People view coercive control in relationships as less harmful when the victim is a man

A recent study published in Sex Roles suggests that the general public often underestimates the dangers of controlling relationship behaviors when the victims are men. The research provides evidence that people tend to take emotional and psychological abuse more seriously when it is directed at women, leaving men and LGBTQ+ individuals at a higher risk of being overlooked. These findings indicate that societal stereotypes continue to shape how people perceive and respond to unhealthy relationship dynamics.

Coercive control is an ongoing pattern of behavior where one person tries to dominate, isolate, or intimidate their partner. This concept goes beyond a single argument, instead describing a sustained campaign to restrict a person’s freedom and independence. Most public awareness campaigns and previous scientific studies have focused heavily on women experiencing this type of abuse from men in heterosexual relationships.

As a result of this narrow focus, scientists noticed a significant gap in understanding how society views other victims. Men and LGBTQ+ individuals also experience high rates of intimate partner violence, yet they often face unique barriers when seeking help. Certain controlling behaviors even target minority identities directly, such as a partner threatening to reveal someone’s sexual orientation to family members without their consent.

The researchers wanted to understand if the gender or sexual orientation of the people involved changes how the public views the severity of the abuse. They designed the study to test whether everyday people recognize controlling behavior when it happens to men or individuals in same-sex relationships. By exploring these attitudes, the scientists hoped to identify gaps in public knowledge and improve future support systems for all victims.

“I have been working with Dr. Susan Lagdon of Ulster University in this area since 2020. Previously, when we presented the Northern Ireland public with scenarios describing coercive control, we found that they were much more knowledgeable about obvious coercive control (e.g. making threats of violence towards the victim) than more subtle forms (e.g. encouraging the victim to dress or eat in a certain manner),” said study author Julie-Ann Jordan, a senior researcher at the IMPACT Research Centre/Forensic Managed Care Network.

Free daily newsletter

“We also found that, when asked to read scenarios describing heterosexual relationships, the public were less good at recognizing associated risks and support needs of male victims compared to female victims. Following this preliminary study, many people asked us why we didn’t look at LGBTQ+ relationships. It was pointed out that it is already well documented that in LGBTQ+ relationships specific coercive control tactics are often used such as threatening to disclose a person’s LGBTQ+ status without consent or isolating a person from the LGBTQ+ community.”

“We had originally wanted to cover a broader range of relationship types in our first study; however, due to survey running costs, we had to limit the focus to scenarios describing male and female perpetrators in heterosexual relationships. Fortunately, in 2022, we were able to get some money to run a study with a broader focus spanning attitudes towards coercive control in both heterosexual and LGBTQ+ relationships – that’s what the present study is about.”

For the study, the scientists recruited a sample of 1,872 adults living in the United States using an online survey platform. The participants had an average age of forty, and the group included slightly more men than women. The respondents were randomly assigned to read text-based scenarios describing different types of fictional couples.

These scenarios varied the gender of the victim and the perpetrator, creating four distinct relationship pairings. Participants read about a woman abused by a man, a man abused by a woman, a woman abused by a woman, or a man abused by a man. For each pairing, the participants read one scenario describing obvious coercive control and another scenario describing less obvious coercive control.

Obvious coercive control included extreme behaviors like making death threats, blocking a partner from going to work, and taking over their finances. Less obvious coercive control involved subtle manipulation, like replacing a partner’s wardrobe, ordering their meals for them, and discouraging them from speaking to certain friends. Participants in the same-sex relationship groups read an additional scenario detailing forms of abuse specific to the LGBTQ+ community, like isolating the victim from LGBTQ+ social circles.

After reading the stories, the respondents rated their agreement with ten specific statements using a five-point scale. These statements asked if the victim was in danger of physical or mental harm, and if the victim should seek outside help. They also asked participants to evaluate whether the actions constituted domestic abuse and if the behaviors should be classified as a crime. The researchers then compared the responses across the different groups to see how the demographic details of the fictional couples influenced public opinion.

The results suggest that the gender of the victim heavily influences how people view controlling behavior. When the scenarios described obvious abuse, participants showed stronger agreement that women would feel frightened and should report the behavior to the police, compared to when the victims were men.

The differences in public opinion became even wider when the scenarios described less obvious forms of control. In situations involving subtle abuse, participants were much more likely to recognize the emotional and physical dangers when the victim was a woman. When a man was the victim of subtle control, participants tended to view the behavior as more commonplace and less worthy of police intervention.

The gender of the perpetrator had a smaller effect on public opinion than the gender of the victim. People did, however, perceive a slightly higher risk of physical harm when the abuser was a man. The scientists noted that this combined effect means a man experiencing subtle abuse from a woman receives the lowest level of public concern and recognition.

“In our research, the public were less likely to think that males experiencing coercive control would be negatively affected and should seek help compared to female victims,” Jordan told PsyPost. “Yet, coercive control negatively affects people of all genders and sexual orientations – anyone can be a victim.”

When examining the sexual orientation of the survey respondents, the researchers observed that individuals identifying as LGBTQ+ expressed lower levels of concern about coercive control compared to heterosexual respondents. LGBTQ+ participants were more likely to view controlling behaviors as commonplace and less likely to view them as criminal acts.

“We were surprised and concerned that members of the LGBTQ+ community appear to be less aware of the risks associated with coercive control,” Jordan said. “This may be because public messaging campaigns have historically portrayed domestic abuse as being a ‘heterosexual’ issue. In the absence of clear information about what is appropriate in relationships, individuals from the LGBTQ+ community may have limited knowledge about what to expect in relationships and inappropriate behaviors may be ‘normalized.'”

The findings highlight that “anyone can be a victim of coercive control, this includes men and LGBTQ+ individuals,” Jordan said. “If you are concerned that you might be experiencing control yourself, or are worried that a friend or family member might be a victim of coercive control please reach out to local domestic violence support organizations for advice.”

The study does have a few limitations. Because the research relied on self-reported surveys, some participants might have altered their answers to appear more socially acceptable. Additionally, the study scenarios only featured individuals whose gender identity matched the sex they were assigned at birth.

Because gender identity and sexual orientation are complex, the scientists could not include all subgroups of the LGBTQ+ community within a single study. Future research should aim to include scenarios featuring transgender and non-binary individuals to see how the public views abuse in those specific relationships. Gathering larger samples of specific minority groups will help clarify how different communities understand and experience domestic abuse.

Moving forward, the researchers plan to use this information to create better educational resources. They are currently developing a training program designed to teach young adults about healthy relationship dynamics. By equipping young people with a better understanding of coercive control, the scientists hope to prevent future abuse and ensure all victims know how to find help.

“I am a team member on a research program led by Dr. Susan Lagdon which aims to develop a Healthy Young Adult Relationship (HYAR) educational program,” Jordan told PsyPost. “The educational program will be designed to be delivered by community organizations and include an app to reinforce weekly content, with content covering a diverse range of relationships.”

“We have already received advice from young people, parents and professionals about the content and format of this training program (MRC- PHIND; £150,000 awarded in 2022), and are in the process of applying for money to run a trial evaluating the effectiveness of the HYAR educational program. Ultimately our goal is to use HYAR to equip young people with the skills and confidence they need to have healthy relationships and avoid becoming victims of coercive control.”

The study, “Attitudes of U.S. Adults Towards Coercive Control as a Function of Victim and Perpetrator Gender and Respondent Sexual Orientation,” was authored by Julie-Ann Jordan, Niamh Hurst, Claire McCartan, Daniel McFadden, Ciaran Shannon, Kevin F. W. Dyer, and Susan Lagdon.