Melissa E Dichter1, Kristie A Thomas2, Paul Crits-Christoph3, Shannon N Ogden4, Karin V Rhodes5. 1. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. 2. School of Social Work, Simmons College. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. 5. Northwell Health Solutions, Office of Population Health Management, Hofstra Northwell Medical School.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to better understand the experience of coercive control as a type of IPV by examining associations between coercive control and women's experiences of particular forms of violence, use of violence, and risk of future violence. METHOD: As part of a larger research study, data were collected from 553 women patients at two hospital emergency departments who had experienced recent IPV and unhealthy drinking. Baseline assessments, including measures of coercive control, danger, and experience and use of psychological, physical, and sexual forms of IPV in the prior three months were analyzed. RESULTS: Women experiencing coercive control reported higher frequency of each form of IPV, and higher levels of danger, compared to women IPV survivors who were not experiencing coercive control. There was no statistically significant association between experience of coercive control and women's use of psychological or sexual IPV; women who experienced coercive control were more likely to report using physical IPV than women who were not experiencing coercive control. CONCLUSIONS: Findings contribute to knowledge on the relationship between coercive control and specific forms of violence against intimate partners. A primary contribution is the identification that women who experience coercive control may also use violence, indicating that a woman's use of violence does not necessarily mean that she is not also experiencing severe and dangerous violence as well as coercive control. In fact, experience of coercive control may increase victims' use of physical violence as a survival strategy.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to better understand the experience of coercive control as a type of IPV by examining associations between coercive control and women's experiences of particular forms of violence, use of violence, and risk of future violence. METHOD: As part of a larger research study, data were collected from 553 women patients at two hospital emergency departments who had experienced recent IPV and unhealthy drinking. Baseline assessments, including measures of coercive control, danger, and experience and use of psychological, physical, and sexual forms of IPV in the prior three months were analyzed. RESULTS: Women experiencing coercive control reported higher frequency of each form of IPV, and higher levels of danger, compared to women IPV survivors who were not experiencing coercive control. There was no statistically significant association between experience of coercive control and women's use of psychological or sexual IPV; women who experienced coercive control were more likely to report using physical IPV than women who were not experiencing coercive control. CONCLUSIONS: Findings contribute to knowledge on the relationship between coercive control and specific forms of violence against intimate partners. A primary contribution is the identification that women who experience coercive control may also use violence, indicating that a woman's use of violence does not necessarily mean that she is not also experiencing severe and dangerous violence as well as coercive control. In fact, experience of coercive control may increase victims' use of physical violence as a survival strategy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Battering; Coercive Control; Domestic Violence; Intimate Partner Violence; Use of Violence
Authors: Ann L Coker; Vicki C Flerx; Paige H Smith; Daniel J Whitaker; Mary Kay Fadden; Melinda Williams Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-01-25 Impact factor: 4.897