The Prevalence and Typologies of Controlling Behaviors in a General Population Sample

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence and typologies of controlling behaviors within a general population sample. Participants ( N = 427) completed the Revised Controlling Behaviors Scale and the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Prevalence of perpetration and victimization of controlling behaviors was relatively high, although the frequency and severity of the behaviors was mainly low level. Five clusters were established based on the use of five types of controlling behaviors: economic, threatening, intimidating, emotional, and isolating. Significant differences were found between the perpetration clusters and (a) minor physical assault, (b) severe physical assault, (c) minor psychological aggression, and (d) severe psychological aggression. Furthermore, significant differences were found between the victimization clusters and (a) physical assault, (b) minor psychological aggression, and (c) severe psychological aggression. It is clear that controlling behaviors are a feature within general population relationships, and further research is required to understand when such behaviors become problematic, and what needs to be done to prevent this from happening.

The Brief Partner Behavioral Control Scale (B-PBCS): Development and Validation

“…Furthermore, controlling behaviors perpetrated in romantic relationships are also addressed in the intimate partner violence and abuse (IPVA) research. IPVA includes violent and abusive physical, sexual, and/or psychological behaviors directed toward current or former partners (Fanslow & Robinson, 2011;Walker, Sleath, & Tramontano, 2021). Scholars (Arroya, Lundahl, Butters, Vanderloo, & Wood, 2017) argue that a desire to maintain power or exert control over a partner usually lies in the root of IPVA.…”

A Socioecological Perspective on Intimate Partner Violence Research: A Decade in Review

“…General survey samples are often limited for identifying CCV. In a community sample of British women and men ( N = 427), controlling behaviors were prevalent across the entire sample, but only a small proportion reported high levels (Walker, Sleath, & Tramontano, ). For this reason, M. P. Johnson et al () criticized the use of clustering in general samples; clustering is sample dependent and will produce groups with high and low coercive control even when there are inadequate numbers of those with high control in the sample.…”

“…Coercive control is at the heart of making distinctions between M. P. Johnson's (2008) types and has long been the focus of theoretical and empirical investigation (e.g., see Stark, ). Given new laws in several countries (e.g., England, Scotland, Wales) criminalizing coercive control, research is needed to better understand controlling behaviors, especially in community samples (Walker et al, ). Myhill () proposed a new approach to measuring control in general survey samples that focuses on ongoing denigration and fear.…”

“The Stay at Home Order is Causing Things to Get Heated Up”: Family Conflict Dynamics During COVID-19 From The Perspectives of Youth Calling a National Child Abuse Hotline

“…Importantly, around 20% of our sample were unable to report their abuse experiences because they did not have access to a phone or experienced challenges making safe phone calls. This is particularly concerning given isolation can become a powerful control and abuse tactic (Mega et al, 2000;Walker et al, 2017;Winters et al, 2020). This highlights the need for additional online child abuse reporting options, which is now only available in nine states (Health and Human Services, 2020).…”