ArticlePDF Available

The Validation of the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB): Assessing Coercive Control in Abusive Relationships

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The current study addresses the validation of the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB), an 84-item domestic violence assessment instrument that can be used to address multiple levels of violence and coercive control in violent relationships. Derived from clinical observation and current theories, the CCB makes use of intimate partner violence survivor reports to identify the intensity and frequency of relationship violence. The instrument is divided into 10 subscales including (1) physical abuse, (2) sexual abuse, (3) male privilege, (4) isolation, (5) minimizing and denying, (6) blaming, (7) intimidation, (8) threats, (9) emotional abuse, and (10) economic abuse. To assess validity and reliability of the CCB, 2,135 female volunteers taking refuge at a domestic violence shelter were administered the instrument. Results of principal component analysis of the individual subscales revealed 10 factors having goodness-of-fit values above the desired normative level of .90.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Violence Against Women
18(8) 913 –933
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1077801212456522
http://vaw.sagepub.com
456522VAWXXX10.1177/1077801212456
522Violence Against WomenLehmann et al.
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA
2University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA
Corresponding Author:
Catherine A. Simmons, Division of Social Work, University of Memphis, 226 McCord Hall, Memphis,
TN 38152, USA
Email: csimmons7@memphis.edu
The Validation of the
Checklist of Controlling
Behaviors (CCB): Assessing
Coercive Control in Abusive
Relationships
Peter Lehmann1, Catherine A. Simmons2,
and Vijayan K. Pillai1
Abstract
The current study addresses the validation of the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors
(CCB), an 84-item domestic violence assessment instrument that can be used to address
multiple levels of violence and coercive control in violent relationships. Derived from clinical
observation and current theories, the CCB makes use of intimate partner violence survivor
reports to identify the intensity and frequency of relationship violence. The instrument is
divided into 10 subscales including (1) physical abuse, (2) sexual abuse, (3) male privilege,
(4) isolation, (5) minimizing and denying, (6) blaming, (7) intimidation, (8) threats,
(9) emotional abuse, and (10) economic abuse. To assess validity and reliability of the CCB,
2,135 female volunteers taking refuge at a domestic violence shelter were administered the
instrument. Results of principal component analysis of the individual subscales revealed 10
factors having goodness-of-fit values above the desired normative level of .90
Keywords
checklist of controlling behaviors, coercive control, domestic violence instrument, power
and control
Article
914 Violence Against Women 18(8)
In spite of vast increases in understanding prevalence, causes and interventions associated
with intimate partner violence (IPV), methodological differences continue to make research
in this area challenging. Moreover, significant debate exists in the literature regarding how
relevant concepts and constructs are defined and measured (e.g., Cook & Snow, 2006;
Graham-Kevan, 2007; Johnson, 2004, 2006a; Stark, 2006, 2007). Recently however, a
growing consensus recognizes that not all acts of IPV can be equated to a unitary form of
battering (Johnson, 2006b; Pence & Dasgupta, 2006) and that there are different types or
patterns of abusive behavior (e.g., Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003; Holtzworth-Munroe,
2000; Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart, 2000; Johnson, 1995,
2006a, 2006b, 2008; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Leone, Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004;
Pence & Dasgupta, 2006). Systems of classification are beginning to differentiate between
these types/patterns with consistent recognition that violence used to coerce and control
one’s partner is of the utmost concern (e.g., Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003; Holtzworth-
Munroe, 2000; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2000; Johnson, 1995, 2006a, 2006b, 2008; Johnson
& Ferraro, 2000; Leone et al., 2004; Pence & Dasgupta, 2006). It is for this reason that
coercive controlling violence is the focus of the instrument presented in this article, the
Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB). Specifically, the CCB is an 84-item self-report
measure designed to help researchers and practitioners measure the intensity and frequency
of behaviors that are found in relationships where coercive controlling violence is
present.
Coercive Controlling Violence
Coercive controlling violence is a pattern of physical violence that is coupled with emo-
tionally abusive intimidation, coercion and control (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). Described in
the literature using many different terms (e.g., patriarchal terrorism, intimate terrorism,
abusive controlling violence, coercive control), the concepts inherent to coercive control-
ling violence in this context have been apparent in the IPV literature since the late 1970s
(Dutton, Goodman, & Schmidt, 2005). Seminal to this body of literature, Pence and
Paymar (1986) describe IPV as consisting of pervasive patterns of coercive control
whereby the batterer asserts power over his partner in multiple aspects of their relation-
ship, not solely relying on physical violence. Their description reflects a continuum of
specific behaviors (e.g., isolation, threats, intimidation, minimization) that form the Power
and Control Wheel and other tools that are extensively used when working with both IPV
offenders and their victims/survivors (Pence & Paymar, 1993).
As stated previously, the vocabulary used to describe concepts relevant to coercive
controlling violence has shifted through the years to include a number of different terms
including (but not limited to) patriarchal terrorism (Johnson, 1995), intimate terrorism
(Johnson, 2006a) and more recently, abusive controlling violence (Jaffe, Johnston, Crooks,
& Bala, 2008). Yet these descriptors are controversial as it has been noted that not all vio-
lence is (a) considered patriarchal, (b) perpetrated exclusively by men, or (c) fits” (a space
is needed between the “men,” and the “or”) traditional descriptions (Kelly & Johnson,
2008). Although such differences are important to study and debate, the purpose of this
Lehmann et al. 915
article is to introduce an instrument that can be used to measure concepts related specifi-
cally to coercive controlling violence. Other types of IPV experiences are outside the scope
of the current discussion.
When describing the overarching problems inherent to relationships where coercive
controlling violence is present, two separate conditions (coercion and control) must first
be explained. The first condition, coercion, is viewed as “the use of force or threats to
compel or dispel a particular response” (Stark, 2007, p. 228). The second condition,
control, is “comprised of structural forms that compel obedience indirectly by monopo-
lizing vital resources, dictating preferred choices, micro-regulating a partner’s behavior,
limiting her options, and depriving her of supports needed to exercise independent judg-
ment” (Stark, 2007, p. 229). Structural forms are inherent to coercive controlling vio-
lence in that routine barriers are often used to entrap, isolate, and control the victim/
survivor (e.g., denial of a car and/or cell phone, withholding money, using beepers,
cyberstalking).
Although coercive controlling violence is likely not representative of all relationship
violence (Johnson, 1995, 2006a, 2006b, 2008; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Kelly & Johnson,
2008; Leone et al., 2004), such critical forms of abuse and manipulation represent an
important area where further research is certainly needed. As logically stated by Johnson
(2006a), “surveys need to ask questions not just about violence, but also about the use of a
variety of other control tactics in the relationship” (p. 1006). To meet these described chal-
lenges, the authors developed the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB). Derived from
clinical observation and supported by theory, the CCB uses victim/survivor reports to iden-
tify the intensity and frequency of multiple dimensions of behaviors that are violent, abu-
sive, controlling and/or coercive. Specifically, the CCB is an 84-item instrument divided
into 10 subscales assessing physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, economic
abuse, intimidation, threats, minimizing and denying, blaming, isolation and male privi-
lege. Embedded within the CCB are items that measure behaviors that take into account
coercive methods intended to gain compliance. Thus, the CCB may be well suited for use
in research and clinical settings, such as shelters for battered women and/or mental health
centers.
