child would never disclose the abuse

(Veldhuis & Freyd, 1999), allowing the perpetrator to abuse the child without fear of reprisal or disclosure (Veldhuis & Freyd, 1999). By creating a strong bond with the child, the perpetrator creates a relationship ripe for betrayal (Veldhuis & Freyd, 1999).

Research on the early stages of abusive relationships indicates abusive partners may use comparable methods to increase dependence in their partners and create a context that enables violence.

Like sex offenders, abusers may be skilled at creating an image that inspires trust. Said one abuser, “I could control myself very well and quite charmingly at the onset of a relationship” (Reitz, 1999). In the early stages of a relationship, abusers control their image to inspire attachment. Abusers may also purposefully create and exploit this dynamic to increase their control and power over the victim. A mother of a 14-year-old who was murdered described how the boyfriend who abused and eventually murdered the girl was able to gain the family’s trust. She described the beginnings of their relationship as a “dream come true” for the girl: she felt flattered by this older boy’s attention which caused her to feel more confident, popular, and attractive (Crompton, 1998). Because of the extremely positive feelings early in the relationship, abused partners may miss or ignore signs indicating the relationship is not necessarily healthy, “[I] decided he was worth the minor troubles: his possessiveness, the jealousy he denied but was there nonetheless, the intense arguments out of nowhere about nothing that lasted hours. I mean, he was cute” (Weldon, 1999).

Early in violent relationships, abusers may try to win over their partners by actively pursuing them and showering them with attention, increasing the affectional bond between them and heightening dependence. Ferraro (1996) calls this ardor; early in violent relationships, there tends to be no violence

(although abused partners can often in hindsight point to signs of impending violence), and instead abused partners enjoy the relationship. Abused partners often characterize abusers as charming and Coercive tactics 10 solicitous in these early stages and see the abuser’s pursuit of them as signs of love and devotion rather than set-ups for abuse. This increases the partner’s dependence on, and love for, the abuser which decreases the likelihood they can leave even when the relationship becomes violent. In a study by

Anderson and colleagues (2003), 54% of abused partners indicated that love for their abusive partner was a main reason they did not leave the relationship. This reason was third only to “mate promised to change” (71%) and “mate apologized” (60%), indicating the emotional bonds created in the relationship have significant effects on abused partners’ abilities to extricate themselves from violence.

Abusers’ psychological tactics may decrease abused partner’s abilities to leave— but leaving or not is multifactorial. Abused partners who have jobs, strong social support, financial resources, and alternative housing have far more resources to end abusive relationships (Barnett, 2001; Barnettt, 2000).

Conversely, partners without these resources or who experience multiple sources of marginalization may find it difficult, if not impossible, to extricate themselves. Access to resources may also be controlled by the partner, as described by a man describing his first relationship with another man:

At the time it wasn’t equal. In the beginning I suppose it was, then it sort of slowly

changed, if you like, then you realized he was in total control, of, sort of, the bank

accounts and stuff like that, cos we had, sort of, joint accounts and everything was, sort

of, you know, he could do what he wanted, but I couldn’t (Donovan & Hester, 2014).

The partner incrementally gained total control over their finances and left his partner with no access to money leaving him fully dependent on his abusive partner. Tactics that violent partners use to ensure dependence may play a role in inhibiting their partners from leaving, yet the picture is far more complex.

Another way of ensuring dependence is through isolation. Isolation is a common tactic in abusive relationships and may include demanding that the partner dissolve friendships, denigrating family members, prohibiting them from seeing family, or forcing them to quit jobs or education to stay at home.

Abusers may physically isolate them by moving them away from support systems and ensuring they have Coercive tactics 11 no phone or car, causing them to be unable to get support or help (Dutton & Goodman, 2005; Johnson,

2009). In doing so, the abuser has created a context in which the abused partner is wholly dependent upon the abuser. Below a woman describes the process her partner used to gain control over her which led to her being isolated and losing her sense of self.

kind of just, slowly but surely over time, kind of, sucked me in and broke down any sort

of sense of individuality and, kind of…I lost touch with a lot of my friends. We went

where she wanted to go, we did what she wanted to do, so if we went out it was because

she wanted to (Donovan & Hester, 2014).

In the midst of the SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, the isolation, uncertainty, economic insecurity, and fears of contagion have created an environment ripe for psychological distress and substance use (Holingue, Badillo-Goicoechea, et al., 2020; Holingue, Kalb, et al., 2020; Qiu et al., 2020).

