Reproductive Coercion and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Among a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Young Adult Sample

Abstract

Reproductive coercion is an understudied form of intimate partner violence (IPV) that occurs when a person attempts to control the autonomous reproductive decision making of their intimate partner. Previous research has demonstrated that individuals who experience reproductive coercion are more likely to experience other forms of IPV (e.g., physical and sexual). Research has also shown that Black/African American and Latinx/Hispanic individuals are at an increased risk of experiencing reproductive coercion compared to their White/Non-Hispanic peers. However, most of the research on reproductive coercion has been conducted in family-planning clinics where IPV is reported at a higher rate than in community samples. Thus, using a diverse community sample of female-identifying young adults ( N = 370) who were recruited as part of an ongoing longitudinal study on dating violence, we examined the prevalence of lifetime reproductive coercion and its relationship with other forms of IPV, as well as the differences in prevalence among racial and ethnic groups. Lifetime prevalence of being victimized by any form of reproductive coercion was 11.4%. Results indicated that individuals who experienced reproductive coercion were more likely to experience physical and sexual IPV relative to those who did not experience reproductive coercion. With respect to race/ethnicity, 5.6% of White participants, 10.5% of Black/African American participants, and 14.8% of Hispanic/Latinx participants reported experiencing reproductive coercion. Chi-square analyses showed Hispanic/Latinx participants had a significantly higher prevalence of reproductive coercion when compared to White/Non-Hispanic participants. These findings suggest a need for additional research on culturally-specific risk and protective factors related to reproductive coercion among Hispanic/Latinx individuals to identify potential intervention and prevention strategies.

Reproductive Autonomy in Appalachia: An Investigation into Perceived Contraceptive Pressure

“…Participants who had experienced reproductive coercion were more likely to report physical or sexual, but not psychological, IPV as compared with those who did not experience reproductive coercion. In addition, Hispanic and Latinx participants had a significantly higher prevalence of reproductive coercion when compared with White/non-Hispanic participants (Muñoz et al, 2023).…”

“…The review also found reproductive coercion disproportionately impacted women experiencing IPV, multiracial women, and women of lower SES; however, the majority of the extant literature was descriptive (Grace & Anderson, 2018). A recent study in Texas investigating reproductive coercion and IPV victimization in a racially diverse sample of female-identified individuals (28.9% White/non-Hispanic, 32.7% Latinx/Hispanic, 25.7% Black/African American, 4.6% Asian/Pacific-Islander, and 8.1% more than one race) aged 19-22 years found 10% of the entire sample had experienced pregnancy coercion and 3.3% has experienced birth control sabotage in their lifetime (Muñoz et al, 2023). Participants who had experienced reproductive coercion were more likely to report physical or sexual, but not psychological, IPV as compared with those who did not experience reproductive coercion.…”

Contraceptive Sabotage and Contraceptive Use at the Time of Pregnancy: An Analysis of People with a Recent Live Birth in the United States

“…Data on self-reports reports of reproductive coercion rely on clinic- and/or community-based samples, and the wide variation in estimates are likely attributed to a lack of definitional and conceptual clarity, which has led to heterogeneity in how reproductive coercion has been defined and measured across studies (Grace & Anderson, 2018; Tarzia & Hegarty, 2021). Furthermore, reports of reproductive coercion are greater among racial and ethnic minority groups (Grace & Anderson, 2018; Hill et al, 2019; Holliday et al, 2017; Rosenfeld et al, 2018; Samankasikorn et al, 2019), people who are younger (e.g., less than 30 years) (Grace & Anderson, 2018; Muñoz et al, 2022; Rosenfeld et al, 2018; Samankasikorn et al, 2019), single or not married (Grace & Anderson, 2018; Rosenfeld et al, 2018; Samankasikorn et al, 2019), and with less education (e.g., less than a high school education) (Grace & Anderson, 2018; Samankasikorn et al, 2019). Understanding the interplay between reproductive coercion and reproductive health may strengthen efforts to support autonomous and informed sexual and reproductive health decisions and to prevent violence.…”

“…A study of women presenting for routine obstetrics and gynecology care at a clinic in Rhode Island revealed that 32% of the 103 women who reported any type of reproductive coercion also reported they experienced physical or sexual IPV within the same relationship (Clark et al, 2014). Furthermore, some studies have shown that reproductive coercion is positively associated with physical IPV victimization among sexually active undergraduate women (Katz et al, 2017), sexually active female youth (McCauley et al, 2014), female young adults (Muñoz et al, 2022), and people with a recent live birth (Samankasikorn et al, 2019). Together, these findings suggest that reproductive coercion and other forms of IPV are related, and tthis coercion can occur without other forms of physical, sexual, or emotional IPV.…”

Reproductive Coercion and Abuse in Intimate Relationships: Understanding Perpetrator Motivations and Overlaps with Coercive Control

“…high-income versus low-ormiddle-income countries) [11]. There is somewhat clearer data on the outcomes of RCA, with studies suggesting that it is associated with a range of harmful impacts including unintended pregnancies [2], sexually transmitted infections [12], poor pregnacy outcomes [13] and mental health conditions such as anxiety, post-traumatic stress and depression [14][15][16][17]. As yet, however, there has been little nuance in how these findings have been reported, with RCA treated largely as an homogenous entity, with no distinction being made between pregnancy promoting or pregnancy preventing behaviours.…”