Theoretical Framework
The CCB is based on the notion that coercive controlling violence includes not only acts
of physical violence but also other forms of violence such emotional abuse, intimidation
and isolation. In this vein, there is some agreement that solely measuring violent acts (e.g.,
physical/sexual abuse) does not properly characterize the totality of violence within rela-
tionships and that the social ecology (i.e., the cultural, institutional and relational systems
in which the couple live) are key elements needed to understand IPV (e.g., Dasgupta,
2002; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998; Dutton & Goodman, 2005; Smith, Smith & Earp,
1999; Yllo, 1993). For this reason the CCB is guided by Dutton and Goodman’s (2005)
model of coercion (described below).
916 Violence Against Women 18(8)
Coercion in Intimate Relationships
Components of Dutton and Goodman’s (2005) model of coercion can be traced to the early
theory of social power developed by French and Raven (1959). In their theory focusing on
how personal resources are used to influence one another, French and Raven (1959) devel-
oped five bases of influence including coercive power, reward power, legitimate power,
referent power, and expert power. A sixth base, informational power, was included later
(Raven, 1965). More recently, Raven (1992, 1993) extended the original model to include
an expanded conceptualization of power by separating power processes from outcomes of
power. In this extension Raven (1992, 1993) makes a distinction between the bases of
power (e.g., the ability or potential to control), the processes of power (e.g., how one tries
to control), and outcomes of power (e.g., compliance or resistance). For Dutton and
Goodman (2005) these differences are important in that researchers and practitioners
should consider separately the three constructs (a) potential for abuse of power, (b) use of
power to coerce, and (c) achieving control through compliance.
Dutton and Goodman’s (2005) analysis of coercion exemplifies the idea that force (e.g.,
the use of physical means such as slapping or punching) is not the sole controlling factor to
consider in abusive relationships. Instead, coercive control is a multidimensional and repeti-
tive process of responses, usually in the form of demands that ultimately end in compliance
because the victim believes (e.g., coercive power) she will experience more negative conse-
quences for noncompliance and has come to believe (e.g., reward power) she will be
rewarded in some way for compliance. Dutton and Goodman (2005) have supplemented
two further ideas from French and Raven’s theories to support their model. First, coercion
involves “setting the stage” (Raven, 1993) in that the perpetrator makes it known he has the
means to punish incidents of noncompliance. Second, the perpetrator uses “surveillance” of
the victim through various means not limited to phone calls, text messaging, and various
stalking behaviors, and sometimes, even third parties (children or family). Stark (2007) has
similarly defined these steps as microregulations that are designed to entrap.
Figure 1 presents a visual overview of Dutton and Goodman’s (2005) model of coer-
cion. Their model expands French and Raven’s theories by illustrating coercive controlling
violence as a dynamic and systematic process that begins with the social ecology. All
interpersonal relationships are seen as having elements of persuasion and influence.
However, in relationships where IPV is present, the context of persuasion and influence
(e.g., economic, political, familial, and interactional) may be considered coercive. For
example, demands for sex and/or threats to withhold financial means for food or household
expenses may represent the “foundation” (Dutton & Goodman, 2005, p. 748) on which
coercion is built.
As may be seen in Figure 1, Dutton and Goodman’s (2005) model of coercion is sys-
temic and circular by design with coercion being central to control. Essentially the model
reflects how the process of power used in abusive relationships leads to both control
and compliance. Coercion may be overt in that the result can be direct (e.g., “if you don’t
follow the rules, I’ll kill you”). Hence, the threat is very real and embedded in it is a
demand/expectation that compliance should be immediate.
Figure 1. Dutton and Goodman’s (2005) Model of Coercion Visual Overviewa
aWith kind permission from Springer Science + Business Media: Sex Roles, Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization, 52, 2005,
743-756, Dutton and Goodman, Figure 1.
917
918 Violence Against Women 18(8)
Coercive control can also be indirect and subtle. Such control is initially less imposing
but is still threatening as it follows a similarly perilous path in terms of outcome. Essentially,
forms of persuasion and control (e.g., “if you really loved me you’d spend more time with
me”) and the expectation of compliance (e.g., “meet my needs”) are seen as following a
circuitous and predictable path. In this stage coercion is set up in four ways: (a) creating the
expectancy for coercive outcomes (e.g., “I’m going to have you committed”), (b) exploit-
ing vulnerabilities (e.g., “he told me it was his car, his money”), (c) wearing down resis-
tance (e.g., “tried to turn people against me”), and (d) exploiting attachment (e.g., “told me
I was lying about the abuse”). More specifically, Stark (2007) identified this path as “struc-
tural forms that compel obedience indirectly by monopolizing vital resources, dictating
preferred choices, micro-regulating a partner’s behavior, limiting her options, and depriv-
ing her of supports needed to exercise independent judgment” (p. 229). In effect, structural
forms help differentiate physical violence from coercive control in that one sees how the
presence of routine barriers may be used to entrap and isolate women (e.g., monitoring her
time, withholding money, treating her as helpless).
Measuring Coercive Controlling Violence
The developers of the CCB searched the literature for an instrument or series of instru-
ments that encompass the discussed theories of IPV. In this search a number of instruments
were located that measure aspects of violence, power-and-control, and/or coercive control
such as the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Index (Tolman, 1989), the Experience
of Abuse Questionnaire (Agnew-Davies, 2006), Relational Entitlement and Proprietariness
Scale (Hannawa, Spitzberg, Wiering, & Teranishi, 2006), and the Scale of Economic
Abuse (Adams, Sullivan, Bybee, & Greeson, 2008). Although each of these instruments
has definite strengths, only the Coercive Control Measure (CCM; Dutton et al., 2005)
reflects the multidimensional nature of domestic violence with consideration of all three
of the above theoretical areas. The CCM is a 92-item instrument that measures coercion
via the three subscales demands, coercion, and surveillance (Dutton et al., 2005).
Development of the CCM is significant in that preliminary analysis revealed predictive,
discriminate, and convergent validity and the items measure acts of physical violence
while assessing the context, culture and specific environment in which the couple lives
(Dutton et al., 2005). For this reason, the CCM has applications related to safety planning
with survivors of interpersonal violence. What makes the CCM truly unique is that it is
grounded in the Model of Coercion (Dutton & Goodman, 2005).
The instrument described in this article, the CCB, expands the Model of Coercion
(Dutton & Goodman, 2005) and the intent of the CCM by incorporating specific behavioral
areas of coercion and broadening the measured variables. Here, similar items are embed-
ded in the CCB yet are classified differently (see below). In addition, the authors of the
CCB used the Power and Control Wheel (Pence & Paymar, 1993; Shepard & Pence, 1999)
as a general guide when developing items. It was believed that the overall popularity and
usefulness of the wheel are a reasonable fit for practitioners and researchers. Thus, when
creating the CCB, the authors incorporated both the Model of Coercion (Dutton &
Goodman, 2005) and the Power and Control Wheel (Pence & Paymar, 1993; Shepard &
Lehmann et al. 919
Pence, 1999). The resulting instrument incorporates ideas of coercive control and specific
behavioral categories into one instrument that can be useful in either the practice or the
research setting.
