Coercive control is central to distinguishing between Johnson’s (2008) 2 main types of intimate partner violence: (a) coercive controlling violence and (b) situational couple violence. Approaches to assessing coercive control, however, have been inconsistent. Using data from 2 projects involving divorcing mothers (N = 190), the authors compared common analytic strategies for operationalizing coercive control and classifying types of violence. The results establish advantages to measuring coercive control in terms of frequency versus number of tactics, illustrate the use of both hierarchical and k-means clustering methods to identify patterns of coercive control and evaluate clustering solutions, and offer a suggested cutoff for classifying violence types in general samples of separated women using the Dominance–Isolation subscale of the widely used Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (Tolman, 1992). Finally, the authors demonstrate associations between types of violence and theoretically relevant variables, including frequency and severity of violence, harassment and violence after separation, fear, and perceived threat.

Objective: Coercive control has been studied in conjunction with physical violence, leaving unclear how coercive control itself operates and is abusive. Further, how the processes of control that are considered coercive differ from control dynamics that are part of all relationships remains uncertain. Thus, we used grounded theory methods to develop a theoretical explanation of the processes of control and what makes control coercive. Method: In-depth interviews with 22 divorced women were analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding and constant comparative methods. Power and gender theories offered sensitizing frameworks. Results: "Felt or experienced constraint" was central to the process of control, but 2 distinct patterns produced this phenomenon. Constraint through commitment involved a process of being constrained by oneself or one's partner to uphold cultural conventions of heterosexual marriage and parenting. Constraint through force involved a process of being controlled wholly in a targeted and systematic way by one's partner. Conclusions: Findings contribute to understanding the processes of control, whether coercive or not or violent or not, and assist practitioners and policymakers in responding effectively. Findings also inform quantitative measurement of control and reaffirm feminist scholars' call to consider how and why gender matters in all forms of abuse.

Studies demonstrate the negative effects of violent coercive control but few examine coercive control without violence. This study describes the characteristics of nonviolent coercive control among 8 divorcing mothers and compares them with 47 mothers who experienced violent coercive control or no violence/no control. Mothers with nonviolent coercive control reported more coping strategies, risk, harassment, and perceived threat than mothers with no violence/no control; similar levels of fear and control during marriage as mothers with violent coercive control; and more postseparation fear than both groups. Findings highlight the need to include nonviolent coercive control in screening methods and research measures.

The quality of coparenting relationships after separation is known to affect mothers' and children's physical and mental health. It is well established that conflict is a common phenomenon among separating parents; however, studies rarely distinguish between relationships characterized by violence as opposed to conflict. Because violence creates a distinct separation and coparenting experience, we propose a theoretical model that integrates these disparate literatures. The integrated model provides a heuristic tool to guide future theory building, research, and practice.

Research has identified multiple predictors of coparenting quality, but few studies have investigated how intimate partner violence (IPV) affects divorcing couples’ coparenting relationships. We addressed this question in a sample of 154 mothers with different marital IPV experiences. Mothers were recruited within four months of a divorce filing and completed two interviews three months apart. At Time 1, mothers reported on violence and coercive control during marriage, and postseparation behavioral (e.g., parental communication), emotional (e.g., anger), and intrusion (e.g., harassment) dynamics; at Time 2, they reported on coparenting quality (i.e., levels of support and conflict). In the overall sample, divorce and violence variables independently predicted coparenting quality. Mothers were then classified into three groups: no violence (NV; n = 74), situational couple violence (SCV; n = 46), or coercive controlling violence (CCV; n = 34). Of the three, coparenting quality was lowest in the CCV group. While the SCV group was similar to the NV group on most divorce-related variables, the CCV group reported more hostility at separation and placed less importance on father-child relationships. Finally, patterns of association between study variables and coparenting quality showed some parallels between the SCV and NV groups. For CCV, postseparation harassment and fear were negatively associated with coparenting quality. Findings contribute to understanding predictors of coparenting quality and support the need for individualized assessments of divorce cases with attention to IPV dynamics.