Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Coercive control in intimate partner violence

Coercive control in intimate partner violence:
What role does coercive control play in intimate partner violence?

Overview

Figure 1: Coercive control is an ongoing pattern of behaviour used to dominate another. Consider this scenario Suzie began dating Daniel 18 months ago. At first, Daniel was attentive, but over time he became controlling. He questioned her clothes, her friendships, and the amount of time she spent alone. He expressed his concern as care. In response, Suzie distanced herself from friends and family to avoid conflict. Daniel began to check her phone and track her location. Daniel never inflicted physical harm on Suzie. However, his emotional manipulation and constant surveillance evoked fear and anxiety. Suzie worried about Daniel's behaviour if she were to leave, but she no longer trusted her own judgement. Suzie’s experience reflects coercive control, characterised by domination through emotional manipulation and surveillance (see Figure 1).

This chapter examines coercive control within the broader context of intimate partner violence. It explores the key psychological theories and the effects on victims and what motivates perpetrators. Coercive control is a form of behaviour that seeks to dominate and oppress another person. It often happens in intimate or domestic relationships (Mathews et al., 2025). It involves a range of tactics, including manipulation, surveillance, and threats. Behaviours include humiliation, economic restriction, and social isolation (Stubbs et al., 2021). Coercive control is often difficult for victims and bystanders to recognise (Kassing & Collins, 2025).

Focus questions What is coercive control? What are some of the behaviours commonly used to exert coercive control? What relationship dynamics does coercive control occur in? What are the psychological impacts of coercive control on victims? What are the psychological motivations behind perpetrators of coercive control?

Understanding intimate partner violence and coercive control

Intimate partner violence (IPV) and coercive control are significant public health concerns, associated with long-term health consequences for victims and survivors (Brandt & Rudden, 2020). This section examines IPV and coercive control, focusing on their dynamics, the behaviours involved, and the experiences of victims.

What is intimate partner violence?

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is when a current or former partner causes intentional harm. This harm can be physical, sexual, or psychological. Behaviours can include aggression, coercion, emotional and verbal abuse (Mathews et al., 2025). IPV affects women in greater numbers, and it is the leading cause of femicide (Stubbs et al., 2021). Worldwide, one in three women experiences physical or sexual violence from a partner (World Health Organization, 2024).

IPV has serious effects beyond immediate injuries. It can lead to mental health issues, substance abuse, and suicidal behaviour. It can cause long-term health issues like diabetes, hypertension, and chronic pain (Stubbs et al., 2021). IPV affects children both directly and indirectly, through exposure in their homes (Dichter et al., 2018). The resulting emotional, behavioural, and physical impacts can persist into adulthood. IPV can potentially create a cycle of harm that spans across generations (Stubbs et al., 2021).

What is coercive control?

Figure 2: Coercive control is a pattern of ongoing behaviours that aim to entrap and dominate the victim.

Coercive control is a repeated pattern of actions that dominate and intimidate (Brandt & Rudden, 2020). Abusers exert control by isolating their victims, gradually undermining their autonomy through domination of everyday life (see Figure 2). This is a pattern referred to as “intimate terrorism" (Dichter et al., 2018). Research shows that women are more affected, and most identified perpetrators are men (Simic, 2025). Coercive control extends beyond romantic relationships. It can happen in families, impacting children (Dichter et al., 2018).

Feminist scholars first identified coercive control in the 1970s and 1980s. They described how abusers made victims feel like hostages in their own homes (Dobash & Dobash, 1979, as cited in Kassing & Collins, 2025). Sociologist Evan Stark’s research highlighted the prevalence of controlling behaviours within intimate partner relationships. He noted that even without physical violence, it can still be a form of abuse (Simic, 2025). Coercive control can extend after the relationship ends, with ngoing threats or intimidation maintain fear and control over the victim's life (Brandt & Rudden, 2020).