Isolation due to containment efforts (e.g., social distancing, quarantining) is one of the chief contributors to the higher rates of IPV (as well as child and elder abuse) during the pandemic (Bettinger-Lopez &

Alden, 2020; Tsur, 2020; Velonis & McGown, 2020). Violent partners may capitalize on the isolation and constant proximity by even further isolating their partner. Isolation may also be a key contributor to violence among LGBTQIA+ couples even outside of the pandemic. For example, research among transgender individuals suggests that abusers may use their high levels of marginalization against them to increase dependence on the abuser and isolate the transgender partner (Peitzmeier et al., 2020). In a study of people in same-sex relationships, 53% reported that their partner had isolated them from friends and

35% had isolated them from family at some point in their lives, and 35% and 21%, respectively, reported this had happened in the past 12 months. Being isolated from friends was the most highly endorsed abusive behavior by participants in this study, followed by being regularly insulted (45% in their lifetime,

25% in past year), and being told what to do/who to see (40% lifetime, 23% past year). People who were younger, who had lower incomes and lower levels of education were the most likely to report having been isolated. Coercive tactics 12

Ensuring silence

Some perpetrators of violence are so skilled at manipulating their image that even in the face of clear evidence others cannot fathom that the abuse could have occurred, and thus continue trusting the offender and disbelieving the victim (Veldhuis & Freyd, 1999). For example, sex offenders become coaches, priests, teachers, or trust-inducing roles to allow for easy access to children. This creates a double life in which public personas are highly regarded while they abuse children. They may be so well- regarded that even if a child does disclose the abuse, the perpetrator’s role in the community ensures the child will not be believed (Veldhuis & Freyd, 1999). Abusive partners too may work to ensure that no one could believe them capable of violence:

He taught Sunday school. He mentored a young high school student without a father. He

changed flat tires for strangers on the expressway. He visited the elderly in housing

projects. He volunteered his time. He was the golden boy (Weldon, 1999).

They may work to create an image within their community as someone completely above suspicion so that if the abuse is disclosed, the abuser’s version of the story is believed. Abusers may even cause the abused partner’s children and immediate family to disbelieve them. Johnson (2009) noted that some abusers may convince children that the abused partner is “incompetent or lazy or immoral,” thus discrediting them and ensuring the children believe the abuser. Abusers may further include the children in the abuse by convincing them that the abused partner deserves punishment and needs to be controlled

(Johnson, 2009).

Abusive partners may use methods of control that leave no visible signs and may come to rely more on psychological than physical abuse over time to exert control (Gortner et al., 1997). It is theorized that this may serve a dual purpose: not only does it “work well” to control the partner, it is also undetectable.

…he controlled me through fear, you see, so the fear just didn’t come from nowhere. Fear

came from the fact that he hurt me physically and hurt my relationships or hurt my, Coercive tactics 13

damaged my property. So…he didn’t actually have to do very much to, you know, at some

points all he had to do, I could detect him bristling and building and building and you

could see it and you knew what potentially was gonna come next, so therefore without the

kind of physical violence and the history of his [violence] and the actual reality of it, his

controlling behaviour wouldn’t necessarily have had such an impact because I actually

think I would have said “Well, bugger off, I’m not having this.” It was that which gave

him his power if you will (Donovan & Hester, 2014).

As the abused partner is likely so well-controlled by the threat of his partner’s violence and use of coercive tactics, the abuser needs to use little actual violence. If an abused partner discloses abuse, they are unlikely to be believed because there is no physical evidence (Franklin et al., 2019; Messing et al.,

2018).

Ensuring unawareness

In abusive relationships, the ability to realistically appraise the violence may be undermined by its incremental and intermittent nature. Abusers may gradually introduce violence into the relationship by starting with accidental violence, then minor violence, and slowly escalating to severe violence. This is similar to how sex offenders use normalization and desensitization to create a relationship in which sexuality is part of the relational landscape (Veldhuis & Freyd, 1999). Violence and abuse becomes normalized and the abused person becomes desensitized and doubts that they are being abused.

For LGBTQIA+ couples, recognizing violence in relationships may be obscured by a lack of broad societal awareness/acknowledgment that violence may occur in LGBTQIA+ relationships — they may think violence only occurs in heterosexual relationships. This may be particularly complicated for people who are just coming out or exploring their sexuality:

I didn’t know what being a lesbian meant and there was a lot of, I think where I found the

relationship abusive, um, emotionally was that, um, I was kind of, there was some markers

and I didn’t necessarily know what these markers were (Donovan & Hester, 2014). Coercive tactics 14

Once the violence begins in the relationship, abusers may concurrently intersperse violence with apologies, promises, presents, or other signs of contrition and love in an attempt to neutralize the effects of violent acts. Wolf-Smith and LaRossa (1992) note that abusers may, in the beginning stages, fear the abuse may cause their partner to reject and leave them. Contrition thus may be used to keep the abused partner hooked into the relationship by showing them that the abused partner is concerned and apologetic, causing the abused partner to believe it will not occur again. This may give the illusion that they have some control, further confusing them about the abusive dynamics of the relationship. Begging for forgiveness and contrition and engaging in violence alternating with exorbitant praise and devotion, can cause the abused partner to discount the violence.

After each time, we went to a counselor, and he sent more flowers, enough blooms to fill

a cemetery. He let me sleep late on Saturday, made dinner a few times a year…he

brought me blouses from Ann Taylor and wrote me long letters…he said he believed in

me, and he said I was good (Weldon, 1999).