Developing the CCB
The development of the CCB was guided by a framework that considers violent acts to
be a part of an overarching pattern of behaviors that include elements of physical force
and coercive control (e.g., Babcock, Waltz, Jacobson, & Gottman, 1993; Brewster,
2003; Cassidy, 1995; Dasgupta, 2002; Dutton & Goodman, 2005; Ehrensaft,
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Heyman, O’Leary, & Lawrence, 1999; Gondolf, 1995, 2002;
Hanrahan, 1997; Jones & Schecter, 1993; Pence & Paymar, 1993; Shepard & Pence,
1999; Strauchler et al., 2004; Tang, 1999; Umberson, Anderson, Glick, & Shapiro,
1998). As stated previously, the CCB followed the tenants outlined in the Duluth model’s
Power and Control Wheel (Pence & Paymar, 1993; Shepard & Pence, 1999), while also
incorporating ideas related to coercive controlling violence that were based on both the
clinical experience of the authors and the ideas addressed by Dutton and Goodman
(2005). From these models, 101 original items were developed to measure specific con-
structs. Statistical analysis (discussed below) resulted in the identification of 10 sub-
scales: (1) physical abuse, (2) sexual abuse, (3) emotional abuse, (4) economic abuse,
(5) intimidation, (6) threats, (7) minimizing and denying, (8) blaming, (9) isolation, and
(10) male privilege. Each subscale contains 7 to 10 questions characterizing the spec-
trum of controlling behaviors in each category. The three-page, 84-item document
included in Appendix A represents the final version of the CCB.
The scoring structure of the CCB is based on a 5-point Likert-type scale with 1 indicat-
ing never, 2 indicating rarely, 3 indicating occasionally, 4 indicating frequently and 5
indicating very frequently. Scoring consists of first calculating each individual subscale,
then adding the subscale scores into a total CCB Sum (see scoring chart in Appendix B).
When analyzing CCB results, individual subscale scores are indicative of specific catego-
ries of behaviors, while the CCB Sum depicts the overall level of coercive controlling
violence evident in the relationship. As specific subscales consist of a differing number of
items (7-10 items per subscale), specific scores vary per subscale. Therefore, a scoring
matrix is included on the scoring chart to illustrate significant score ranges per subscale
and CCB Sum score (see Appendix B). By identifying score ranges, a better idea of both
frequency and degree of respondent’s experiences can be ascertained.
Instrument Validation Method
Participants
To address reliability and construct validity of the CCB, 2,135 women seeking refuge in
one north Texas community were anonymously administered the paper-and-pencil instru-
ment. The shelter sampled serves an urban population base of approximately 750,000
people and provides both immediate and follow-up support services for women and children.
920 Violence Against Women 18(8)
Following agreement to participate in the study, shelter residents completed the instrument
along with a short demographic sheet. The resulting sample mirrors the local ethnic demo-
graphic with 517 respondents (40.3%) identifying as Anglo, 318 (24.8%) identifying as
African American, 409 (31.9%) identifying as Hispanic, and 39 (3%) identifying as
another racial or ethnic group. Respondent ages range from 16 to 68 years, with a mean
age of 31.42 years. Slightly less than three fourths of the respondents have children
(73.5%), with 307 (23.9%) having one child, 349 (27.2%) having two children, 195
(15.2%) having three children, and 92 (7.2%) having four or more children.
Data Analysis Plan
Data analysis followed a multistep plan designed to refine the instrument, identify sub-
scales, and assess reliability and validity. First, data from the original 101 items were
analyzed using correlations and principal component analysis resulting in the identifica-
tion of 10 subscales after elimination of 17 items. Then, confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted to assess construct validity for each of the 10 subscales. Finally, reliability and
interrelatedness of items and subscales were assessed using measures of internal consis-
tency (Cronbach’s Alpha, Guttman’s Split-Half), correlations (Pearson’s R), and percent
of variance explained (R2).
Whole Instrument Construct Validity
To refine the instrument, the 101 original items were correlated with each other producing
a large correlation matrix. Of the 101 items, 17 were dropped owing to very low correla-
tion, < .2, with the rest of the items in the model. The items eliminated represented either
theoretical overlaps of information or items not answered by the majority of the partici-
pants. The remaining 84 items were selected for the investigation of underlying subdimen-
sions. At the theoretical level, it was argued that 10 factors or dimensions constitute
behaviors inherent to coercive controlling violence. The empirical support for this argu-
ment can be ascertained using factor analytic methods. The presence of 10 factors may
become evident if the factor analyses of data on 84 variables yield at least 10 factors. Thus,
factor analysis was conducted using data for the 84 variables. The principle axis factoring
methods was used for the extraction of underlying factors because it seeks the least num-
ber of factors that can account for the common correlations of a set of variables. Likewise,
factors were rotated using the varimax method because it is the most commonly used
method of oblique rotation and it also makes it as easy as possible to identify each variable
with a single factor. Selected information from the output is presented in Table 1.
Factor analysis yielded 14 factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1. However, none of
the variable loadings for 4 of the 14 factors was higher than .3. The common cutoff used in
social science research is .3, while loadings greater than .6 are generally considered high
(Byrne, 2010). Discounting the 4 factors with poor factor loadings, 10 factors with signifi-
cant loadings on any of the 84 variables were obtained. The results from factor analysis
Lehmann et al. 921
support the presence of 10 factors theoretically (see Table 1). For naming these factors it is
necessary to take into account the variables that load significantly on any given factor. The
factor names were assigned taking into consideration the similarity between the variable
sets strongly associated with each of the 10 factors corresponding to the 10 theoretical fac-
tors presented in Appendix A. The very first factor was composed of all seven items of the
economic abuse dimension. All the loadings were high (i.e., >.6), ranging from .65 to .75.
Accordingly, this factor was named the economic abuse factor or subdimension. The sec-
ond factor was composed of items (all nine of them) theoretically associated with the sex-
ual abuse dimension. Thus, the second factor clearly suggests the presence of the sexual
abuse subdimension. The third factor is physical abuse. The rest of the dimensions are
named as follows: emotional abuse, isolation, intimidation, minimization, male privilege,
blaming, and threat. It is important to note that although the final dimension (threat) is
composed of variables with loadings ranging from .11 to .54, this dimension is retained as
its correlations with the rest of the dimensions are significant and range in magnitude from
moderate to high.
Individual Subscale Construct Validity
The empirical support for the theoretical basis of each of the factors may be assessed at
two levels. First, all the proposed variables related to a factor should be significant.
Second, the magnitude of the loadings should be at least > 0.3 (Byrne, 2010). Table 1
presents the number of variables associated with each of the 10 factors and the number of
the variables with significant loading > .3. Of the 10 factors, 7 possess strong factor load-
ings for their proposed indicators. Among 10 factors identified, only 1 factor (threat) had
fewer than 50% of its indicators with factor loading < .3. The results shown in Table 1
Table 1. Factor Analysis of Domestic Violence Assessment Instrument: Principal Axis
Factoring Extraction and Varimax Rotation
Factor loadings
Factor name Range Number of variables Number of variables with loading>.03
Economic abuse .65 to .75 7 7
Sexual abuse .33 to .77 9 9
Physical abuse .37 to .73 10 10
Emotional abuse .33 to .59 9 9
Isolation .29 to .46 9 7
Intimidation .34 to .78 7 7
Minimization .33 to .70 7 7
Male privilege .25 to .66 8 6
Blaming .24 to .66 8 6
Threat .11 to .54 6 2
922 Violence Against Women 18(8)
strongly suggest the presence of all 10 theoretical subdimensions. Yet another source of
support for the construct or theoretical validity of all 10 factors is the fact that very few of
the variables belonging to one subdimension loaded significantly on another factor. There
was only one factor, the blaming dimension, that had four of its seven indicators load
significantly on another factor. These results clearly support the presence of 10 underlying
dimensions of domestic violence as proposed by theories of coercive controlling violence.