Coercive control is now criminalised in many places around the world (Simic, 2025). Coercive control was criminalised in England and Wales in 2015, in Scotland in 2019, and in Ireland in 2019 (Walklate & Fitz-Gibbon, 2019). In Australia, New South Wales criminalised coercive control from July, 2024, and Queensland followed with laws taking effect from May, 2025 (Walklate & Fitz-Gibbon, 2019). Other regions, such as Tasmania, enacted related emotional and economic abuse offences in 2004 (Walklate & Fitz-Gibbon, 2019) .

Behaviours of coercive control

The signs of coercive control are often complex, subtle, and less visible than those of physical abuse. Unlike physical violence, coercive control leaves no bruises or injuries (Brandt & Rudden, 2020). These behaviours are often concealed within everyday interactions, framed as expressions of care or concern (Lohmann et al., 2024). Consequently, acts of coercive control frequently go unnoticed or may not be recognised as abusive by family, friends, or the victim (Kassing & Collins, 2025). Coercive control behaviours are not always illegal, however, they are often tailored to avoid detection, as seen in Table 1 (Lohmann et al., 2024):

Table 1. Behaviours that can be used in coercive control.

Type of behaviour	Behaviours presentation
Controlling behaviours	Controlling an individual's everyday life, this can include dictating what they wear, eat, who they see, and where they go.
Isolation	Restricting an individual’s ability to leave the home to attend work, social events, or other activities.
Monitoring & surveillance	Constantly monitoring a person's whereabouts, all communication, or activities.
Financial abuse	Limiting an individual’s access to money or financial resources.
Threats and intimidation tactics	Using threats of violence, harm against the individual, their loved ones (including children and pets), or belongings to evoke fear and/or maintain control.
Manipulating and gaslighting	Undermining the victim’s sense of reality, making them doubt their perceptions or memories.
Emotional abuse	Repetitive belittling, humiliation, or criticism damaging their self-esteem.
Sexual coercion	Pressuring or forcing another into sexual acts without their consent.

Coercive control in different intimate partner dynamics

Coercive control often gets attention in heterosexual relationships. However, it also happens in LGBTQIA+ relationships and to people with disabilities. This section examines different contexts and demonstrates how coercive control manifests in each.

LGBTQIA+ relationships and coercive control

Figure 3: Identity abuse involves manipulating someone by exploiting their personal identity.

Coercive control also occurs in LGBTQIA+ relationships, with prevalence comparable to that in heterosexual relationships (Hilton et al., 2024). In these contexts, abuse often takes unique forms known as identity-based abuse (see Figure 3). Perpetrators target a partner’s sexual or gender identity through tactics such as outing, misgendering, or restricting access to gender-affirming care (Jennings-FitzGerald et al., 2024; Hilton et al., 2024).

Research indicates that bisexual and transgender individuals experience higher rates of IPV. When compounded by societal homophobia and transphobia, intensifies harm and creates additional barriers to seeking support (MacDonald et al., 2024). LGBTQIA+ survivors also face distinct obstacles to safety. They may fear discrimination from support services, encounter limited availability of affirming resources, and encounter community stigma. These barriers can reinforce cycles of silence and marginalisation (MacDonald et al., 2024).

Individuals with a disability and coercive control

Figure 4: Women with disabilities are at risk of additional forms of abuse.

Individuals with disabilities face a significantly higher risk of coercive control (Healy, 2013). Research shows that about one in three women with disabilities has experienced abuse from an intimate partner (Brownridge, 2006, as cited in Healy, 2013). Individuals with disabilities may experience specific forms of abuse, such as being denied or forced to take medication, having access to disability-related supports restricted, or expereince reproductive coercion (see Figure 4) (Dowse et al, 2013 as cited in Healy, 2013).

Perpetrators can exploit individuals with disabilities dependence on caregivers and support services to maintain control (Healy, 2013). Access to safety resources is often limited by physical barriers and a shortage of specialised support services (Healy, 2013). Abuse of individuals with a disability tends to be more frequent. The abuse occurs in diverse settings, including institutions and residential homes (Frohmader & Cadwallader, 2014, as cited in Healy, 2013).

