CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 184Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceStalking, Cyberstalking, and HarassmentElder Abuse and Neglect

Prevalence of Partner Abuse: Rates of Emotional Abuse and Control

Carney, Michelle Mohr, Barner, John R.·2012·Partner Abuse
DOI 10.1891/1946-6560.3.3.286
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Partner abuse research over the past two decades has divided violent, threatening, or abusive phenomena into discrete areas of interest to researchers that, although distinct, are still broadly defined under the common category of “domestic abuse” or, more recently, intimate partner violence (IPV). Thus, any concerted attempt to typify the various substrata of IPV research must recognize the distinct features of each area regarding their component parts (i.e., behavioral or psychological sequelae, incidence and prevalence, and social or interpersonal context) while maintaining the overarching categorical commonality as variants of IPV. This article constitutes a contemporaneous and systematic review of the research on three aspects of controlling coercive violence (CCV): emotional abuse, sexual coercion, and stalking or obsessive behavior, along with a separate examination of when these IPV substrata are combined with physical assaults on intimate partners. Each CCV substrata is operationally defined in research terms common to the social science research, and tabular and narrative data is provided on the incidence and prevalence of each substrata and the combined category. Notable findings derived from this review are reported for each of the three aspects of CCV. For emotional abuse, prevalence rates might average around 80%, with 40% of women and 32% of men reporting expressive aggression (i.e., verbal abuse or emotional violence in response to some agitating or aggravating circumstance) and 41% of women and 43% of men reporting some form of coercive control. For sexual coercion, national samples demonstrated the widest disparity by gender of victim, with 0.2% of men and 4.5% of women endorsing forced sexual intercourse by a partner. By far, the largest selection of highly variable studies, stalking and obsessive behaviors showed a range from 4.1% to 8.0% of women and 0.5% to 2.0% of men in the United States have been stalked at some time in their life. Women were reported as having a significantly higher prevalence (7%) of stalking victimization than men (2%). For all types of violence, except being followed in a way that frightened them, strangers were the most common perpetrators; as reported in approximately 80% of cases, women were most often victimized by men they knew, most frequently, their current or former intimate partners. Among women who reported repeated unwanted contact, current (15.9%) and former (32.9%) intimate partners were the perpetrators in nearly half of the most recent incidents and the largest subdivision of reports came from college or university student samples. A separate examination reports of these types of IPV combined with physical assaults on intimate partners reported the strongest link was between stalking and other forms of violence in intimate relationships: 81% of women who were stalked by a current or former husband or cohabiting partner were also physically assaulted by that partner and 31% reported being sexually assaulted by that partner. Of the types of IPV reported on, most forms of violence that show the highest rates of reportage come from large national samples, with smaller samples showing increased variability. This article concludes with a brief section delineating conclusions that can be drawn from the review and the potential implications for research, practice, and IPV scholarship.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1891/1946-6560.3.3.286

Cites

219 of 219 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 220 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Carney, M. M., & Barner, J. R.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
ORCID
Carney, Michelle Mohr
Venue
Partner Abuse
Publisher
Springer Publishing Company
Published
2012
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
286-335
ISSN
  • 1946-6560 (ISSN-L)
  • 1946-6579
DOI
10.1891/1946-6560.3.3.286
OpenAlex
W2001976555
Cited by
184
References
220
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Partner Abuse (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
Keywords
intimate partner violence, emotional abuse, coercive control, sexual coercion, stalking, obsessive behavior, stalking victimization, prevalence, gender differences, physical assault, university students, perpetrators

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