Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clarifying the Complex Roles of Power and Control in Advancing Theories of Intimate Partner Violence

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Interpersonal Violence and Abuse Across the Lifespan

  • 102 Accesses

Abstract

Power and control have always been central concepts to understanding intimate partner violence (IPV) and are important factors across many theories of intimate partner violence. However, both power and control are difficult concepts to define, measure, and distinguish from each other. Several new conceptual frameworks of power, control, and IPV are emerging that offer more detailed definitions of power and control, allowing for additional testable hypotheses. These new theoretical ideas are still in early development with limited support, but they are a step toward broadening our understanding of the role of power and control in intimate partner violence. This chapter will review the various historical theoretical explanations of IPV related to power and control. Next, it will present emerging IPV theories that are working to clearly delineate power and control in definition and measurement and to be able to develop testable hypotheses about the causal pathway between power, control, and IPV. This is important because the notion that IPV is about power and control underscores most batterer intervention programs and current educational awareness curricula.

This chapter was initially published with an incorrect copyright holder name. It has been corrected to © Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, K. L. (2008). Is partner violence worse in the context of control? Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1157–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00557x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80, 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, J. C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Power and violence: The relation between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugental, D. B., & Lewis, J. C. (1999). The paradoxical misuse of power by those who see themselves as powerless: How does it happen? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cascardi, M., & Vivian, D. (1995). Context for specific episodes of marital violence: Gender and severity of violence differences. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 215–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, D. H., & Straus, M. A. (1986). Marital power, conflict, and violence in a nationally representative sample of American couples. Violence and Victims, 1, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.1.2.141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. L., & Goodman, L. A. (2006). Beyond frequency and severity: Development and validation of the brief coercion and conflict scales. Violence Against Women, 12, 1050–1072. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206293333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, R. E., & Olson, D. H. (1975). Power in families. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, C. I., & Dye, M. L. (2003). The cognitive characteristics of martially violent men: Theory and evidence. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 139–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrensaft, M. K., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Heyman, R. E., O’Leary, K. D., & Lawrence, E. (1999). Feeling controlled in marriage: A phenomenon specific to physically aggressive couples? Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.13.1.20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery, C. (2011). Disorder of deviant order? Re-theorizing domestic violence in terms of order, power, legitimacy: A typology. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 525–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R. G., Helff, C. M., & Laughlin, J. E. (2002). A model for predicting dating violence: Anxious attachment, angry temperament, and need for relationship control. Violence and Victims, 17, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.17.1.35.33639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The basis of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies of Social Power (pp.118–149). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Whitson, J. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganley, A. (1989). Integrating feminist and social learning analyses of aggression: Creating multiple models of intervention with men who batter. In L. K. Hamberger & P. L. Caesar (Eds.), Treating men who batter: Theory, practice and programs (pp. 196–235). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelles, R. J. (1974). The violent home: A study of physical aggression between husbands and wives. Newbury Park: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelles, R., & Cavanaugh, M. M. (2005). Association is not causation: Alcohol and other drugs do not cause violence. In D. R. Loseke, R. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (2nd ed., pp. 175–189). Newbury Park: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gray-Little, B., & Burks, N. (1983). Power and satisfaction in marriage: A review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 513–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grose, R. G., & Grabe, S. (2014). The explanatory role of relationship power and control in domestic violence against women in Nicaragua: A feminist psychology analysis. Violence Against Women, 20, 972–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214546231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Tolin, D., & Bonge, D. (1997). An empirical classification of motivations for domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 3, 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801297003004005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamberger, L. K., Larsen, S. E., & Lehrner, A. (2017). Coercive control in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardesty, J. L., Crossman, K. A., Haselschwerdt, M. I., Raffaelli, M., Ogolsky, B. G., & Johnson, M. P. (2015). Toward a standardized approach to operationalizing coercive control and classifying violence types. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 833–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heer, D. M. (1963). The measurement and bases of family power: An overview. Marriage and Family Living, 25, 133–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2000). A typology of men who are violent toward their female partner: Making sense of the heterogeneity in husband violence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 140–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, G., & Vung, D. V. (2009). The role of controlling behavior in intimate partner violence and its health effects: A population based study from rural Vietnam. BMC Public Health, 9, 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loveland, J. E., & Raghavan, C. (2017). Coercive control, physical violence, and masculinity. Violence and Gender, 4, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2016.0019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maiuro, R., & Eberle, J. (2008). State standards for domestic violence perpetrator treatment: Current status, trends and recommendations. Violence and Victims, 23, 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.2.133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malik, N. M., & Lindahl, K. M. (1998). Aggression and domestic violence: The roles of power and culture in domestic violence. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 409–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. D., Panuizo, J., Makin-Byrd, K. N., Taft, C. T., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2011). A multi-level examination of interpartner intimate partner violence and psychological aggression reporting concordance. Behavior Therapy, 42, 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & White, N. A. (2003). Gender and adolescent relationship violence: A contextual examination. Criminology, 41, 1207–1248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb01018.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., & Caspi, A. (2001). A couples analysis of partner abuse with implications for abuse prevention policy. Criminology, 1, 5–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S. L., Rose, P., Holms, J. G., Derrick, J., Podchaski, E. J., Bellavia, G., & Griffin, D. W. (2005). Putting the partner within reach: A dyadic perspective on felt security in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, C. M., & Meyer, S. L. (1991). Gender, power, and violence in marriage. The Behavior Therapist, 14, 95–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myhill, A. (2015). Measuring coercive control: What can we learn from national population surveys? Violence Against Women, 21, 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214568032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 549–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitz, R. R. (1999). Batterers’ experiences of being violent. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, A., & Leisring, P. A. (2003). Beyond power and control: Towards an understanding of partner abusive men. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women’s movement. Boston: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (2006). Commentary on Johnson’s “conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence”. Violence Against Women, 12, 1019–1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206293329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women. In personal life. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E., & Hester, M. (2018). Coercive control: Update and review. Violence Against Women, 25, 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780121881691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (1971). Some social antecedents of physical punishment: A linkage theory interpretation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 658–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). How violent are American families? Estimates from the National Family Violence Survey and other studies. In M. Straus & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptation to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 95–112). New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanha, M., Beck, C. J. A., Figueredo, J., & Raghavan, C. (2010). Sex differences in intimate partner violence and the use of coercive control as a motivational factor for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1836–1854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagers, S. M. (2012). Deconstructing the power and control motive: Developing and assessing the measure of internal power (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4248/.