Learning Checkpoint 1 1 Controlling someone’s access to money is a type of financial coercive control:: True False 2 Victims of coercive control often recognise the abuse immediately: True False 3 Coercive control does not occur exclusively in heterosexual relationships: True False

Psychological impact on victims/survivors

A common stigma for victims of IPV, especially coercive control, is the question: “Why don’t they leave?". However, leaving a coercively controlling relationship can be extremely difficult. This section examines the psychological impacts of coercive control on victims.

Complex post traumatic stress disorder

Figure 5: Victims of coercive control can suffer from CPTSD.

Victims of coercive control often experience trauma. Trauma can be understood as an individual’s psychosocial response to violence. Survivors of coercive control often experience prolonged terror (Lohmann, 2024). This can lead to complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) (see Figure 5) (Pill et al., 2017, as cited in Lohmann, 2024). CPTSD differs from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD commonly arises after a single traumatic event or a brief period of trauma. It is characterised by symptoms such as re-experiencing the trauma, avoidance, and hyperarousal (Hulley et al., 2022). CPTSD encompasses additional difficulties, including challenges in emotional regulation, a negative self-concept, and ongoing relational disturbances (Lohmann, 2024).

Research by Kennedy et al. (2018, as cited in Lohmann, 2024) indicates that the risk of developing CPTSD among victims of coercive control is particularly high. A meta-analysis of 45 studies on psychological abuse linked to coercive control found a significant, moderate positive relationship with CPTSD (Lohmann, 2024). This highlights the urgent need for trauma-informed psychological help designed for the unique consequences of coercive control.

Learned helplessness

Figure 6: The cycle of coercive control can leave individuals feeling helpless and trapped.

Victims of coercive control often develop learned helplessness and experience low self-esteem due to prolonged abuse (Aguilar & Nightingale, 1994, as cited in Iftikhar et al., 2025). Learned helplessness is a psychological state where individuals feel unable to change their circumstances (see Figure 6). In the context of coercive control, this happens as perpetrators systematically undermine the autonomy of victims (Iftikhar et al., 2025). As feelings of helplessness increase, victims’ self-esteem typically declines (Jones et al., as cited in Iftikhar et al., 2025).

Dutton’s Learning Model (1993) shows that when victims can't stop the violence or change the abuser, they often accept the situation and stay. This reinforces feelings of helplessness and entrapment (Iftikhar et al., 2025). The cyclical nature of coercive control is marked by alternating tension, violence, and “honeymoon phases”. This pattern strengthens emotional bonds to the abuser and deepens the sense of being trapped (Iftikhar et al., 2025). Over time, victims internalise blame for the abuse. This psychological entrapment highlights the powerful barriers that keep victims bound to abusive dynamics.

Figure 7: Learned helplessness develops over time as individuals self-esteem decreases. Case Study 2 Sarah, a 32-year-old woman, has been in a relationship with Mark for seven years. Mark dictates her social interactions, finances, and daily routines. Whenever Sarah tries to assert independence or challenge Mark's decisions, he belittles her. Gradually, Sarah has internalised the belief that nothing she does could change her situation (see Figure 7). She has stopped making decisions for herself and has become increasingly passive. When friends offer support or encourage her to leave, Sarah doubts her ability to cope alone. Sarah's psychological state illustrates the intersection of coercive control and learned helplessness. This case study highlights the profound impacts of sustained emotional abuse that can occur with coercive control.

Feminist theory

Figure 8: Feminist theory suggests that systemic power imbalances in society often restrict women’s opportunities and influence.

Feminist theory views coercive control as part of the broader issue of systemic gender inequality, which is embedded within social structures (Brown, 1991, as cited in Kassing & Collins, 2025). It frames coercive control not as mere personal conflict, but as stemming from larger power imbalances. In these imbalances, men have historically held more authority in relationships. At the same time, women occupy less powerful positions (Anderson, 2009, as cited in Kassing  & Collins, 2025). Cultural expectations of masculinity reinforce men’s dominance. It limits women’s autonomy, both within the home and in broader society (Herman, 2015, as cited in Rakovec-Felser, 2014).

