The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Technology facilitated coercive control: domestic violence and the competing roles of digital media platforms
Open accessAbstract
This article describes domestic violence as a key context of online misogyny, foregrounding the role of digital media in mediating, coordinating, and regulating it; and proposing an agenda for future research. Scholars and anti-violence advocates have documented the ways digital media exacerbate existing patterns of gendered violence and introduce new modes of abuse, a trend highlighted by this special issue. We propose the term “technology facilitated coercive control” (TFCC) to encompass the technological and relational aspects of patterns of abuse against intimate partners. Our definition of TFCC is grounded in the understanding of domestic violence (DV) as coercive, controlling, and profoundly contextualised in relationship dynamics, cultural norms, and structural inequality. We situate TFCC within the multiple affordances and modes of governance of digital media platforms for amplifying and ameliorating abuse. In addition to investigating TFCC, scholars are beginning to document the ways platforms can engender counter-misogynistic discourse, and are powerful actors for positive change via the regulation and governance of online abuse. Accordingly, we propose four key directions for a TFCC research agenda that recognises and asks new questions about the role of digital media platforms as both facilitators of abuse and potential partners in TFCC prevention and intervention.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship
boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x · Cited by 16,251
I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, D. (2011) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444810365313 · Cited by 4,612
The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information
Pasquale, F. (2015) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674736061 · Cited by 3,796
Gillespie, T. (2010) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444809342738 · Cited by 2,522 · cited 2×
“In policy debates, digital intermediaries like social media platforms often represent themselves as passive facilitators of communications, and use this rhetorical framing to limit their responsibility for users’ actions (Gillespie 2010).”
Background(1979) · Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) · Cited by 1,905
Personal connections in the digital age
(2016) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.194329 · Cited by 1,708
It's complicated: the social lives of networked teens
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-7042 · Cited by 1,607
Coercive Control: The Entrapment Of Women In Personal Life
Stark, E. (2007) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195154276.001.0001 · Cited by 1,502
Why Youth Heart Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life
boyd, D. (2017) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/22hq2 · Cited by 1,402
Massanari, A. (2017) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444815608807 · Cited by 1,264
Cited by
Internet, social media and online hate speech. Systematic review
Castaño-Pulgarín, S. A., Suárez-Betancur, N., Vega, L. M. T., & López, H. M. H. (2021) · Aggression and Violent Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.avb.2021.101608 · Cited by 395
Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere
Van Valkenburgh, S. P. (2021) · Men and Masculinities · doi:10.1177/1097184x18816118 · Cited by 263
Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction
Shelby, R., Rismani, S., Henne, K., Moon, A., Rostamzadeh, N., Nicholas, P., Yilla-Akbari, N., Gallegos, J., Smart, A., Garcia, E., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3600211.3604673 · Cited by 279
Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern Our Digital Lives
Suzor, N. P. (2019) · doi:10.1017/9781108666428 · Cited by 236
Self-citationUnsolicited dick pics: Erotica, exhibitionism or entitlement?
Hayes, R. M., & Dragiewicz, M. (2018) · Women's Studies International Forum · doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2018.07.001 · Cited by 96
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Dragiewicz, M., Burgess, J., Matamoros-Fernández, A., Salter, M., Suzor, N. P., Woodlock, D., & Harris, B.
- Venue
- Feminist Media Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-03-20
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 609-625
- ISSN
- 1468-0777 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-5902
- OpenAlex
- W2790749262
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 63
- FWCI
- 37.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Technology facilitated coercive control: domestic violence and the competing roles of digital media platforms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447341
- The paper
- Dragiewicz, M., Burgess, J., Matamoros-Fernández, A., Salter, M., Suzor, N. P., Woodlock, D., & Harris, B. (2018). Technology facilitated coercive control: domestic violence and the competing roles of digital media platforms. Feminist Media Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447341
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.