At that time, Weldon did not believe that she was being abused as she could not resolve the dissonance between her partner’s kind and generous acts and the violence. She thus had to convince herself that her version (I am being abused) was not correct, and that his version (I am not being abused) was. She had to become unaware of the true nature of the violence, otherwise she would be unable to remain in a relationship with him (Freyd, 1994, 1997).

One participant in Stanley and colleagues’ (2006) study of men in same-sex relationships described being punched and threatened with a gun as not “victimizing”:

It wasn’t violence in the sense that he felt threatened or I felt threatened. I care about

you, so I am going to push you. He punched me, I cried, he apologized, we made love. It

wasn’t a victimizing thing. Even when he pulled out his gun. It wasn’t loaded. I knew it

wasn’t threatening. It was just very unhealthy, just ridiculous (Stanley et al., 2006). Coercive tactics 15

That the participant did not perceive himself as a victim despite being punched and threatened with a gun may suggest desensitization to the violence. While increasing the level of violence in the home, abusers may minimize what they are doing to convince their partner their perceptions of the violence are wrong, “I don’t use violence you know. It was more of intimidation and verbal abuse, and you know…” (Boonzaier & de la Rey, 2004). This causes their partners to minimize the violence as well,

Look his hitting, hitting is not hitting, punching on one and it was only that two or three

times … when he hit me like that. When he banged, banged my [pause] if he, it would

just be one blow, and that’s it, you know. It’s not a constant beating (Boonzaier & de la

Rey, 2004).

At the time of this interview, their partner was wooing them with gifts and asking them to come back. Thus, the fragile sense that violence was occurring in the relationship was likely fractured by the abuser’s minimizations and frantic attempts to win the partner back. Over time, however, abusers may decrease the frequency of the contrition as it becomes less necessary to maintain control (Wolf-Smith &

LaRossa, 1992). As the violence becomes a more “normal” part of the relationship, the less the abuser has to worry about any consequences.

Abusers may also demand that their partners block awareness of the abuse by forcing them to behave as though nothing occurred:

“[My partner] wants to swear at me, so ugly tonight, earlier, and then tonight, wants to, I

must now just forget about it. Cover it up…But now when he feels it’s just now long

enough then I must just be [Snaps them fingers], I must just be the wife (Boonzaier & de

la Rey, 2004).

To take care of their abusive partner and behave like a proper partner themselves, they must repress their feelings and forget what occurred, otherwise they risk further upsetting the abusive partner. Coercive tactics 16

Ensuring self-blame

Sex offenders may locate the blame for the abuse squarely in the child by convincing them they wanted the abuse and/or instigated it. This keeps the child quiet and allows the perpetrator to avoid blame.

Children fear that if they disclose the abuse others will know of their culpability in it, rendering them silent (Wyatt & Newcomb, 1990). In IPV, because of the abused partner’s dependence on the abuser and difficulty cognitively appraising the relationship, over time they may be more likely to deny the violence and blame themselves (Ferraro, 1996). Abusers reinforce this through denigration and shifting responsibility and culpability onto the abused partner. This increases their internalization of the abuser’s characterization of them while dampening the abused partner’s sense of self-efficacy and self-worth and heightening self-blame. Isolation can also reinforce these tactics. By isolating the abused partner, abusers ensure they have no help in evaluating what is occurring in their relationship making them vulnerable to believing they deserve the abuse.

When she is completely isolated, and what he tells them about herself is all she ever hears

about herself, he can tell them over and over again that she is worthless—humiliating her,

demeaning her, emotionally abusing her. She’s ugly, stupid, a slut, a lousy wife, an

incompetent mother. She only manages to survive because he takes care of her. She’d be

helpless without him. And who else is there to tell her otherwise? Maybe he can even

convince her that she can’t live without him (Johnson, 2008).

Wolf-Smith and LaRossa (1992) note three other tactics to induce and reinforce victim self- blame: dismissal, excuse, and justification. Dismissals are used to invalidate the abused partner’s sense that what happened was wrong, to allow the abuser to evade responsibility, and to ensure the abused partner will feel culpable.

I told them: You yelled at me, haggled with me, and lectured me, which you should not

have done. I hit you, which I should not have done. If you could just give in, the whole

mess could be avoided (Buchbinder & Eisikovits, 2003). Coercive tactics 17

In the quote above, the abuser is dismissive of their partner’s concerns, denies any true responsibility, and convinces the abused partner that they are truly responsible, thereby justifying the abuse. Excuses are used to show the fault lies elsewhere (i.e., work, finances, children) and covertly indicates to the abused partner that they are adding to the abuser’s stress, reinforcing that if they were a better partner, the abuser would not need to manifest their stress in violence (Wolf-Smith & LaRossa,

1992)

Abusers too may convince themselves that their partners deserve the abuse, “I’ve never hit another woman in my life besides the one I’m with. She just has a knack for bringing out the worst in me”

(K.L. Anderson & Umberson, 2001). Abusers may also justify their behaviors; if the victim had not

“misbehaved” the abuser would not have needed to hurt them.

No matter what I’m doing, he’ll find something to pick on about it. He gets worse and

worse and worse, and I can’t get him to stop. Telling me I don’t have any self-esteem,

that I need a psychiatrist…he tells me I don’t care about him and that I don’t love him.

