Hardesty Jennifer L, Crossman Kimberly A, Haselschwerdt Megan L, Raffaelli Marcela, Ogolsky Brian G, Johnson Michael P
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Auburn University.
J Marriage Fam. 2015 Aug;77(4):833-843. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12201.
Coercive control is central to distinguishing between Johnson's (2008) 2 main types of intimate partner violence: (a) coercive controlling violence and (b) situational couple violence. Approaches to assessing coercive control, however, have been inconsistent. Using data from 2 projects involving divorcing mothers ( = 190), the authors compared common analytic strategies for operationalizing coercive control and classifying types of violence. The results establish advantages to measuring coercive control in terms of frequency versus number of tactics, illustrate the use of both hierarchical and -means clustering methods to identify patterns of coercive control and evaluate clustering solutions, and offer a suggested cutoff for classifying violence types in general samples of separated women using the Dominance-Isolation subscale of the widely used Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (Tolman, 1992). Finally, the authors demonstrate associations between types of violence and theoretically relevant variables, including frequency and severity of violence, harassment and violence after separation, fear, and perceived threat.
强制控制是区分约翰逊（2008年）提出的两种主要亲密伴侣暴力类型的核心：（a）强制控制暴力和（b）情境性伴侣暴力。然而，评估强制控制的方法并不一致。作者利用来自两个涉及离婚母亲（n = 190）的项目的数据，比较了将强制控制操作化和对暴力类型进行分类的常见分析策略。结果表明，从频率而非策略数量的角度衡量强制控制具有优势，说明了使用层次聚类和均值聚类方法来识别强制控制模式并评估聚类解决方案，并为使用广泛应用的《妇女心理虐待量表》（托尔曼，1992年）的支配-孤立子量表对分居女性一般样本中的暴力类型进行分类提供了建议的临界值。最后，作者证明了暴力类型与理论上相关变量之间的关联，包括暴力的频率和严重程度、分居后的骚扰和暴力、恐惧以及感知到的威胁。