In order to acquire a preliminary assessment of the construct validity of each of the 10
factors, principal component analysis (PCA) of variables associated with each factor was
conducted (see Table 2). PCA is a data reduction procedure that forms correlated variables
into a smaller number of uncorrelated dimensions called principal components. In this
procedure the first principal component accounts for as much of the variability in the data
as possible; the second component then accounts for as much of the remaining variability
as possible, and so on. Eigenvalues are the proportion of the total variance explained by the
component. Scores 1.0 or greater are desired, with higher scores indicating a greater
amount of variance explained. In this study, PCA results of the individual subscales
revealed one component for each of the subscales with eigenvalues ranging between 3.243
and 5.796.
Yet another method for testing the construct validity of each of the 10 factors is confir-
matory factor analysis (CFA). Given a cogeneric set of indicators, CFA provides several
measures of goodness of fit between predicted and observed correlations among the indica-
tors. The goodness-of-fit measures for each of the 10 indicators were measured. Though
several goodness-of-fit measures are available, we report three popular ones: the Goodness
of Fit Index (GFI), the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), and the Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Byrne, 2010). A good fit is suggested when GFI and
Table 2. Statistical Tests Assessing the Validity and Internal Consistency of 10 Subscales
Included in the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors and the Total Scale Score
Subscale Number of components Eigen value Cronbach’s alpha Split-half
Physical Abuse 1 4.817 .8781 .8665
Sexual Abuse 1 5.190 .9010 .8335
Emotional Abuse 1 4.929 .8833 .8324
Economic Abuse 1 4.826 .9248 .8932
Intimidation 1 3.840 .8589 .8313
Threats 1 3.243 .8004 .7874
Minimizing & Denying 1 4.025 .8554 .7591
Blaming 1 3.775 .8542 .7187
Isolation 1 5.796 .9080 .8575
Male Privilege 1 4.426 .8823 .8395
Total Scale Score NA NA .9438 .9694
Lehmann et al. 923
AGIF values are above 0.90 and RMSEA values are under .10 (Byrne, 2010). For brevity,
AMOS-generated models for each of the 10 subscales are not included in this article.
However, all 10 models have goodness-of-fit values above the desired normative level of
.90. In summary: physical abuse subscale (GFI = .957, AGFI = .928, RMSEA = .079);
sexual abuse subscale (GFI = .956, AGFI = .922, RMSEA = .081); emotional abuse sub-
scale (GFI = .969, AGFI = .944, RMSEA = .070); economic abuse subscale (GFI = .977,
AGFI = .955, RMSEA = .071); intimidation subscale (GFI = .974, AGFI = .934, RMSEA =
.088); threats subscale (GFI = .973, AGFI = .938, RMSEA = .086); minimizing and deny-
ing subscale (GFI = .970, AGFI = .931, RMSEA = .091); blaming subscale (GFI = .969,
AGFI = .920, RMSEA = .090); isolation subscale (GFI = .969, AGFI = .944, RMSEA =
.072); and male privilege (GFI = .964, AGFI = .927, RMSEA = .080). Thus the results from
confirmatory factor analysis further provide evidence in support of the construct validity of
each of the 10 factors.
Reliability of Whole Instrument and Individual Subscales
The reliability of the instrument as a whole and of individual subscales was assessed using
both Cronbach’s Alpha and Guttman’s Split-Half (see Table 2). These measures also
assess internal consistency of both total instrument and individual subscales. Cronbach’s
Alpha values range between .800-.924 for the individual subscales, with .943 for the total
instrument. Guttman’s Split-Half scores range between .718-.893 for the individual sub-
scales, with .969 for the total instrument. Based on these results, the CCB demonstrates
high level of reliability.
Table 3. Correlations Between the 10 Subscales Included in the Checklist of Controlling
Behaviors
Subscale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Physical Abuse R
Sexual Abuse R .451*
Emotional Abuse R .467* .470*
Economic Abuse R .388* .447* .604*
Intimidation R .514* .394* .592* .451*
Threats R .548* .528* .616* .594* .515*
Minimizing & Denying R .490* .521* .587* .523* .505* .560*
Blaming R .502* .458* .609* .486* .505* .527* .632*
Isolation R .541* .569* .621* .633* .524* .655* .604* .577*
Male Privilege R .480* .617* .644* .633* .496* .570* .612* .569* .697*
*p > .0001.
924 Violence Against Women 18(8)
Final Stage of Analysis
In the final stage of instrument validation, correlations (Pearson R) and percent of variance
explained (R2) were calculated to assess construct validity of the individual subscales (see
Table 3). Correlation results indicate a strong relationship between subscales with all
meeting significance at < .0001, and percent variance explained (R2) ranging from .150 to .486.
Based on these findings, an interrelationship between the subscale constructs that is con-
gruent with views of domestic violence that emphasize coercive controlling violence and
percent of variance are ascertained. Therefore, construct validity of both CCB individual
subscales and total instrument is supported.
Discussion of Usage and Conclusion
Empirical evidence of the reliability and construct validity found by the current study
indicates the CCB is a noteworthy instrument that can be used to address variables related
to coercively controlling violence in various populations. Indeed, the CCB has a number
of potential usages in both clinical and research settings. From a clinical perspective, pro-
fessionals working to end IPV can use the CCB to assess subtleties in the client’s experi-
ence, which can help them both better understand the client and provide for their treatment
needs. Additionally, although many women in violent relationships can articulate the acts
of physical and sexual violence perpetrated against them, they are not always able to iden-
tify other behaviors their partner uses to control them. By using the CCB as a teaching
tool, professionals working with IPV victims/survivors can help their clients identify the
entire structure of coercive controlling violence experienced, including the varying degree
of overt and covert acts that constitute coercive controlling violence.
The CCB may also be useful in discriminating the potential risk to women who are in
the process of seeking protective orders. Using the CCB in court settings will give judges
rendering judgments about protection an opportunity to understand the depth and range of
experiences and safety needs. Likewise, the CCB may also be used to study subtleties of
coercive controlling violence experienced by IPV victims/survivors in the research setting.
For example, the CCB may be useful in highlighting degrees of intimidation and male
privilege signaling cultural norms of behavior that are unique or dominant among groups
of survivors. In turn, the CCB can provide information useful when developing better ways
to respond sensitively to the needs women. It would seem reasonable that other possible
uses of the CCB include measurement of these variables in both clinical and non-clinical
settings, such as hospital emergency departments, mental health settings, and child protec-
tion work.