And when I get upset, he tells me that I’m too emotional and that’s why we’re not getting

along (Rosen et al., 2005).

To the abuser, violence is justified as the abused partner does not love their partner enough and is too emotional. This locates the blame for the abuse squarely in them, “So it was always like my fault. I asked him to hit me” (Wolf-Smith & LaRossa, 1992). Donovan and Hester (2014) describe a woman who had been badly beaten by her partner. Her partner broke down afterwards and the abused partner reported feeling a press to make her feel better after the abuse, despite the fact that she was the one who had been beaten. Another woman in the study reported feeling as though loving her abusive partner could help fix her violence. Abusers may use this sense of responsibility as a justification for abuse and a sign of tacit acceptance and may view the fact their victims did not leave was “license” to abuse them (Wood, 2004).

They may also see tolerance of the abuse as acceptance, justifying the abuse and causing it to be Coercive tactics 18 normalized. This allows abusers to be somewhat unaware of the abuse and its effects, allowing it to continue.

Over time, the abused partner may believe that they, in effect, are to blame for the abuse.

Finally for once in their life, I got them to accept 50/50 blame for the reason why they

actually got hit. You know, used to be a time that they could say there was never a time.

But, they accept 50/50 blame for this (K.L. Anderson & Umberson, 2001).

Although it took some time, the abuser convinced their partner to take half of the blame. Abused partners may try to figure out what they can do to decrease the violence. Because there is likely no predictable relationship between their behaviors and the violence, they learn to avoid anything but

“walking on eggshells.” For women, cultural messages about women’s role as relationship maintainers and the need to be in relationships further reinforce their self-blame and denial that what is occurring is abusive (Ferraro, 1996). Having a history of abuse may also affect abused partners’ appraisals of abuse in intimate relationships and increase the likelihood of self-blame (Babcock & DePrince, 2012).

DENY, ATTACK, REVERSE VICTIM-OFFENDER

Abusers’ tactics to increase dependence have appreciable, and fairly predictable, effects on the abused partner. The abused partner may not be fully cognizant that what they are experiencing is abuse while believing they are responsible for their partner’s behaviors, lowering the likelihood of disclosure.

However, should they disclose, their abusive partner may work very hard to make sure they are not believed.

DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim-Offender; Freyd, 1997; Harsey & Freyd, 2020) was proposed as a model of abusers’ attempts at avoiding culpability and conviction. When confronted, abusers may deny the violence, attack the victims for the abuse or the disclosure of the abuse, and

“reverse victim-offender” by arguing that they are the true victim. Freyd (1997) noted this has a “chilling” effect on victims as it causes them to continue to doubt themselves and cause others to doubt them. By Coercive tactics 19 using ad hominem or ad feminem attacks, the abuser discredits the victim and paints themself as the true victim (Freyd, 1997).

A study of abusers’ use of denial and minimization indicated that 67% of convicted IPV perpetrators blamed their partner for the violence (Henning & Holdford, 2006). In Boonzaier and de la

Rey’s (2004) study, abusers argued they were the actual victims within the relationship, “They’re retaliating. They’re not that submissive anymore, and they don’t take that on. So I think, in a lotta ways

I’m the submissive one. They haven’t been abusing me, not violently but I can see the point where they will” (Boonzaier & de la Rey, 2004). Although this partner is clearly the perpetrator of violence, they have constructed a narrative in which they are the true victim.

Deny. If the violence does get reported, abusers are skilled in manipulating others to adopt their perspective on the violence, ensuring they believe the abuser and not the victim. Buchbinder and

Eiskovits (2003) conducted a qualitative study of abusers’ encounters with police during an IPV complaint investigation. Abusers reported positioning themselves as exceedingly rational and bewildered as to their partner’s reports of violence. They reported wanting to seem confused, yet calm, in order to provide a stark contrast to their emotional partner (Buchbinder & Eisikovits, 2003). Abusers hoped that they would appear innocent and the police would adopt their version of events. Buchbinder and Eiskovits

(2003) suggest that abusers see these interactions with police like a game and set out to “win” by creating a persona completely inconsistent with violence.

Attack. Another tactic for ensuring the abused partner is disbelieved is attacking them. Sweet

(2019) described an abuser who broke into their partner’s social media accounts to make them look

“unstable” and used her recent disclosure that she was bisexual to make her appear like a sexual deviant.

Abusers may place the onus on the abused partner and argue that their behavior demands that the abuser assert control and that the abused partner is abusive and in need of psychological help (Johnson, 2008).

In interacting with police or other authority figures, the abuser may align with the police so they appear to be “one of them.” Thus, police are likely to believe the abuser’s version of events (because they Coercive tactics 20 know they would not be violent, so how could this person—who is just like them) which may result in their siding with the abuser against the victim. Abusers may do this by playing on stereotypes of women or gay men, e.g., they are hysterical or irrational (Sweet, 2019). Abusers may also leverage racist stereotypes; one woman in Sweet’s 2019 study said her abuser used the stereotype of the “aggressive black woman” to convince police she was the aggressor, which led to her arrest (Sweet, 2019). Police may believe the abuser’s justifications and minimization of the abuse and beliefs about the vindictiveness of their partner. This may further cause police to convince the victim that reporting the violence would ruin the abuser’s life (Buchbinder & Eisikovits, 2003).

