Is it coercive control? / THR

Category 06

Threats and intimidation

Explicit or implied threats of harm to the target, children, family, pets, or the abuser's own life. Threats to kill are among the strongest predictors of lethality-type charges. Controlling behavior is present in the large majority of intimate partner homicides examined in Australian death reviews, including many cases with little prior physical violence.

Stark 2007; Hovey, Rye, Chambers & Scott 2026; Monckton Smith 2020; Boxall et al. 2022.

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.
  • Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52(11-12), 743-756.
  • Monckton Smith, J. (2020). Intimate partner femicide: Using Foucauldian analysis to track an eight stage progression to homicide. Violence Against Women, 26(11), 1267-1285.

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.

How to cite

Carlton, C. (2026). Is it coercive control?: THR Threats and intimidation. Carlton Research Instruments. /codebook/thr. Last reviewed August 31, 2026.