Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University AYSPS Dissertations Andrew Young School of Policy Studies 5-18-2020 Exploring the role of coercive control in arrest incidents of intimate partner violence Nancy Dickinson Georgia State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/aysps_dissertations Recommended Citation Dickinson, Nancy, "Exploring the role of coercive control in arrest incidents of intimate partner violence." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2020. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/aysps_dissertations/19 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in AYSPS Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract Exploring the Role of Coercive Control in Arrest Incidents of Intimate Partner Violence By Nancy Dickinson May, 2020 Committee Chair: Dr. Dean A. Dabney Major Department: Criminal Justice and Criminology Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an enduring public health, social, and criminal justice problem with immediate and long-term negative effects on family health and the economy. To date, only some of the abusive behaviors involving IPV have been criminalized despite the correlation of nonphysical coercive controlling behaviors with serious and escalating IPV (Beck & Raghavan, 2010; Tanha, Beck, Figueredo, & Raghavan, 2010). Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black, & Mahendra (2015) and Breiding, Chen, & Black (2014) offer a model of IPV, which includes both physical violence and nonphysical abuse. This study appropriated the nonphysical abuse components of Breiding et al.’s IPV model to define a new coercive control framework. This framework was then used to analyze the descriptions of aggressive and abusive behaviors of intimate partners provided by a sample of 266 women whose partners or ex-partners were arrested for misdemeanor family violence offenses in Georgia. These interviews generated 581 distinct narratives concerning IPV incidents. Content analysis was used to capture themes derived from Breiding et. al.’s coercive control framework. Cases were coded for women having experienced only physical or sexual violence, only coercive control, or co-occurring physical and/or sexual violence and coercive control. The largest percentage of women (72% or n=191) reported incidents of co-occurring physical violence and coercive controlling behaviors. About one quarter (26.3% or n = 70) reported experiencing physical or sexual violence with no coercive control. Few women (7.5% or n = 20) reported only experiencing coercive control. Findings and discussions support elevating coercive controlling behaviors from a sub-subtype of IPV to a structural framework through which most IPV unfolds, as over 7 in 10 women experienced coercive control in the context of IPV. Recommendations for more effective system identification and management of coercive control as the IPV framework are included. EXPLORING THE ROLE OF COERCIVE CONTROL IN ARREST INCIDENTS OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE BY NANCY DICKINSON A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctorate in Philosophy in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies of Georgia State University GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY 2020 Copyright by Nancy Dickinson 2020 Acceptance This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s Dissertation Committee. It has been approved and accepted by all members of that committee, and it has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies of Georgia State University. Dissertation Committee _____________________________ Dr. Dean A. Dabney, Chair _____________________________ Dr. Leah Daigle _____________________________ Dr. Mary Finn _____________________________ Dr. Mark Reed Electronic Version Approved: _________________________________ Dr. Sally Wallace, Dean Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Georgia State University May, 2020 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It was my good fortune to receive support, encouragement, time, and mentoring from Georgia State University faculty, my family, and friends while I wrote and rewrote this dissertation. Dr. Mary Finn, acknowledged expert in studies of violence against women, offered me access to her rich data set, without which this work would not exist. As my premiere advisor, she shepherded me through courses, independent study, a comprehensive exam, and the presentation and defense of my analysis of her work product, this thesis. From the distance of Michigan State University, she advises me still, and I am grateful for the time she has most generously given, both personally and as a member of my dissertation committee. Dr. Dean Dabney kindly agreed to Chair my dissertation committee, and has spent uncounted hours, days, and weeks reviewing this work. It was a courageous undertaking, as this topic is complex and outside his areas of research. I will always appreciate his willingness to jump in and guide this effort, as well as his dogged commitment to see it through. If you are reading this completed document, I have Drs. Finn and Dabney to thank again and forever. Dr. Leah Daigle kindly served as a committee member, adding valuable questions and challenges with quantitative course and content corrections. Dr. Mark Reed completed this committee, contributing from his deep expertise in qualitative research thematic analysis. He added precision around presentation of variables. I acknowledge my mother, the late Natalie M. Eckel, for her support of my late-in-life academic effort. My husband, Dr. Eric Dickinson, who was born cheerful and remains so today, made it possible for me to do this work. Kellen Parker, my son, expertly edited, talked through essential chapters with me and attended my proposal. Dr. William Hooke, AMS, encouraged and enlightened me. I thank Jody Sterling and Kathy Montejano for our enduring friendship and their iv encouragement for over 40 years. Dr. Steven Krichbaum, conservation biologist, explained the concept that each instant we code or categorize any bit of data we lose information. Thank you, Steven. I thank Stacy Cantrell, who neatened the narrative files, provided word counts, and proofread. I thank Cindy Maynard for her friendship and unwavering encouragement. I acknowledge Merrily Eckel for a thorough early reading. I thank Suzi and Bryan Groce, Doris Roush, Geri Laufer, Linda Fierman, Janet Adams, Kirsten Thornante, LaJauhn Stulce, Taylor Tabb, Dr. Melinda Frausto, Dr. Matt Kamins, Shirley Holland, Melanie Goodman Muroz, Diane and Lew Houser, Charlie Duke, Christine Hooke, and the late Jon Eckel for their support and listening. I acknowledge and thank Dr. John Prevost, classmate, friend, and confidant, for his company on this journey of years. His exquisite kindness and humor grounded me. His familiarity with statistical analysis made my work far clearer than it would have been. It was pure pleasure to have kicked the can down this road with him. Finally, I acknowledge the work and person of Dr. Evan Stark, sociologist and forensic social worker, whom I met in 2008 at a fatality review conference in Tucson, AZ. His groundbreaking, vibrant scholarship and promotion of the centrality of coercive control in the entrapment of women in abusive relationships has changed thinking, lives, and laws. Since the 1980s, Dr. Stark has been stalwart in protecting women’s rights while illuminating the true character and effects of intimate partner violence. v CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT .................................. 1 Coercive Control in the Current Study ........................................................................... 6 Primary Aim of Current Study ........................................................................................ 7 Qualitative Study Design .............................................................................................. 10 Organization of Current Study ...................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 12 Organization of the Literature Review ......................................................................... 12 Conflicting Constructions: IPV, Battering, and Coercive Control ............................... 12 Emerging Definitional and Conceptual Frameworks ................................................... 15 A Conceptual Study Framework ................................................................................... 24 The Empirical Status of Coercive Control .................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 3: METHODS ...............................................................................................