Is it coercive control? / HAR / HAR-6

HAR-6

Other intentional disturbance of peace

Definition

Any other form of persistent, unwanted interference that functions to disrupt the target's ordinary peace, routines, or sense of safety when the behavior does not fully meet the criteria of HAR-1 through HAR-5 but still operates as harassment within the control regime. This residual category captures multimodal or emerging tactics whose primary effect is the intentional occupation of the target's attention and environment.

How it operates

Combinations of low-level contacts across multiple channels that cumulatively produce the same disruptive effect. Novel or context-specific intrusions (for example, repeated delivery of unwanted items, contacting third parties, interference with utilities or accounts in a non-economic frame, or engineered disruptions of daily routines) when the controlling function is clear.

Function

Occupy the target's attention and environment through persistent, unwanted interference that does not fully meet HAR-1 through HAR-5.

Harm

Anticipatory tension and the collapse of ordinary peace, even when no single contact looks like flooding, smear, or physical intrusion.

Why this is coercive control

Isolated inconveniences without pattern or controlling purpose; ordinary conflicts or logistical friction that lack the intent to disturb peace as a control tactic. The conduct here occupies the target's attention and environment through persistent, unwanted interference that does not fully meet HAR-1 through HAR-5.

Constructed example

A series of small, timed interferences (unsolicited packages, account notifications triggered remotely, and brief appearance near a regular route) that together keep the target in a state of anticipatory tension.

Fictitious. Written to illustrate the behavior. Not a case.

Dragiewicz et al. 2018; Harris & Woodlock 2019; Stark 2007; Woodlock 2017.

Literature this family is drawn from

  • Harris, B., & Woodlock, D. (2019). Digital coercive control: Insights from two landmark domestic violence studies. The British Journal of Criminology, 59(3), 530-550.
  • Forensic linguistic evidence of psychological abuse and discursive manipulation in cyberstalking cases. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict (2026).

Literature map

Forums that enumerate this family

A statute that names a tactic is not a finding that the tactic is present.

Identifying a behavior described here does not establish a pattern of behavior and does not establish coercive control. A tactic is not a regime. The instrument consolidates peer-reviewed literature so a reader can check when in doubt. The instrument is not a coding manual. Carlton Research does not provide the instrument as a weapon.

© 2026 Carisa Carlton.

How to cite

Carlton, C. (2026). Is it coercive control?: HAR-6. Carlton Research Instruments. /codebook/har-6. Last reviewed August 31, 2026.