Of note, interactions with the police create unique issues for same-sex couples (Franklin et al.,

2019; Guadalupe-Diaz, 2016) and potentially dangerous conditions for people of color, irrespective of sexual or gender identity. LGBTQIA+ people may be hesitant to contact the police for fear of negative treatment (or violence); this is particularly true among LGBTQIA+ people of color (Guadalupe-Diaz,

2016). Police may see violence between two women as less serious due to stereotypes about women and homophobia may negatively influence how they perceive IPV between two men (Franklin et al., 2019).

To my knowledge, there has been no research on how LGBTQIA+ abusers might uniquely interact with the police to evade punishment.

Reverse victim-offender. Abusers may construct a narrative about the violence in which they are the victim of a vindictive partner attempting to destroy them (Buchbinder & Eisikovits, 2003). One way strategy is to play on gendered stereotypes and sexist beliefs. One abuser said, “I’m going to jail for something I haven’t even done because the woman is always the victim and the guy is always the bad guy” (K.L. Anderson & Umberson, 2001). They may assert they are victims of falsified charges:

And, like I said, here I am now with this [inaudible; abuser treatment program] that I

have to come to for 21 weeks in a row—for what could amount to some girl calling— Coercive tactics 21

hurting herself and saying her boyfriend or husband did it (K.L. Anderson & Umberson,

2001).

Some abusers suggest the problem is not their violence, but that society gangs up on them and either unjustifiably accuses them of abuse or interferes with their rights to assert control in their relationships (K.L. Anderson & Umberson, 2001). Abusers may blame shifting gender roles which cause their partners to “unjustifiably” believe that they have rights. This causes abusers to have to use violence and control to reassert their power. If their partner fights back in self-defense, the abuser may claim they were the one who was battered (Henning & Holdford, 2006). Abusers may also position themselves as the one trying to save the relationship (Buchbinder & Eisikovits, 2003). In doing so, they appear to be sympathetic and victimized. Studies on abusers indicate they tend to feel disempowered and that violence is their sole means of gaining control; because they are so victimized by society, they have to gain control through “desperate and futile attempts to regain power” (Buchbinder & Eisikovits, 2003). Thus, they see themselves as the true victims and believe it is within their rights to abuse their partners. By denying, attacking, and reversing victim-offender, abusers try to evade prosecution and blame.

DISCUSSION

There are many theories but little research on the tactical nature of abusers’ methods for exerting control in relationships. Further, little research has linked these strategies to the impact on partners. In relationships in which there is coercive controlling violence, these tactics seem intentional and have predictable effects on their victims. Using these tactics to exert control, abusers slowly induce their partner into violent relationships in which they are extremely dependent upon the abuser. This causes them to blame themselves for the abuse and be at least somewhat unaware of the nature or extent of the violence in the relationship in order to survive. Abusers further create a context in which their partners will be disbelieved if they disclose the abuse and similarly are strategic in avoiding culpability once the violence is disclosed (Raghavan et al., 2019). Mitchell and Raghavan (2019) call this a “toxic relational Coercive tactics 22 environment” that causes the abused partner’s sense of self to deteriorate. Table 2 outlines some clinical care points and implications of these findings for intervention.

This toxic relational environment may be even more toxic for LGBTQIA+ couples as they may feel isolated, have lower external social support, and experience high levels of stigma and discrimination.

Further, LGBTQIA+ individuals rarely receive sex and relationship education in schools that is inclusive of their relationships, and may have few to no role models of LGBTQIA+ couple relationships (Donovan

& Hester, 2014; Greene et al., 2015). Abusive partners may leverage these factors to assert control and create dependence. When abuse occurs, disclosing it and getting help may be even more challenging as community programs and resources are not typically set up for LGBTQIA+ couples and may not understand unique factors influencing their relationships (Calton et al., 2016; Donovan & Barnes, 2019;

Guadalupe-Diaz & Jasinski, 2017). Thus, LGBTQIA+ couples may not receive the same information about the cycle of violence and dynamics in abusive relationships—which may also increase self-blame and isolation. Understanding the dynamics of abusive relationships may help abused partners de- personalize the abuse and make informed decisions about their safety and well-being (Storer et al., 2018).

It is unclear the extent to which coercive tactics described herein extend to LGBTQIA+ couples due to the lack of research. This is not just a gap in the literature, it may affect how violence is viewed and treated.

For example, violence in same-sex/gender relationships is largely believed to be bidirectional. This can shift how one perceives the couple’s dynamics and increase the assumptions that each person is equally responsible, which complicates disclosure and obtaining help.