In addition to practical usage of the CCB, the current study also provides evidence for
the model of coercion articulated by Dutton and Goodman (2005). Indeed, the factors iden-
tified by development of the CCB supply additional support for conceptual and definitional
Lehmann et al. 925
development of models indicating behaviors other than physical violence are central to
understanding coercive controlling violence. These constructs may provide better explana-
tion of behaviors, outcomes, and responses to abuse that have otherwise been attributed to
violence alone. In some ways, the CCB furnishes greater clarity for expanding the host of
psychological variables that support the threats, demands, and other behaviors embedded
in IPV. Here, the authors believe the CCB best represents the invisible cage phenomenon
(Stark, 2007), those hidden dynamics that many women in abusive relationships live with
on a daily basis. From this a range of protective interventions may be identified for indi-
vidual victims/survivors. Additionally, a need to focus on coercive and controlling acts
outside the traditional definition of violence may be helpful in the counseling setting.
Further Research Is Needed
Further application of coercive control and the use of the CCB may extend to some of the
concerns inherent to discussion about heterogeneity and specific typologies of IPV offend-
ers (Lehmann & Simmons, 2009). When studying these issues the CCB could be used to
address subtleties of coercive behaviors not otherwise considered rather than relying exclu-
sively on psychiatric nomenclature. In this case, it may be possible to uncover elements of
a particular batterer typology by including a series of behaviors that are potentially danger-
ous. Indeed, expanding research with the CCB to different populations (e.g., same-sex,
dating IPV) might be an additional way of assessing whether ideas inherent to coercive
controlling violence have broader usage. However, further empirical investigation is
needed to determine whether the CCB is applicable when addressing these areas of inquiry.
Although the current study found preliminary reliability and construct validity for the
CCB, there are certain limitations. Participants do not represent the entire population of
people experiencing coercive controlling violence. The sample was not randomly selected,
was recruited from an urban area, and only included women who were in the process of
obtaining services from a family violence shelter. Therefore, further research is needed to
address reliability and validity of the CCB with samples of victims/survivors who
(a) are from rural and suburban areas, (b) have the resources to elicit services/support from
places outside the shelter environment, and (c) are not yet ready to seek services from help-
ing agencies. It is also likely CCB will be helpful for work with men IPV offenders; how-
ever, more research in this area is needed.
In spite of these limitations, the CCB is a comprehensive IPV assessment instrument
that addresses both acts of overt aggression (including physical abuse, sexual abuse and
emotional abuse) and factors related to coercive controlling violence. Specific behavioral
areas assessed by the CCB include economic abuse, intimidation, threats, minimizing and
denying, blaming, isolation, and male privilege. Statistical testing found evidence of reli-
ability and construct validity indicating the CCB is a robust instrument that can be used to
address IPV-related variables in various settings.
926 Violence Against Women 18(8)
Appendix A
Checklist of Controlling Behaviors
Instructions: For each of the statements below, please circle in the number that best
explains the abusive behavior that you or your partner may have experienced within the
relationship that has brought you here today.
Physical abuse Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
1. Threw something at me. . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
2. Pushed or grabbed me. . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
3. Pul l e d m y h a i r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
4. Cho ked m e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
5. Pinned me to the wall, floor,
bed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
6. Hit, kicked, or punched me. . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
7. Hit or tried to hit me with
som e t h i n g. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
8. Threatened me with a knife,
gun, or other weapon. . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
9. Spi t a t m e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
10. Tried to block me from
leavin g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
Sexual abuse Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
1. Physical forced me to have
sexual intercourse
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
2. Pressured me to have sex
when I said no. . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
3. Pressured or forced me into
other unwanted sexual acts
(or a l , a n a l, e t c. ). . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
4. Treated me like a sex object. . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
5. Inflicted pain on me during
sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
6. Pressured me to have sex
after a fight. . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
(continued)
The Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB) is available on the public public domain
and may be used and/or reproduced without additional permission. As a courtesy, research-
ers are encouraged to share their findings with the instrument authors.
Lehmann et al. 927
Physical abuse Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
7. Was insensitive to my sexual
nee d s . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
8. Made jokes about parts of
my b od y. . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
9. Blames me because others
found me attractive. . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
Emotional abuse Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
1. Insulted me in front of
oth e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
2. Put down my sexual
att r a c t i ve n e s s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
3. Made out I was stupid. . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
4. Criticized my care of
children or home. . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
5. Swore a t m e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
6. Told me I was crazy. . . . . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
7. Told me I was irrational. . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
8. Blamed me for his problems. . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
9. Made untrue accusations. . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
Economic abuse Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
1. Did not allow me equal
access to the family money. . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
2. Told me or acted as if it was
“his money, his house, his car,
etc .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
3. Threatened to withhold
mon ey f r o m m e . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
4. Made me ask for money for
the basic necessities. . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
5. Used my fear of not having
access to money to control
my b eh a v i o r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
6. Made me account for the
money I spent. . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
7. Tried to keep me dependant
on him for money.
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
Appendix A (continued)
Sexual abuse Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
(continued)
928 Violence Against Women 18(8)
Physical abuse Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
1. Moved toward me when he
was a n g r y. . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
2. Pounded his fists on table. . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
3. Hit t h e w a ll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
4. Smashed or broke something. --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
5. Threw or kicked something. . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
6. Used angry facial gestures. . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
7. Drove angrily or recklessly. . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
Threats to: Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
1. Hit o r k i l l m e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
2. Turns others against me. . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
3. Take the children away. . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
4. Make sure I didn’t have
mon ey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
5. Show up unexpectedly or to
always be watching me. . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
6. Come after me if I left. . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
7. Have me committed. . . . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
Minimizing/denying Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
1. Denied that he had abused
me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
2. Told me I was lying about
being abused. . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
3. Insisted that what he did was
not s o b a d . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
4. Told me to forget about what
he did and leave it in the past.
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
5. Told me that abuse was a
normal part of relationships. .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
6. Told me he couldn’t
remember hurting me. . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
7. Told me I hurt myself when I
fell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
Blaming Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
Blamed me for his abusive behavior by saying:
1. It w a s m y f a u l t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
2. I de s e r ve d i t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
3. He has to teach me a lesson. --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
4. I provoked h i m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
Appendix A (continued)
Intimidation
(continued)
Lehmann et al. 929
Physical abuse Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
5. It “takes two to tango”. . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
6. I hu r t h im f ir s t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
7. I asked/dared him to hit me. . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
Isolation Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
1. Told me I couldn’t do
som e t h i n g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
2. Forbade or stopped me from
seeing someone. . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
3. Monitored my time or made
me account for where I was.
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
4. Restricted my use of the car. --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
5. Restricted my use of the
tel e p h o n e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
6. Listened to my telephone
conversations. . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
7. Pressures me to stop
contacting my family or
fri e n d s . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
8. Made it difficult for me to get
a job or pursue a vocation.
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
9. Kept me from getting
medical attention. . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
10. Tried to turn people against
me . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
Male privilege Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
1. Demanded obedience. . . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
2. Treated me like a servant. . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
3. Treat me like an inferior. . . . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
4. Expected me to meet his
sexual needs regardless of
my n ee d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
5. Treated me like I was helpless
or i n c a p a b le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
6. Told me I couldn’t get along
wit h o u t h im . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
7. Had or demanded the final
say i n d e ci s io n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
8. Did not allow me to do the
things that he thought he had
a right to do because he was
a ma n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
9. Treated me like a servant. . . --1-- --2-- --3-- --4-- --5--
<Thank you for completing this form>
Appendix A (continued)
Blaming
930 Violence Against Women 18(8)
Appendix B
CCB Scoring Sheet
CCB Scoring Chart: To score the CCB, calculate score for each subscale and compare with
the chart below.