  • Wagers, S. M. (2015). Deconstructing the “power and control motive”: Moving beyond a unidimensional view of power in domestic violence theory. Partner Abuse, 6(2), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.6.2.230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagers, S. M., Wareham, J., & Sellers, C. S. (2019). Testing the validity of an internal power theory of interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519834092.

  • Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (trans: Henderson, A. M., & Parsons, T.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Websdale, N. (2010). Familicidal hearts: The. Emotional styles of 211 killers. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL, USA

    Shelly M. Wagers

  2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    L. Kevin Hamberger

  3. School of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA

    Christine S. Sellers

Authors
  1. Shelly M. Wagers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Kevin Hamberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christine S. Sellers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shelly M. Wagers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, Alliant International University, San Diego, CA, USA

    Robert Geffner

  2. School of Health and Human Sciences, University of North Carolina at Greensbo, Greensboro, NC, USA

    Jacquelyn W. White

  3. Dept of Family and Community Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    L. Kevin Hamberger

  4. Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA

    Alan Rosenbaum

  5. Ethelyn R. Strong School of Social Work, Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Viola Vaughan-Eden

  6. Education and Research, Zero Abuse Project, St. Paul, MN, USA

    Victor I. Vieth

Section Editor information

  1. Department of Psychological Sciences, University of North-Carolina Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling

  2. Consultant, Alexandria, VA, USA

    Glenna Tinney

  3. College of Arts and Sciences - Society, Culture, and Language, University of South Florida - St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA

    Shelly M. Wagers

  4. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    L. Kevin Hamberger

  5. Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA

    Alan Rosenbaum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Wagers, S.M., Hamberger, L.K., Sellers, C.S. (2020). Clarifying the Complex Roles of Power and Control in Advancing Theories of Intimate Partner Violence. In: Geffner, R., White, J.W., Hamberger, L.K., Rosenbaum, A., Vaughan-Eden, V., Vieth, V.I. (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Violence and Abuse Across the Lifespan. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62122-7_141-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62122-7_141-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62122-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62122-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation