Coercive control has increasingly become a central construct in contemporary psychological conceptualizations of intimate partner violence (IPV). Rather than referring solely to discrete acts of physical aggression, the term captures a constellation of behaviours through which one partner progressively limits the other’s autonomy, decision-making capacity, and sense of self. These behaviours: monitoring, isolation, humiliation, restriction of economic or social resources -operate as a sustained pattern rather than isolated incidents. From a psychological perspective, coercive control is significant because it alters core processes such as identity formation, perceived agency, and emotion regulation in the victim, while simultaneously reinforcing power, entitlement, and dependency in the perpetrator. Understanding coercive control therefore requires attention to both interpersonal dynamics and the cognitive-affective mechanisms that maintain them.

Understanding Coercive Control

Coercive control refers to a pattern of behaviours whereby one partner systematically dominates and restricts the autonomy of the other through psychological abuse, threats, surveillance, isolation, and economic manipulation (Stark, 2007). Unlike episodic physical assaults, coercive control is characterized by its chronic nature and its goal of constraining a partner’s social and psychological agency. Perpetrators may restrict contact with family and friends, monitor communications, control finances, or issue threats- behaviours that cumulatively erode the victim’s sense of self and independence (Johnson, 2008). Such controlling patterns often coexist with physical and emotional forms of IPV and can be stronger predictors of severe outcomes, including homicide, than visible physical injuries alone (Hester, 2011).

Psychologically, coercive control operates through mechanisms such as learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975), where repeated exposure to inescapable stressors leads victims to perceive that they cannot change their circumstances. Cognitive distortions promoted by the perpetrator- such as blaming the victim or minimizing the severity of abuse- further entrench compliance and reduce help-seeking. In turn, isolation from supportive networks diminishes opportunities for external validation and resistance, reinforcing the perpetrator’s grip over the victim’s decisions and self-worth.

Types and Tactics Of Coercive Control

Researchers have identified a range of tactics that constitute coercive control, encompassing threats and intimidation such as the threat of harm or abandonment, as well as various forms of surveillance and monitoring, including checking a partner’s phone or social media without consent. Coercive control also manifests through social isolation by restricting contact with friends, family members, or colleagues, and through economic control in which access to financial resources is limited or tightly regulated. Psychological manipulation is another central feature, often involving gaslighting or systematic efforts to undermine the victim’s confidence and perception of reality. These behaviours are cumulative in nature: although any single act may appear isolated or trivial, together they create a pervasive system of domination that progressively erodes the victim’s autonomy and freedom (Stark, 2007).

Psychological Consequences

Victims subjected to coercive control often experience profound psychological harm, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms, and diminished self-esteem. The insidious nature of coercive control means that many individuals do not initially recognize their experiences as abuse until patterns become deeply entrenched. Over time, victims may internalize blame or rationalize the controlling behaviors as “care” or “concern,” further complicating recognition and intervention.

Empirical Evidence From Türkiye

Research specific to the Turkish context illustrates the prevalence of controlling behaviours as a form of IPV and its socio-demographic determinants. A comprehensive study using data from the 2014 National Research on Domestic Violence Against Women in Türkiye found that controlling behaviours are widespread: approximately 81.7% of women surveyed reported exposure to one or more controlling behaviours by their intimate partner during their lifetime (Baskan & Alkan, 2023). Determinants of exposure to controlling behaviour included rural residence, lower education levels, economic dependency, and normalization of male violence, while higher education and greater income contribution by women were associated with lower risk. The findings highlight the interplay between structural inequalities and interpersonal dynamics in shaping women’s vulnerability to coercive control (Baskan & Alkan, 2023).

In research on emotional IPV, women reporting controlling behaviour by partners were also significantly more likely to experience emotional violence, reinforcing the notion that coercive control often co-occurs with other abusive tactics. These studies underscore that controlling behaviours are not isolated incidents but embedded within broader patterns of gender-based violence that reflect and reproduce patriarchal norms (Alkan & Demir, 2025).

Cultural and Structural Contexts

The Turkish context is marked by entrenched gender inequalities that provide fertile ground for the persistence of controlling IPV. Türkiye’s standing on global gender equality indices remains low, with the World Economic Forum ranking it 124th out of 146 countries in 2022, reflecting pervasive disparities in economic participation, political empowerment, and social norms that condone male dominance (Baskan & Alkan, 2023).

Such societal norms can normalize partner control, making coercive behaviours less visible as abuse and more often rationalized within cultural scripts of male authority and female compliance. Moreover, social isolation measures during the COVID-19 pandemic have been associated with increased opportunities for controlling behaviour, as victims became more confined to domestic spaces with limited external contact. (Alkan & Demir, 2025)

Implications For Practice and Policy

Recognizing coercive control as a distinct and harmful form of IPV has important implications for psychological practice, criminal justice, and policy. Clinicians working with IPV survivors must be attuned to signs of coercive control; such as pervasive anxiety, relational fear, or restricted decision-making, as these may not always present as physical injury but have equally debilitating effects. Screening tools that include questions about control, isolation, and autonomy can improve detection and support comprehensive safety planning.

At the policy level, legislation that criminalizes coercive control which has already enacted in jurisdictions such as England and Wales provides a framework for legal accountability beyond acts of physical violence. Training for law enforcement and judicial personnel is crucial to ensure that patterns of control are recognized and appropriately documented. Public education campaigns can also play a role in reshaping social norms that trivialize coercive behaviours, emphasizing that healthy relationships are grounded in mutual respect and autonomy rather than domination and compliance.

Conclusion

Coercive control represents a core psychological mechanism underpinning many forms of intimate partner violence. Its chronic and systemic nature distinguishes it from isolated acts of physical aggression, demanding nuanced understanding and targeted intervention. Empirical evidence, including research from Türkiye, reveals the high prevalence of controlling behaviours and their deep roots in socio-cultural structures. Addressing coercive control requires integrated approaches that combine psychological insight, legal frameworks, and cultural change to protect autonomy and promote relational equity.