Reported
Score Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently
Physical Abuse Scale 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50
Sexual Abuse Scale 9 10-18 19-27 28-36 37-45
Emotional Abuse Scale 9 10-18 19-27 28-36 37-45
Economic abuse 7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35
Intimidation 7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35
Threats 7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35
Minimizing & denying 7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35
Blaming 7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35
Isolation 10 10-20 21-30 31-40 41-50
Male privilege 9 10-18 19-27 28-36 37-45
CCB Sum 82 83-164 165-246 247-328 327-410
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
Adams, A. E., Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D., & Greeson, M. R. (2008). Development of the scale
of economic abuse. Violence Against Women, 14, 563-588.
Agnew-Davies, R. (2006, June). Experience of Abuse Questionnaire (EAQ). In Society for Psy-
chotherapy Research book of abstracts: From research to practice. 37th International meet-
ing, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Babcock, J. C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottmann, J. M. (1993). Power and violence: The
relationship between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 40-50.
Brewster, M. P. (2003). Power and control dynamics in prestalking and stalking situations.
Journal of Family Violence, 18, 207-217.
Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Lehmann et al. 931
Cassidy, M. A. (1995). Power-control theory: Its potential application to women battering.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 18(2), 1-15.
Cook, S. L., & Snow, S. C. (Eds.). (2006). Special issue: Gender symmetry in domestic violence
Violence Against Women, 12(11).
Dasgupta, S. D. (2002). A framework for understanding women’s use of nonlethal violence in
intimate heterosexual relationships. Violence Against Women, 8, 1364-1389.
DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (1998). Male peer support and woman abuse in post-
secondary school courtship: Suggestions for new directions in sociological research. In R.
K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp. 83-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new
conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743-756.
Dutton, M. A., Goodman, L. A., & Schmidt, R. J. (2005). Development and validation of a coer-
cive control measure for intimate partner violence: Final technical report (US DOJ Report
No. 214438). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Ehrensaft, M. K., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Heyman, R. E., O’Leary, K. D., & Lawrence, E.
(1999). Feeling controlled in marriage, a phenomenon specific to physically aggressive
couples? Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 20-32.
French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Stud-
ies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social
Research.
Gondolf, E. W. (1995). Alcohol abuse, wife assault, and power needs. Social Service Review,
69, 274-284.
Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer intervention systems: Issues outcomes and recommendations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Graham-Kevan, N. (2007). Power and control in relationship aggression. In J. Hamel &
T. L. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence (pp. 87-108). New York:
Springer.
Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: A
test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18,
1247-1270.
Hannawa, A. F., Spitzberg, B. H., Wiering, L., & Teranishi, C. (2006). “If I can’t have you,
no one can”: Development of a Relational Entitlement and Proprietariness Scale (REPS).
Violence and Victims, 21, 539-560.
Hanrahan, D. M. (1997). Gender and spousal violence: A test of social control and power-
control theories. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 25, 189-197.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2000). A typology of men who are violent toward their female part-
ners: Making sense of the heterogeneity in husband violence. Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science, 9, 140-143.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herrron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2000). Test-
ing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000-1019.
Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J. R., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2008). Custody disputes involving alle-
gations of domestic violence: Toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans. Family
Court Review, 46, 500-522.
932 Violence Against Women 18(8)
Johnson, M. J. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of vio-
lence against women. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 57, 283-294.
Johnson. M. J. (2004). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of vio-
lence against women. In H. T. Reis & C. E. Rusbult (Eds.), Close relationships: Key read-
ings (pp. 471-482). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Johnson, M. J. (2006a). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic
violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003-1018.
Johnson, M. J. (2006b). Violence and abuse in personal relationships: Conflict, terror, and resis-
tance in intimate partnerships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of personal relationships (pp. 557-576). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, M. J. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance
and situational couple violence. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.
Johnson, M. J., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making
distinctions. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 62, 948-963.
Jones, A., & Schecter, A. (1993). When love goes wrong: What to do when you can’t do any-
thing right. New York: HarperCollins.
Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence:
Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46, 476-499.
Lehmann, P., & Simmons, C. (2009). The state of batterer intervention programs: An analytical
discussion. In P. Lehmann & C. Simmons (Eds.), Strengths-based batterer intervention: A
new paradigm in ending family violence (pp. 3-38). New York: Springer.
Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., Cohan, C. L., & Lloyd, S. E. (2004). Consequences of male
partner violence for low-income minority women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66,
472-490.
Pence, E., & Dasgupta, S. D. (2006, June). Re-examining “battering”: Are all acts of vio-
lence against intimate partners the same? Duluth, MN: Praxis International. Retrieved from
http://www.praxisinternational.org/pages/library/files/pdf/ReexaminingBattering.pdf
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1986). Power and control: Tactics of men who batter. Duluth, MN:
Minnesota Program Development.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model.
New York: Springer.
Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current
studies in social psychology (pp. 371–381). New York: Wiley.
Raven, B. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven
thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7, 217-244.
Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social
Issues, 49, 227-251.
Shepard, M. F., & Pence, E. L. (Eds.). (1999). Coordinating community responses to domestic
violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, P. H., Smith, J. B., & Earp, J. A. (1999). Beyond the measurement trap: A reconstructed
conceptualization and measurement of woman battering. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
23, 177-193.
Lehmann et al. 933
Stark, E. (2006). Commentary on Johnson’s “Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asym-
metry in domestic violence.” Violence Against Women, 12, 1019-1025.
Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Strauchler, O., McCloskey, K., Malloy, K., Sitaker, M., Grigsby, N., & Gillig, P. (2004). Humili-
ation, manipulation, and control: Evidence of centrality in domestic violence against an adult
partner. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 339-354.
Tang, C. S. (1999). Marital power and aggression in a community sample of Hong Kong
Chinese families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 586-602.
Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women
by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4, 159-177.
Umberson, D., Anderson, K., Glick, J., & Shapiro, A. (1998). Domestic violence, personal con-
trol and gender. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 442-452.
Yllo, K. A. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power, and violence. In R. J. Gelles &
D. R. Loske (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47-62). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Bios
Peter Lehmann, PhD, LCSW, is an associate professor at the University of Texas at Arlington,
School of Social Work. His research interests include PTSD research with women and children,
women’s issues, and clinical practice.
Catherine A. Simmons, PhD, LCSW, is an associate professor at the University of Memphis
Department of Social Work. Her research interests revolve around trauma and violence with a
focus on family violence, strengths based interventions, and measurement.
Vijayan K. Pillai, PhD, is a professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, School of Social
Work. His research interests include social problems, demographic techniques, social policy,
reproductive health, and quantitative methodology.
