By Jasmine B. MacDonald, Melissa Willoughby, Pragya Gartoulla, Eliza Cotton, Evita March, Kristel Alla, Cat Strawa
Overview - Coercive control is the ongoing and repetitive use of behaviours or strategies (including physical and non-physical violence) to control a current or ex intimate partner (i.e. victim-survivor) and make them feel inferior to, and dependent on, the perpetrator (Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety [ANROWS], 2021). Coercive control is a relatively new area to policy, practice and research and the research evidence is still emerging. However, AIFS’ consultations with key stakeholders in the child and family sector identified coercive control as a key topic of interest for policy makers and practitioners and that there is a desire for a synthesis of current evidence. This paper synthesises the findings of a rapid literature review to describe what we know about how common coercive control victimisation is, as well as risk factors and impacts of coercive control victimisation. A victim-survivor is someone who has experienced coercive control victimisation (i.e. been the target of coercive control behaviours by a current or ex intimate partner). The term victim-survivor is used to acknowledge ‘the ongoing effects and harm caused by abuse and violence as well as honouring the strength and resilience of people with lived experience of family violence’ (Victorian Government, 2022). The fndings of the rapid literature review are presented in 3 chapters: How common is coercive control victimisation? Risk factors associated with coercive control victimisation Impacts associated with coercive control victimisation. The key findings for each of these results sections are summarised in the subsections below. Please refer to the full chapter for more detail, including the evidence synthesis of relevant research studies and implications for practice, research and policy. Key messages Quality of coercive control victimisation research The studies sampled in this review provide important foundational insights about coercive control victimisation but had some limitations. These limitations were related to the relatively early stage of research on coercive control victimisation and the practical barriers associated with research in a complex area of human experience. Based on our review, we made the following observations about the state of evidence on coercive control victimisation in Australia: ƒ There is a need for research specifc to the Australian context. Only a small proportion of the sampled studies (3 out of 13; 23%) explored Australian experiences. ƒ We currently know little about the unique experiences of: – Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples – people with disability – LGBTQIA+ communities – culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities – people in older age groups (65+ years) – children and young people where there is coercive control between their parents – intersectional experiences across more than one of the above. ƒ There is debate among researchers and experts about what exactly coercive control victimisation is and how it should be conceptualised: Some studies emphasised the gendered nature of coercive control and others did not. – Some studies have not used a measure of coercive control but rather a measure of domestic and family violence (DFV), sometimes from a previous study. In such instances, coercive control victimisation is often considered to be synonymous with the experience of psychological or emotional abuse behaviours as distinct from experiences of physical or sexual violence in the DFV measures. – Others, such as Stark and colleagues (Stark, 2007; Stark & Hester, 2019) and ANROWS (2021), conceptualise coercive control as the context in which intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs, meaning that physical and sexual violence are considered behaviours to enact coercive control (when not occurring in isolated incidence-based abuse). – Most studies (70%) used customised measurements of coercive control victimisation (i.e. measures constructed by the authors for the purpose of the study). Standardised and psychometrically validated measures were used by only 4 of the 13 sampled studies. ƒ Research design diferences between studies make it challenging to: – distinguish between IPV characterised by a coercive control pattern and that which is not – identify coercive control in practice – inform prevention and intervention – know which risk factors and impacts are most robust and deserving of further investigation. ƒ Most studies used a cross-sectional survey method for data collection. These studies cannot demonstrate changes for specific individuals over time or indicate coercive control victimization causing a change in outcomes such as mental health within the sampled participants. A longitudinal research design is required to demonstrate such changes and potential causation. ƒ Studies were also characterized by: – self-report data – large differences in sample sizes – an absence of demographic and other relevant social variables in analyses – a broad range of risk factors and impact measures, with little consistency of measures or replication of findings – a tendency to focus on individual-level factors associated with victimization, without equal consideration of broader institutional or societal levels.
Southbank VIC 3006 Australia Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2024 42p.