Seeing the abuser’s behaviors as strategic has several benefits. First, it allows for a better understanding of behaviors and intentions. Second, in understanding that strategy scaffolds many of these behaviors, abused partners can be educated on the tactics used to coerce them into relationships and gain control over them in relationships. Third, by seeing commonalities across abusers in how they maintain control, it is possible to deemphasize the individual’s response. If abusers are seen as extremely skilled at normalizing abuse and keeping their partners in abusive relationships, it becomes clearer why it is so Coercive tactics 23 challenging for abused partners to disclose violence and leave violent relationships. By focusing more on the abuser and on their strategies, blame on the abused partner is reduced. Finally, helping victims see these broader patterns of abuse can assist them in seeing past their own relationship to larger contextual influences on their relationship, decreasing self-blame, assisting them in decreasing the power of these strategies, and in getting support (Delker et al., 2020; Wolf-Smith & LaRossa, 1992).

Table 1. Typologies of abusers

Common/situational Coercive controlling Directionality Mutual Unidirectional

Motivation Situation-specific, conflict driven Desire to control the other partner

Frequency Low to moderate frequency, static Escalates over time but interspersed with over time more covert means of asserting control (e.g., psychological abuse)

Severity Injuries typically not severe Severe, escalates over time, most likely to lead to murder

Citations: (K.L. Anderson, 2008; Crossman & Hardesty, 2018; Gortner et al., 1997; Hines & Douglas, 2018; Johnson & Leone, 2005; Mennicke, 2019; Raghavan et al., 2019) Coercive tactics 24

Table 2.

CLINICAL CARE POINTS COERCIVE CONTROL In general, data suggest that most violence is bidirectional. However, some violence involves coercive control where one partner exerts coercive tactics over the other with the intent to control them. The latter type tends to be more violent resulting in higher frequency and severity.

VIOLENCE IN LGBTQIA+ Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, non-binary, and other members of RELATIONSHIPS the LGBTQIA+ community experience much higher rates of IPV than cisgender and heterosexual men and women.

ASSESSING VIOLENCE Although most LGBTQIA+ couples experience bidirectional abuse, some experience unidirectional and coercive controlling abuse. It is important to not assume that patients experience one type of violence, but instead ask questions to understand the relationship dynamics to perform a risk assessment.

INTERVENTIONS LGBTQIA+ people who experience violence need tailored services aimed at supporting members of the community to amply address multiple overlapping sources of stress (e.g., stigma, discrimination).

EDUCATION All patients, irrespective of sexual identity, should be educated about the dynamics of abusive relationships and the roles of coercion, isolation, dependence, and self-blame in maintaining relationship abuse. Coercive tactics 25

REFERENCES

Ali, P. A., Dhingra, K., & McGarry, J. (2016). A literature review of intimate partner violence

and its classifications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 16–25.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.06.008

Anderson, K. L. (2008). Is Partner Violence Worse in the Context of Control? Journal of

Marriage and Family, 70(5), 1157–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-

3737.2008.00557.x

Anderson, K. L., & Umberson, D. (2001). Gendering violence: Masculinity and power in men’s

accounts of domestic violence. Gender & Society, 15, 353–380.

Anderson, M. A., Gillig, P. M., Sitaker, M., McCloskey, K., Malloy, K., & Grigsby, N. (2003).

“Why Doesn’t She Just Leave?”: A Descriptive Study of Victim Reported Impediments

to Her Safety. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 151–155.

Babcock, R. L., & DePrince, A. P. (2012). Childhood Betrayal Trauma and Self-Blame

Appraisals Among Survivors of Intimate Partner Abuse. Journal of Trauma &

Dissociation, 13(5), 526–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2012.694842

Barnett, O. W. (2001). Why Battered Women Do Not Leave, Part 2: External Inhibiting Factors

—Social Support and Internal Inhibiting Factors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2(1), 3–35.

Barnettt, O. W. (2000). Why Battered Women Do Not Leave, Part 1: External Inhibiting Factors

Within Society. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1(4), 343–372.

Bettinger-Lopez, C., & Alden, E. (2020). A Double Pandemic: Domestic Violence in the Age of

COVID-19 (p. 1). https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/double-pandemic-domestic-violence-age-

covid-19 Coercive tactics 26 Boonzaier, F., & de la Rey, C. (2004). Woman Abuse: The Construction of Gender in Women

and Men’s Narratives of Violence. South African Journal of Psychology, 34(3), 443–463.

https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630403400307

Buchbinder, E., & Eisikovits, Z. (2003). Battered Women’s Entrapment in Shame: A

Phenomenological Study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73(4), 355–366. https://

doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.73.4.355

Calton, J. M., Cattaneo, L. B., & Gebhard, K. T. (2016). Barriers to Help Seeking for Lesbian,

Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence. Trauma,

Violence, & Abuse, 17(5), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015585318

Cook-Daniels, L. (2015). Intimate Partner Violence in Transgender Couples: “Power and

Control” in a Specific Cultural Context. Partner Abuse, 6(1), 126–140.

https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.6.1.126

Cornelius, T. L., Bell, K. M., Wyngarden, N., & Shorey, R. C. (2015). What Happens After I

Hit? A Qualitative Analysis of the Consequences of Dating Violence for Female

Perpetrators. Violence and Victims, 30(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-

6708.VV-D-13-00058

Crompton, V. (1998). A parent’s story. In B. Levy (Ed.), Dating violence: Young women in

danger (pp. 21–27). Seal Press.

