Is it coercive control? / ISO
Category 01
Isolation
The active process of disconnecting the target from friends, family, colleagues, and other sources of support so that the abuser becomes the primary or sole source for reality, belonging, and support. Isolation is not a passive side-effect of abuse. Isolation is a deliberate set of lonely-making tactics that disrupt both existence and reality.
Stark 2007, 2012; Pence & Paymar 1993; Skoog Waller & Forinder 2025; Dragiewicz et al. 2018; Woodlock 2017.
ISO-1
Restricting or punishing contact with family and friends
Demands, rules, or punishments that limit, condition, or end the target's contact with family, friends, colleagues, social structure, culture, or other sources of belonging.
ISO-2
Controlling or gatekeeping communication channels
Confiscating, destroying, taking over, or forbidding the devices, accounts, platforms, or methods the target may use to communicate with others, so independent contact becomes difficult or impossible.
ISO-3
Discrediting or sabotaging supporters
Systematic denigration, smear, or harassment of the target's friends, family, therapist, advocate, or attorney, aimed at severing trust in those relationships.
ISO-4
Restricting movement and physical access to the world
Forbidding destinations, taking transportation, or requiring permission or escorts, so independent movement depends on the abuser's approval.
Literature this family is drawn from
- Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.
- Stark, E., & Hester, M. (2019). Coercive control: Update and review. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 81-104.
- Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. Springer.
- Katz, E. (2016). Beyond the physical incident model: How children living with domestic violence are harmed by and resist regimes of coercive control. Child Abuse Review, 25(1), 46-59.
- Harris, B., & Woodlock, D. (2019). Digital coercive control: Insights from two landmark domestic violence studies. The British Journal of Criminology, 59(3), 530-550.
- ANROWS. (2021). Defining and responding to coercive control: Policy brief. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.
- Fontes, L. A. (2015). Invisible chains: Overcoming coercive control in your intimate relationship. Guilford Press.
- Crossman, K. A., Hardesty, J. L., & Raffaelli, M. (2016). “He could scare me without laying a hand on me”: Mothers’ experiences of nonviolent coercive control during marriage and after separation. Violence Against Women, 22(4), 454-473.
- Serious Crime Act 2015, s. 76 (England and Wales) (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship).
- Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018.
- Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022 (NSW), offense commencing July 1, 2024.
- Cal. Fam. Code § 6320(c), as amended by 2020 Cal. Stat. ch. 248 (SB 1141).
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-1(b) (Jennifer’s Law, 2021).
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.
Carlton, C. (2026). Is it coercive control?: ISO Isolation. Carlton Research Instruments. /codebook/iso. Last reviewed August 31, 2026.