Coercive control during the transition to parenthood: An overlooked factor in intimate partner violence and family wellbeing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key criticism of research on intimate partner violence (IPV) is that a sole focus on physical or psychological acts of aggression fails to account for other forms of manipulative behavior that may have serious consequences for partner and family functioning. The current study examines coercive control, or behavior designed to constrain or compel an intimate partner in some way, in a longitudinal community sample of 98 heterosexual couples assessed in the third trimester of pregnancy as well as at 1 and 2 years postpartum. We found that the majority of couples reported at least some coercive controlling behavior during the transition to parenthood, that coercive control was highly bi-directional between partners, and that women were more likely than men to engage in coercive control before parenthood. Using multilevel actor-partner interdependence modeling, we found that women's coercive control predicted their own as well as men's perpetration of IPV across the transition to parenthood. Controlling for IPV perpetration by both partners, women's coercive control was longitudinally predictive of men's depression, harmful alcohol use, relationship dissatisfaction, poor co-parenting, low perceived parenting competence, and perceptions of toddler problem behavior. Men's coercive control was longitudinally predictive of women's relationship dissatisfaction and parenting stress, as well as women's perceptions of infant problem behavior. Men's coercive control was associated with their own use of ineffective parenting behavior. These findings suggest that coercive control is common in community samples during the transition to parenthood and that coercive control predicts lower early family functioning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".