... Empirical studies suggest that coercive control comprises several facets that may be distinct from, but positively correlated with, physical violence. For example, in a factor analysis of 84 variables representing intimate partner abuse behaviors, Lehmann et al. (2012) reported that physical abuse yielded a distinct factor, with remaining factors labeled sexual abuse, economic abuse, emotional abuse, isolation, intimidation, minimization, male privilege, blaming, and threat. These factors comprised the 10 scales of the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors, in which physical abuse was strongly correlated with scores on each other scale (Lehmann et al., 2012). ...
... For example, in a factor analysis of 84 variables representing intimate partner abuse behaviors, Lehmann et al. (2012) reported that physical abuse yielded a distinct factor, with remaining factors labeled sexual abuse, economic abuse, emotional abuse, isolation, intimidation, minimization, male privilege, blaming, and threat. These factors comprised the 10 scales of the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors, in which physical abuse was strongly correlated with scores on each other scale (Lehmann et al., 2012). Walker et al. (2021) reported a confirmatory factor analysis of another self-report measure, the Controlling Behaviors Scale (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003), which has five domains: economic, threatening, intimidating, emotional, and isolating. ...
... Moreover, our definition of coercive control included threats of violence, which could be considered a form of physical violence and hence might have overinflated the observed association between coercive control and reports of physical IPV. Standard measures of coercive control include many other elements, including economic abuse, isolation, blaming, and so on (e.g., Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003;Lehmann et al., 2012), and should be used in future studies that examine the ability of coercive control to predict subsequent physical IPV. Efforts are also needed to seek consistent definitions of coercive control across the research literature. ...
Article
Full-text available
Coercive, controlling behavior toward intimate partners correlates with physical intimate partner violence (IPV). We examined whether it also predicts subsequent IPV or other aggression. We conducted a secondary analysis of self-reports by 1,039 women and 509 men who participated in the first two waves of the Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution Study (Mumford et al., 2019). We defined coercive control as any reported perpetration at Wave 1 of threat to physically harm, threat to use information to control, or put down or disrespect their partner. The participants also reported perpetration of verbal abuse and physical or sexual aggression against intimate partners. We tested correlations of these behaviors with similar acts toward nonintimates (friends or unfamiliar persons) in Wave 1 and the prediction of physical violence in Wave 2, approximately 5 months later. Coercive control (14% of men, 26% of women) was correlated with physical or sexual IPV (8% of men, 15% of women) in both women and men and with physical violence and coercive control to nonintimates. In logistic regressions entering Wave 1 physical IPV on the first step, Wave 1 coercive control was a significant independent predictor of Wave 2 physical IPV overall, and for men but not women. Coercive control did not independently predict nonintimate physical violence. Coercive control toward an intimate partner is a unique predictor of physical IPV among men. Future research should use improved measures of coercive control and further examine coercive control as an indicator of general antisociality.
... Power differentials within the relationship was measured by the Male Privilege subscale from the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB; Lehmann et al., 2012), which assessed coercive behaviors intended to gain compliance from a victim. Participants rated statements such as "Demanded obedience," "Expected me to meet his sexual needs regardless of my needs," and "Treated me like I was helpless or incapable". ...
... For this variable we used the Blaming subscale that is part of the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB; Lehmann et al., 2012) and assesses coercive behaviors intended to gain compliance from the victim. We will utilize this subscale to assess levels of self-blame in participants. ...
Thesis
This study examines the facets of trauma bonding as initially outlined by Dutton and Painter (1981) to deepen our understanding of this phenomenon. These facets include intermittent reinforcement/punishment, love dependence, self-blame, low self-esteem, power imbalance, anxious attachment, and avoidant attachment. Data were collected from 510 individuals currently in romantic relationships via the online platform Prolific. Utilizing latent profile analysis (LPA), a four-class model emerged as the best fit, delineating the following classes: (a) high anxious attachment (b) probable trauma bond, (c) no trauma bond, and (d) high intermittency. I also utilized path analysis to identify if there were significant relationships between facets of trauma bonding and various types of IPV (e.g., physical, psychological, sexual, severe). Importantly, high self-esteem and anxious attachment did not have a significant relationship with any types of IPV, while love dependence, intermittent reinforcement and punishment, self-blame, and power had a relationship with at least one form of IPV. As well These findings highlight diverse experiences of traumatic bonding within our sample, suggesting the necessity for further exploration of these facets in future research.
... We examined the representation of 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals, the measures of coercive control, and the use of intersectionality. Our definition of coercive control was guided by categories of abuse on validated self-report measures (e.g., threats, sexual abuse, emotional abuse Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2005;Lehmann et al., 2012) and by additional categories informed by current literature, including animal abuse (e.g., Cleary et al., 2021), attitudes supporting IPV (e.g., , psychological abuse (Mason et al., 2014), technological surveillance (e.g., Klest & Phillips, 2022), and gender-or sexual-identity abuse (e.g., Araya et al., 2021;Rogers, 2021). We excluded studies of physical IPV only. ...
Article
Existing measures and theories of intimate partner coercive control largely evaluate men’s coercion of women. The extent of knowledge pertaining to intimate relationships among other genders and sexual identities is unclear. Guided by a theoretical framework of intersectionality, we examined and synthesized original studies on coercive control by (perpetration) or against (victimization) Two Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual individuals within intimate partner relationships. We searched eight academic databases for records from 2014 through 2022 and hand-searched review articles’ reference lists, supplemented with gray literature and website searches. Using duplicate screening, we identified 1,774 unique documents; 526 met preliminary eligibility criteria and 277 were retained for data extraction in duplicate. Coercive control was more common among minority individuals and was related to mental health challenges. Few studies reported on gender- or sexual-identity specific forms of coercive control, and an intersectional focus was uncommon. This review revealed a lack of agreed definition of coercive control or accepted standard of measurement, and a gap in research with individuals who identify as gender diverse, gender fluid or intersex, or those identifying their sexuality as asexual, pansexual, or sexually diverse.
... LGBTQþ communities who either engaged in (perpetrated) coercive control or experienced it (victimization). To define our concept, we used a comprehensive list of coercive and controlling behaviors drawn from items on the Revised Controlling Behaviors Scale (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2005) and the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (Lehmann et al., 2012). Behaviors from these tools included economic abuse, emotional abuse, intimidation, isolation, minimizing/denying, threatening, sexual abuse, stalking/harassment, victim blaming, and entitlement. ...
Article
Full-text available
Coercive control is a form of intimate partner violence (IPV) that encompasses non‐physical behaviors used to constrain and entrap a partner. Coercive control is especially relevant to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer plus (LGBTQ+) relationships when abusers target the gender and sexual identity of their partners. Victim‐survivors, community members, and service providers often struggle to identify and intervene with this form of abuse. The role of police responding to coercive control is poorly understood, despite laws and calls to criminalize coercive control. Police responses to physical abuse in LGBTQ + relationships have caused harm, and it is important to extend this knowledge to police responses to coercive control. We conducted a systematic scoping review of international academic and gray literature sources published from 2014 through 2022 on the topic of policing coercive control within LGBTQ+ intimate relationships. We identified four interrelated policing themes across 35 sources: (1) reluctance to seek help from the police, (2) low rates of reporting abuse to police, (3) police actions following reports of IPV and coercive control, and (4) police harassment and violence increasing the experience of coercive control. Our review confirms that more research is needed on LGBTQ+ survivors of coercive control and their help‐seeking, as laws and calls to criminalize coercive control may not benefit LGBTQ+ communities.
Article
Social abuse represents a distinct form of intimate partner violence characterized by intentional violations of a victim’s social rights and inherent need to belong. This is achieved by tactics such as severing, interfering with, and surveilling the victim’s social connections as well as limiting their social participation. Such abuse often results in victims experiencing social isolation, potentially causing adverse mental health outcomes and failure to seek help. This study aimed to develop and validate the Social Abuse Scale (SAS) to measure social abuse in intimate partner relationships. After generating the preliminary items, content validity testing was performed. Ten international experts reviewed the items and assessed their relevance. Additionally, 17 interview participants assessed the items for clarity and ease of response. Thereafter, the SAS was administered to 251 individuals, either currently in or who had an intimate relationship in the previous year. The final SAS comprised 30 items unified under a single-factor structure, which accounted for approximately 69.77% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the model’s satisfactory fit. The instrument showed excellent internal consistency, as evidenced by Cronbach’s alpha and a McDonald’s omega value of .986. The SAS can be employed to investigate the prevalence of social abuse, its underlying mechanisms, and its impacts, and it can also assist in further development and evaluation of programs aimed at its prevention.
Article
Victims of controlling behaviors in intimate relationships experience situations that diminish their space for action. That is, the more victims encounter controlling behaviors by their intimate partners, the less capacity they perceive for adaption to and making choices in daily life. This study explores the relationship between controlling behaviors victimization and space for action among married women and men in China. Most important, this study also examines the role that fear plays in this relationship, which so far has been uncommon. Using data collected from a community sample of 973 married individuals (women and men) with a mean age of 45.53 from a rural area in northern China, this study found a negative correlation between controlling behaviors victimization and space for action. When controlling for the variable of victim’s fear, the relationship between controlling behaviors victimization, and space for action differs by gender. The moderation analysis showed that controlling behaviors victimization was significantly and negatively associated with space for action when the female participants reported feeling fear, whereas the effect was not significant for male participants. These findings provide empirical evidence concerning the effect of controlling behaviors on victims’ freedom in rural China, highlighting a need for greater awareness of this social problem. The findings of this study may also be used to inform the development of programs and policies to improve victims’ safety and well-being in China.
Article
This reflective account discusses a case where a patient refused a safeguarding referral after disclosing domestic abuse to a student paramedic on an MSc programme. The author examines the medical, ethical and legal evidence when determining whether the right path was taken in caring for this patient. It is argued that the care delivered was lawful and ethical but the student paramedic did not have sufficient awareness of the support options available to those experiencing domestic abuse. Their oversimplification of the dilemma to the patient having capacity to refuse referral omitted key aspects of the medico-legal framework, potentially to the detriment of the patient's care. Reflective learning has allowed the author to recognise the limits of his understanding of the complex medico-ethico-legal framework surrounding domestic abuse, consent, coercion and controlling behaviour. In response, he has established a new methodology to assess the underlying reasons for refusing a safeguarding referral.
Article
Full-text available
A. Holtzworth-Munroe and G. L. Stuart (1994) proposed that 3 subtypes (family only [FO], borderline–dysphoric [BD], and generally violent–antisocial [GVA]) would be identified using 3 descriptive dimensions (i.e., severity of marital violence, generality of violence, psychopathology) and would differ on distal and proximal correlates of violence. Maritally violent men (n = 102) and their wives were recruited from the community, as were 2 comparison groups of nonviolent couples (i.e., maritally distressed and nondistressed). Four clusters of violent men were identified. Three resembled the predicted subtypes and generally differed in the manner predicted (e.g., FO men resembled nonviolent groups; BD men scored highest on measures of dependency and jealousy; GVA men had the most involvement with delinquent peers, substance abuse, and criminal behavior; and both BD and GVA men were impulsive, accepted violence, were hostile toward women, and lacked social skills). The 4th cluster (i.e., low-level antisocial) fell between the FO and GVA clusters on many measures.
Book
Reassesses thirty years of domestic violence research and demonstrates three forms of partner violence, distinctive in their origins, effects, and treatments Domestic violence, a serious and far-reaching social problem, has generated two key debates among researchers. The first debate is about gender and domestic violence. Some scholars argue that domestic violence is primarily male-perpetrated, others that women are as violent as men in intimate relationships. Johnson's response to this debate-and the central theme of this book-is that there is more than one type of intimate partner violence. Some studies address the type of violence that is perpetrated primarily by men, while others are getting at the kind of violence that women areinvolved in as well. Because there has been no theoretical framework delineating types of domestic violence, researchers have easily misread one another's studies. The second major debate involves how many women are abused each year by their partners. Estimates range from two to six million. Johnson's response once again comes from this book's central theme. If there is more than one type of intimate partner violence, then the numbers depend on what type you're talking about. Johnson argues that domestic violence is not a unitary phenomenon. Instead, he delineates three major, dramatically different, forms of partner violence: intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. He roots the conceptual distinctions among the forms of violence in an analysis of the role of power and control in relationship violence and shows that the failure to make these basic distinctions among types of partner violence has produced a research literature that is plagued by both overgeneralizations and ostensibly contradictory findings. This volume begins the work of theorizing forms of domestic violence, a crucial first step to a better understanding of these phenomena among scholars, social scientists, policy makers, and service providers.
Article
This article argues that there are two distinct forms of couple violence taking place within families in the United States and other Western countries. A review of evidence from large-sample survey research and from qualitative and quantitative data gathered from women's shelters suggests that some families suffer from occasional outbursts of violence from either husbands or wives (common couple violence), while other families are terrorized by systematic male violence (patriarchal terrorism). It is argued that the distinction between common couple violence and patriarchal terrorism is important because it has implications for the implementation of public policy, the development of educational programs and intervention strategies, and the development of theories of interpersonal violence.
Article
Research on perpetrators of domestic violence suggests that acts of violence may result from feelings of low personal control. Research on victims suggests that domestic violence may undermine feelings of personal control. Using a national sample, we consider how domestic violence is related to personal control. We find that individuals who have initiated violence against a partner do not differ from individuals who have nonviolent relationships in feelings of personal control. However, experiencing violence at the hands of a partner has significant adverse effects on a sense of personal control for women, but not for men. This suggests that violence, even when both the man and woman participate, is more detrimental to the self-perceptions and well-being of women than of men.
Article
Power and control have often been addressed in the domestic violence literature (e.g. [Babcock, J. C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Cassidy, M. A. (1995). Ehrensaft, M. K., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Heyman, R. E., O'Leary, K. D., & Lawrence, E. (1999). Gondolf, E. W. (1995). Tang, C. S. (1999). Umberson, D. Anderson, K. Glick, J., & Shapiro, A. (1998). This exploratory study adds to the extant literature by examining the role of power and control in stalking situations and in the prior relationship between the stalker and victim. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 187 women stalked by former intimate partners. Content analysis of the interview transcripts revealed the exercise of control financially, psychologically/emotionally, socially, and physically in many of the prior relationships and stalking situations. A greater number of victims reported social and physical control than psychological, financial, and sexual control during the prior relationship. Psychological control during the stalking was reported by nearly all victims, and social control during stalking was reported by over two thirds. Fewer than half of the victims reported physical assault during the stalking, and just over a quarter reported financially controlling behaviors.