Is it coercive control? / ISO / ISO-1

ISO-1

Restricting or punishing contact with family and friends

Definition

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.

How it operates

Forbidding calls and visits, and forcing a them-or-me choice between the abuser and a named person in the network. Indoctrinating withdrawal so the cutoff looks like the target's own decision. Abusers teach that friends and family are contaminated or dangerous until the target ends those relationships one person at a time. The accompanying message is that the target has no one else. Punishing contact after it has already occurred. Interrogation, violence, or withdrawal of resources can follow a visit, a workday, or a call. Isolating the target from work and public life, including requiring the target to stay home and intimidating people at the workplace in order to drive the network away. Blocking family after separation, including using children or a best-interests frame to stop the target seeing a relative, preventing children from seeing a parent or grandparents, and cutting children's contact with family for trivial causes.

Function

Cut the target off from social support so the abuser becomes the sole source of belonging. The people who could have received a disclosure, offered a place to go, or contradicted the abuser's account have already been forbidden, labeled dangerous, or driven away.

Harm

Progressive loss of family, friends, colleagues, and social connection. Reality-testing and help-seeking shrink to the abuser's version of events. Children lose grandparents, other households, and extracurricular life when the adult network is cut. Belonging is replaced by dependence.

Why this is coercive control

Ordinary dislike of a third party, and accurate implementation of a real no-contact order, do not end the target's social world. The conduct here ends the relationship with the third party, or makes that relationship too costly to keep.

Constructed example

Why were you texting Dana? I told you she's poison. Delete her number. I don't want you around her.

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

Erez, Adelman & Gregory 2009; Johnson 2008; Katz 2016; Pence & Paymar 1993; Spearman, Hardesty & Campbell 2023; Stark 2007, 2012; Skoog Waller & Forinder 2025.

Also in ISO

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).

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?: ISO-1. Carlton Research Instruments. /codebook/iso-1. Last reviewed August 31, 2026.