Understanding coercive control

Language matters 

It is interesting to reflect on why coercive control has become such a well-known and commonly used term in recent times. The use of this term has increased in tandem with increased awareness about family and intimate partner violence, and public discourse around consent in relationships. It is intended to capture the insidious, subtle patterns of controlling behaviour that occur in abusive relationships. 

It has also possibly become widespread because terms like ‘abuse’ or ‘violence’ don’t resonate with everybody.  This can be especially true for young people and young adults entering intimate partner relationships for the first time, people who may be in more casual relationships, or people whose experiences of abuse take place outside their home.  

But what does ‘coercive control’ actually mean? 

What is coercive control? 

Coercive control is complex, and so is the language we use to define and describe it. As a concept, coercive control can be challenging to articulate definitively, and unfortunately there is no simple, shared definition that is widely used. 

However, there are some key features of coercive control as a definition that tend to remain consistent; namely, that it encompasses a range of tactics and behaviours used by a perpetrator to instil fear in and exert control over a victim survivor. 

In the Commonwealth Government’s National Principals to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence, coercive control is described as: 

“…an underpinning dynamic of family and domestic violence. Perpetrators exert power and dominance over victim survivors using patterns of abusive behaviours over time that create fear and deny liberty and autonomy.” 

This definition aligns with Evan Stark’s 2007 seminal research on coercive control, which defines it as a ‘framework of abuse’ that erodes a victim survivor’s autonomy and agency through a range of controlling behaviours.  

What these definitions have in common is that they do not position coercive control as a standalone type of family violence. Rather, coercive control is defined as inherent to all forms of family violence.  

It is not uncommon for people to talk about coercive control as a specific and separate form of family violence, or to use the term interchangeably with emotional abuse. However, coercive control – a pattern of abusive behaviours that is used to create fear and exert power and control over someone over time – is present in all behaviours that constitute family violence (which often overlap and intersect), including: 

• Physical violence 
• Sexual violence 
• Emotional or psychological abuse, including things like threats, harassment, social isolation, extreme jealousy and gaslighting 
• Financial abuse 
• Technology-facilitated abuse 
• Systems abuse 
• Stalking and surveillance 

Recognising that coercive control is a defining feature of all family violence acknowledges how complex and insidious patterns of abuse can be, and how that feeling of fear and a loss of autonomy is ever-present for victim survivors, no matter the type of abuse they experience.  

However, there are also certain behaviours that can instil fear in a victim survivor but that may not clearly fit within common definitions of family violence. This can include things that a victim survivor might consider abusive but are hard for others to identify. For example, things as subtle as body language, a look, or a deliberately chosen word can instil fear and dread in a victim survivor if they are part of a broader pattern of controlling behaviour.  

This adds to the complexity of defining coercive control, because these things are difficult to articulate or describe on their own. But if any pattern of behaviour is designed to exert control and instil fear, it is abusive. 

A good way to think about it: coercive control is the intent behind a pattern of behaviour. You cannot have family violence without coercive control. However, you can have coercive control without family violence – for example, the coercive control experienced in cults.  

How common is coercive control? 

Again, it’s complicated. Without a universal definition of coercive control, measuring its prevalence can be challenging. 

Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ 2021-22 Personal Safety Survey (PSS) shows that one in four (27 per cent or 2.7 million) women have experienced family and domestic violence since the age of 15. As coercive control is inherent to all family violence, this means one in four women have experienced coercive control. 

Some data sources use the terms ‘emotional abuse’, ‘non-physical violence’ and ‘coercive control’ somewhat interchangeably – but these terms do not necessarily mean the same thing.  

For example, (and somewhat confusingly), the PSS definition of “partner emotional abuse” is very similar to wider definitions of coercive control: 

“… when a person is subjected to behaviours that are aimed at preventing or controlling their behaviour, causing them emotional harm or fear. These behaviours are characterised in nature by their intent to manipulate, control, isolate or intimidate the person they are aimed at. They are generally repeated behaviours and include psychological, social, financial and verbal abuse.” 

While this definition reads like those earlier definitions of coercive control (which is inherent to all family violence), it is defined in the PSS as emotional abuse, with data showing 23 per cent (2.3 million) of women have experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner.  

The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network found that, of the 212 male perpetrators who killed their current or former partner between 2010 and 2018: 

• 82 per cent (173) displayed emotionally and psychologically abusive behaviours against the female partners they killed – behaviours designed to frighten, belittle, humiliate, unsettle and undermine a victim’s sense of self-worth. 
• 63 per cent (134) had perpetrated social abuse, isolating the victim from support networks and controlling her movements. 
• 48 per cent (88) had stalked the woman they killed. 
• 27 per cent (58) used economically or financially abusive tactics. 

This data further highlights the insidious nature of coercive control in a family violence context and serves as a stark reminder of how dangerous these behaviours are. 

Coercive control and the law 

Over the last few years, there has been an increase in calls to criminalise coercive control – that is, to make perpetrating these behaviours a standalone crime. At present, legislative responses to coercive control differ between states and territories (as do legal definitions of coercive control). Here in Victoria, plans to introduce a standalone offence for coercive control were announced in December 2025.  

In consultation with specialist family violence services and victim survivors, and following a review of contemporary research and data across all last year, Safe and Equal has published an updated position paper on the criminalisation of coercive control in Victoria.  

The paper outlines Safe and Equal’s stance against the creation of a standalone coercive control offence in Victoria, due to limited evidence this will improve victim survivor safety and perpetrator accountability. Instead, we are calling for a whole-of-system response that doesn’t rely solely on justice systems – one that strengthens prevention, early intervention, specialist services and community-led responses. 

In addition, Safe and Equal are working with the Victorian Government to ensure that any legislative changes will minimise harm and prioritise the safety and wellbeing of all victim survivors.  

Read the full position paper here. 

 

This article was written by Melanie Scammell, Media and Communications Advisor at Safe and Equal.