{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/78643"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/78643","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"What makes control coercive?","abstract":"The construct coercive control is central to making distinctions between Johnson’s (2008) types of intimate partner violence. Prior research has involved examining coercive control in conjunction with physical violence, rather than on its own. Thus, it remains unknown whether and how coercive control can be disentangled from physical violence and its effects. Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity in how to distinguish control that is coercive from control dynamics that are a part of all relationships. The present study used grounded theory methods to develop a theoretical explanation of the processes of control in intimate relationships and what makes control coercive. Data collection consisted of in-depth interviews with mothers regarding their experiences of coercive control and intimate partner violence during marriage and after separation. “Felt or experienced constraint” was the theoretical category identified as central to the process of control, but two distinct patterns were involved in producing this phenomenon. The first pattern, constraint through commitment, involved a process of being constrained by oneself or one’s partner to uphold cultural conventions of heterosexual marriage and parenting. The second pattern, constraint through force, involved a process of being controlled in a targeted and systematic way by one’s partner. Study findings reveal important variations in control processes, namely differences between control that is and is not coercive, and provide an understanding of control that is not contingent on physical violence. Increased knowledge gained from this study can inform measurement development for assessing coercive control and be applied to healthcare and legal interventions to address diverse experiences of control and violence.","abstract_html":"The construct coercive control is central to making distinctions between Johnson’s (2008) types of intimate partner violence. Prior research has involved examining coercive control in conjunction with physical violence, rather than on its own. Thus, it remains unknown whether and how coercive control can be disentangled from physical violence and its effects. Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity in how to distinguish control that is coercive from control dynamics that are a part of all relationships. The present study used grounded theory methods to develop a theoretical explanation of the processes of control in intimate relationships and what makes control coercive. Data collection consisted of in-depth interviews with mothers regarding their experiences of coercive control and intimate partner violence during marriage and after separation. “Felt or experienced constraint” was the theoretical category identified as central to the process of control, but two distinct patterns were involved in producing this phenomenon. The first pattern, constraint through commitment, involved a process of being constrained by oneself or one’s partner to uphold cultural conventions of heterosexual marriage and parenting. The second pattern, constraint through force, involved a process of being controlled in a targeted and systematic way by one’s partner. Study findings reveal important variations in control processes, namely differences between control that is and is not coercive, and provide an understanding of control that is not contingent on physical violence. Increased knowledge gained from this study can inform measurement development for assessing coercive control and be applied to healthcare and legal interventions to address diverse experiences of control and violence.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Crossman, Kimberly A"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Human & Community Development","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Hardesty, Jennifer L.","Raffaelli, Marcela","Oswald, Ramona F.","Johnson, Michael P"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-07-22T22:33:40Z","date_published":"2015-07-22T22:33:40Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:12Z","subjects":["intimate partner violence","coercive control","divorce","grounded theory"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2015 Kimberly Crossman"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/78643","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Hardesty, Jennifer L.","Raffaelli, Marcela","Oswald, Ramona F.","Johnson, Michael P"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Crossman, Kimberly A"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2015-07-22T22:33:40Z","2017-07-23T09:15:38Z","2015-05","2015-04-22","2015-5"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Human & Community Development"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["intimate partner violence","coercive control","divorce","grounded theory"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2015 Kimberly Crossman"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/78643"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["The construct coercive control is central to making distinctions between Johnson’s (2008) types of intimate partner violence. Prior research has involved examining coercive control in conjunction with physical violence, rather than on its own. Thus, it remains unknown whether and how coercive control can be disentangled from physical violence and its effects. Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity in how to distinguish control that is coercive from control dynamics that are a part of all relationships. The present study used grounded theory methods to develop a theoretical explanation of the processes of control in intimate relationships and what makes control coercive. Data collection consisted of in-depth interviews with mothers regarding their experiences of coercive control and intimate partner violence during marriage and after separation. “Felt or experienced constraint” was the theoretical category identified as central to the process of control, but two distinct patterns were involved in producing this phenomenon. The first pattern, constraint through commitment, involved a process of being constrained by oneself or one’s partner to uphold cultural conventions of heterosexual marriage and parenting. The second pattern, constraint through force, involved a process of being controlled in a targeted and systematic way by one’s partner. Study findings reveal important variations in control processes, namely differences between control that is and is not coercive, and provide an understanding of control that is not contingent on physical violence. Increased knowledge gained from this study can inform measurement development for assessing coercive control and be applied to healthcare and legal interventions to address diverse experiences of control and violence.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'U of I only', the embargo will last until 2017-05-01","The student, Kimberly Crossman, accepted the attached license on 2015-04-21 at 11:56.","The student, Kimberly Crossman, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2015-04-21 at 12:03.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2015-04-22 at 07:34.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #7985 on 2015-07-22 at 14:18:24","Made available in DSpace on 2015-07-22T22:33:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 CROSSMAN-DISSERTATION-2015.pdf: 1047076 bytes, checksum: 4be36025aa94f179c2676aad05867ba3 (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4214 bytes, checksum: a19e46aab85fb3c779f8d07a1e189402 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-04-22","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 79884 Lift date: 2017-07-22T22:34:16Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","U of I Only Restriction Lifted for Item 79884 on 2017-07-23T09:15:38Z."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["What makes control coercive?"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Hardesty, Jennifer L.","Raffaelli, Marcela","Oswald, Ramona F.","Johnson, Michael P"],"dc:creator":["Crossman, Kimberly A"],"dc:date":["2015-07-22T22:33:40Z","2017-07-23T09:15:38Z","2015-05","2015-04-22","2015-5"],"dc:description":["The construct coercive control is central to making distinctions between Johnson’s (2008) types of intimate partner violence. Prior research has involved examining coercive control in conjunction with physical violence, rather than on its own. Thus, it remains unknown whether and how coercive control can be disentangled from physical violence and its effects. Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity in how to distinguish control that is coercive from control dynamics that are a part of all relationships. The present study used grounded theory methods to develop a theoretical explanation of the processes of control in intimate relationships and what makes control coercive. Data collection consisted of in-depth interviews with mothers regarding their experiences of coercive control and intimate partner violence during marriage and after separation. “Felt or experienced constraint” was the theoretical category identified as central to the process of control, but two distinct patterns were involved in producing this phenomenon. The first pattern, constraint through commitment, involved a process of being constrained by oneself or one’s partner to uphold cultural conventions of heterosexual marriage and parenting. The second pattern, constraint through force, involved a process of being controlled in a targeted and systematic way by one’s partner. Study findings reveal important variations in control processes, namely differences between control that is and is not coercive, and provide an understanding of control that is not contingent on physical violence. Increased knowledge gained from this study can inform measurement development for assessing coercive control and be applied to healthcare and legal interventions to address diverse experiences of control and violence.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'U of I only', the embargo will last until 2017-05-01","The student, Kimberly Crossman, accepted the attached license on 2015-04-21 at 11:56.","The student, Kimberly Crossman, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2015-04-21 at 12:03.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2015-04-22 at 07:34.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #7985 on 2015-07-22 at 14:18:24","Made available in DSpace on 2015-07-22T22:33:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 CROSSMAN-DISSERTATION-2015.pdf: 1047076 bytes, checksum: 4be36025aa94f179c2676aad05867ba3 (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4214 bytes, checksum: a19e46aab85fb3c779f8d07a1e189402 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-04-22","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 79884 Lift date: 2017-07-22T22:34:16Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","U of I Only Restriction Lifted for Item 79884 on 2017-07-23T09:15:38Z."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/78643"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2015 Kimberly Crossman"],"dc:subject":["intimate partner violence","coercive control","divorce","grounded theory"],"dc:title":["What makes control coercive?"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Human & Community Development"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:12Z"}