Crossman, K. A., & Hardesty, J. L. (2018). Placing coercive control at the center: What are the

processes of coercive control and what makes control coercive? Psychology of Violence,

8(2), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000094

Delker, B. C., Salton, R., & McLean, K. C. (2020). Giving Voice to Silence: Empowerment and

Disempowerment in the Developmental Shift from Trauma ‘Victim’ to ‘Survivor- Coercive tactics 27 Advocate.’ Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 21(2), 242–263.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2019.1678212

Dibble, U., & Straus, M. A. (1980). Some Social Structure Determinants of Inconsistency

between Attitudes and Behavior: The Case of Family Violence. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 42(1), 71–80.

Donovan, C., & Barnes, R. (2019). Help-seeking among lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or

transgender victims/survivors of domestic violence and abuse: The impacts of

cisgendered heteronormativity and invisibility. Journal of Sociology, 144078331988208.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319882088

Donovan, C., & Hester, M. (2014). Domestic violence and sexuality: What’s love got to do with

it? (Policy Press, pp. 1–240).

Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New

Conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52(11–12), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-

4196-6

Edwards, K. M., Sylaska, K. M., & Neal, A. M. (2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual

minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research.

Psychology of Violence, 5(2), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038656

Ferraro, K. J. (1996). Battered women: Strategies for survival. In Violence between intimate

partners: Patterns, causes, and effects (pp. 124–143). Prentice Hall.

Frankland, A., & Brown, J. (2014). Coercive Control in Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence.

Journal of Family Violence, 29(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9558-1 Coercive tactics 28 Franklin, C. A., Goodson, A., & Garza, A. D. (2019). Intimate Partner Violence Among Sexual

Minorities: Predicting Police Officer Arrest Decisions. Criminal Justice and Behavior,

46(8), 1181–1199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819834722

Freyd, J. J. (1994). Betrayal Trauma: Traumatic Amnesia as an Adaptive Response to Childhood

Abuse. Ethics & Behavior, 4(4), 307–329.

Freyd, J. J. (1997). Violations of power, adaptive blindness, and betrayal trauma theory.

Feminism & Psychology, 7, 22–32.

Gamache, D. (1998). Domination and control: The social context of dating violence. In B. Levy

(Ed.), Young women in danger (pp. 69–83). Seal Press.

Gortner, E. T., Gollan, J. K., & Jacobson, N. S. (1997). Psychological aspects of perpetrators of

domestic violence and their relationships with the victims. Psychiatric Clinics of North

America, 20(2), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-953X(05)70316-6

Greene, G. J., Fisher, K. A., Kuper, L., Andrews, R., & Mustanski, B. (2015). “Is this normal? Is

this not normal? There is no set example”: Sexual health intervention preferences of

LGBT youth in romantic relationships. Sexuality Research & Social Policy: A Journal of

the NSRC, 12(1), 1–14. psyh. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-014-0169-2

Guadalupe-Diaz, X. L. (2016). Disclosure of Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence to Police

among Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals. Social Currents, 3(2), 160–171.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496515604635

Guadalupe-Diaz, X. L., & Jasinski, J. (2017). “I Wasn’t a Priority, I Wasn’t a Victim”:

Challenges in Help Seeking for Transgender Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence.

Violence Against Women, 23(6), 772–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216650288 Coercive tactics 29 Hamberger, L. K., Larsen, S. E., & Lehrner, A. (2017). Coercive control in intimate partner

violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 1–11.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.08.003

Harsey, S., & Freyd, J. J. (2020). Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO):

What Is the Influence on Perceived Perpetrato. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &

Trauma, 29(8), 897–916.

Henning, K., & Holdford, R. (2006). Minimization, Denial, and Victim Blaming by Batterers:

How Much Does the Truth Matter? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(1), 110–130.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854805282322

Herman, J. L. (1997). Trauma and recovery. Basic Books Inc.

Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2018). Influence of intimate terrorism, situational couple

violence, and mutual violent control on male victims. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,

19(4), 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000142

Holingue, C., Badillo-Goicoechea, E., Riehm, K. E., Veldhuis, C., Thrul, J., Johnson, R. M.,

Fallin, M. D., Kreuter, F., Stuart, E. A., & Kalb, L. G. (2020). Mental Distress during the

COVID-19 Pandemic among US Adults without a Pre-existing Mental Health Condition:

Findings from American Trend Panel Survey. Preventive Medicine, 106231.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106231

Holingue, C., Kalb, L. G., Riehm, K. E., Bennett, D., Kapteyn, A., Veldhuis, C. B., Johnson, R.

M., Fallin, M. D., Kreuter, F., Stuart, E. A., & Thrul, J. (2020). Mental Distress in the

United States at the Beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic. American Journal of Public

Health, e1–e7. Coercive tactics 30 James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2015). The

Report of the 2015 US Transgender Survey (pp. 1–297).

