Control is theorized as central to intimate partner aggression (IPA). Tools measuring nonphysical “controlling behaviors” in relationships have therefore been developed to identify the latent construct of control. However, the underlying assumption that “controlling behaviors” form a distinct subset of IPA has not been validated. This study investigates the divergent validity of acts considered as “controlling behaviors” against other aggressive acts used in relationships. The IPA and relationship literatures were reviewed to identify 1,397 items involving “controlling,” physical, sexual, and psychologically aggressive acts perpetrated and/or experienced by an intimate partner. In total, 101 item pairs were identified and used to measure IPA tactics across these categories. In Study 1, exploratory factor analysis in a community sample (N = 561) found no evidence of a distinct factor of “controlling behaviors.” Behaviors labeled as “controlling” in existing measures were distributed across other factors, including “eclectic aggression,” “direct psychological aggression,” and “monitoring acts.” In Study 2A (N = 424 students), confirmatory factor analysis replicated the results of Study 1 and established configural measurement invariance (Study 2B), indicating no evidence for psychometric differences between samples. These results indicate that behaviors described as “controlling” in existing measures were not statistically distinguishable from other forms of IPA, and suggest that future research should investigate motivational, rather than behavioral, differences in the use of IPA. The findings challenge research to confirm whether a set of discrete behaviors can be used to accurately identify control in relationships and question the validity of tools that adopt this methodology.

No abstract

<p>Little research to date has considered the aetiological risk of female perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV), particularly in dating samples. This is despite evidence that shows perpetration is highly prevalent in this population. This study aims to address this gap and develops a typology of partner violent female university students using the psychopathology dimension of the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) typology. Online survey methodology was used to collate information from 434 participants about a range of psychological characteristics and aggression toward intimate partners in the previous twelve months. Latent Profile analysis identified three reliable subgroups of participants who differ in their level of psychopathology in comparison to Non-Violent Controls and/or each other (‘Low’, ‘Moderate’ and ‘Moderate-High’ Psychopathology). Chi Square analysis investigated group differences in the use of psychological aggression, physical assault and sexual coercion towards an intimate partner, and towards other people. Results show that the Moderate-High Psychopathology group use severe psychological aggression significantly more frequently than the Low Psychopathology group. Trends for minor physical violence were also found with frequency of use increasing with increases in levels of psychopathology. The classifications proxy the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) findings to some extent. However, it is suggested that the profiles of female perpetrators are best described in terms of varying levels of psychopathology in general, with corresponding increases in some forms of partner aggression. The need to develop typologies of female, non-clinical samples of IPV is discussed.</p>

<p>Control is fundamental to theoretical conceptualizations of intimate partner aggression (IPA). In particular, it has been instrumental in the development of typologies of IPA, where control has been associated with more frequent and serious IPA carried out by men against women. Consequently, the concept of control has heavily influenced the design of treatment and legislation targeting partner violence. However, there is considerable theoretical divergence as to how control should be conceptualized, operationalized, and measured. This thesis comprises a series of studies designed to test the validity of some of the key theoretical assumptions that inform the common conceptualizations of control by examining control as a behavior, as a motivation, and as an outcome. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the thesis rationale and objectives. Chapter 2 investigated the theoretical assumption that non-physical ‘controlling behaviors’ (e.g., restricting access to money; threatening harm) comprise a unique form of IPA. Exploratory (N = 561) and confirmatory (N = 424) factor analyses on 54 measures used across the IPA literature identified three forms of aggression: Eclectic Aggression, Direct Psychological Aggression, Monitoring Acts. There was no evidence for a distinct form of ‘controlling behaviors’. Chapter 3 systematically reviewed the literature on motivations for physical and psychological IPA. The review aimed to appraise the quality of the literature and ascertain which motivations had the largest effect sizes. A meta-analysis of the motivations for physical IPA suggested self-defense, retaliation for emotional hurt, and communication difficulties had larger effect sizes than control. Chapter 4 investigated the assumptions that control motivations are associated with more severe and frequent IPA and IPA perpetrated by men. Categorical principal and latent class analyses (N = 1166) found considerable heterogeneity in motivations for IPA for both genders, but no evidence of distinct patterns or profiles of controlling motivations for either men or women. Chapter 5 investigated the assumptions that coercive control is experienced exclusively by women and is related to experiencing specific types and more frequent IPA (N = 1174). Evidence did not support a “coercive control” pattern or profile in people who experienced IPA, or that coercive control outcomes were gendered, or associated with the type or the frequency of IPA behaviors used. Regressing the item-average of coercive control outcomes on experiences of IPA in a path analysis provided some evidence that gender and experiences of physical and psychological aggression predicted feelings of coercive control. Collectively, the results of the thesis identified considerable heterogeneity in the patterns of behaviors, motivations and outcomes for IPA. The evidence challenges existing conceptualizations of control as a distinct and gendered construct and indicates the need for the development of a theoretical explanation of control, that is both gender-inclusive and multi-factorial, to guide future research.</p>