Johnson, M. P. (2008). A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent

Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. Northeastern.

Johnson, M. P. (2009). Domestic violence: The intersection of gender and control. In L. L.

O’Toole, J. R. Schiffman, & M. L. K. Edwards (Eds.), Gender violence:

Interdisciplinary perspectives (15th ed, pp. 257–268). New York University Press.

Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2005). The Differential Effects of Intimate Terrorism and

Situational Couple Violence: Findings From the National Violence Against Women

Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26(3), 322–349.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X04270345

Mennicke, A. (2019). Expanding and Validating a Typology of Intimate Partner Violence:

Intersections of Violence and Control Within Relationships. Violence Against Women,

25(4), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218780362

Messing, J. T., Thomas, K. A., Ward-Lasher, A. L., & Brewer, N. Q. (2018). A Comparison of

Intimate Partner Violence Strangulation Between Same-Sex and Different-Sex Couples.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 088626051875722.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518757223

Mitchell, J. E., & Raghavan, C. (2019). The Impact of Coercive Control on Use of Specific

Sexual Coercion Tactics. Violence Against Women, 107780121988412.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219884127

Peitzmeier, S. M., Malik, M., Kattari, S. K., Marrow, E., Stephenson, R., Agénor, M., & Reisner,

S. L. (2020). Intimate Partner Violence in Transgender Populations: Systematic Review Coercive tactics 31 and Meta-analysis of Prevalence and Correlates. American Journal of Public Health,

110(9), e1–e14. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305774

Qiu, J., Shen, B., Zhao, M., Wang, Z., Xie, B., & Xu, Y. (2020). A nationwide survey of

psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications

and policy recommendations. General Psychiatry, 33(2), e100213.

https://doi.org/10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213

Raghavan, C., Beck, C. J., Menke, J. M., & Loveland, J. E. (2019). Coercive controlling

behaviors in intimate partner violence in male same-sex relationships:A mixed-methods

study. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 31(3), 370–395.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2019.1616643

Reitz, R. R. (1999). Batterers’ Experiences of Being Violent: A Phenomenological Study.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(1), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-

6402.1999.tb00348.x

Rosen, K. H., Stith, S. M., Few, A. L., Daly, K. L., & Tritt, D. L. (2005). Qualitative

investigation of Johnson’s typology. Violence and Victims, 20(3), 319–334.

Sanger, N., & Lynch, I. (2018). ‘You have to bow right here’: Heteronormative scripts and

intimate partner violence in women’s same-sex relationships. Culture, Health &

Sexuality, 20(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2017.1338755

Smith, S. G., Basile, K. C., Merrick, M. T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M., & Chen, J. (2018). The

National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief—Updated

Release. 32. Coercive tactics 32 Stanley, J. L., Bartholomew, K., Taylor, T., Oram, D., & Landolt, M. (2006). Intimate Violence

in Male Same-Sex Relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 21(1), 31–41.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-9008-9

Stark, E., & Hester, M. (2019). Coercive Control: Update and Review. Violence Against Women,

25(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218816191

Storer, H. L., Rodriguez, M., & Franklin, R. (2018). “Leaving Was a Process, Not an Event”:

The Lived Experience of Dating and Domestic Violence in 140 Characters. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 088626051881632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518816325

Sweet, P. L. (2019). The Sociology of Gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–

875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843

Tsur, N. (2020). COVID-19-related fear and stress among individuals who experienced child

abuse: The mediating effect of complex posttraumatic stress disorder. Child Abuse &

Neglect, 1–11.

Veldhuis, C. B., & Freyd, J. J. (1999). Groomed for silence, groomed for betrayal. In M. Rivera

(Ed.), Fragment by fragment: Feminist perspectives on memory and child sexual abuse

(pp. 253–282). Gynergy Press.

Velonis, A. J. (2016). “He Never Did Anything You Typically Think of as Abuse”: Experiences

With Violence in Controlling and Non-Controlling Relationships in a Non-Agency

Sample of Women. Violence Against Women, 22(9), 1031–1054.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215618805

Velonis, A. J., & McGown, M. (2020). When home does not offer shelter: Partner violence in

the time of pandemics (p. 3). University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health. Coercive tactics 33 https://publichealth.uic.edu/news-stories/when-home-does-not-offer-shelter-partner-

violence-in-the-time-of-pandemics/

Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual

Violence Survey: 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation [Data set].

American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/e541272013-001

Weldon, M. (1999). I closed my eyes: Revelations of a battered woman. Hazelden Press.

Wolf-Smith, J. H., & LaRossa, R. (1992). After he hits her. Family Relations, 41(3), 324–329.

Wood, J. T. (2004). Monsters and victims: Male felons’ accounts of intimate partner violence.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 555–576.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504045887

Wyatt, G. E., & Newcomb, M. (1990). Internal and External Mediators of Women’s Sexual

Abuse in Childhood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58(6), 758–767.

YWCA. (2006). Undue Influence: The criminal justice response.

https://docplayer.net/19844980-Copyright-2006-ywca-omaha.html