Feminist theory highlights that male power in families is maintained through control of women, children, and other members (Herman, 2015, as cited in Kassing & Collins, 2025). This creates an environment where abuse and coercion are normalised, and behaviours are perpetuated across generations (Rakovec-Felser, 2014). This can foster conditions in which coercive control and IPV frequently occur (Herman, 2015, as cited in Kassing & Collins, 2025). Consequently, feminist theory conceptualises coercive control as a strategy for maintaining male dominance, restricting women’s freedom, and reinforcing unequal gender roles.

Psychological drivers of perpetrators

Several psychological theories attempt to explain why certain perpetrators use coercive control in intimate relationships. In this section, we will focus on three: Social learning theory, attachment theory, and emotion regulation.

Social learning theory

Figure 9: Social Learning Theory suggests that behaviour is learned through observing and imitating others.

Social learning theory explains how perpetrators acquire coercive and controlling behaviours. It highlights the role of observation in developing these behaviours (Bandura, 1977, as cited in Copp et al., 2020). Social learning theory posits that perpetrators learn coercive and controlling behaviours through observing and imitating others (see Figure 8). Parents and family members are significant role models who strongly influence children's behaviours (Copp et al., 2020). Children who see domestic violence are more likely to show aggressive or controlling behaviour in future relationships (Bandura, 1977, as cited in Copp et al., 2020). This exposure contributes to the intergenerational transmission of violent behaviours.

Additionally, individuals who have experienced abuse can develop distorted beliefs about power and control. Dominance through fear and aggression can be internalised as acceptable forms of social interaction (Lichter & McCloskey, 2004, as cited in Copp et al., 2020). This is reinforced if the actions appear to be rewarded to go unpunished (Copp et al., 2020). This learning pathway shows how patterns of coercive control continue in families. It helps explain the cycle of abuse that can last for generations.

Attachment theory

Attachment theory examines the bond between children and their caregivers. This bond plays a significant role in shaping self-concept and future relationship patterns (Bowlby, 1969/1982, as cited in Dichter et al., 2018). Research shows that insecure attachment styles, especially anxious and fearful avoidant, are more common in male perpetrators of coercive control (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016, as cited in Arseneault et al., 2023).

Anxiously attached individuals often fear abandonment, seek excessive reassurance, and are highly sensitive to rejection. They may appear dependent or clingy and frequently struggle to regulate intense emotions (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016, as cited in Arseneault et al., 2023). In coercive relationships, fears can manifest as controlling behaviours. This includes constant monitoring or limiting a partner’s social contacts (Spencer et al., 2021, as cited in Arseneault et al., 2023)

By contrast, those with fearful-avoidant attachment value independence, often avoiding intimacy and suppressing their emotions (Allison, 2008, as cited in Arseneault et al., 2023). These perpetrators may switch between being withdrawn to aggressive. These behaviours do not foster genuine connection; rather they serve as unhealthy ways to lower anxiety, avoid humiliation, and assert control (Bonache et al., 2019, as cited in Arseneault et al., 2023).

Figure 10: Childhood attachment shapes self-concept and influences future relationship patterns. Case Study 3: Growing up, John frequently witnessed his father being abusive toward his mother. The violence often escalated when his father had been drinking. This trauma resulted in his parents being emotionally unavailable. John developed an anxious-attachment style, characterised by hypervigilance in his close relationships. John’s unresolved childhood trauma manifests in controlling behaviours (see Figure 10). He scrutinises his partner Sam's daily movements and he accuses Sam of being unfaithful. These behaviours are driven by a fear-based need to maintain proximity and control. It is an unconscious strategy to prevent John’s perceived threat of abandonment.

Emotional regulation

Figure 11: Difficulties regulating strong negative emotions may result in the use of coercive behaviours.

Perpetrators of coercive control often struggle to manage their emotions. This difficulty can contribute to them using controlling behaviours. A meta-analysis showed that struggles with negative emotions like anger, fear, and anxiety raise the chances of impulsive and harmful reactions (see Figure 11) (Gross, 1998, as cited in Maloney et al., 2023). The study found that perpetrators may use coercive tactics as maladaptive strategies to regain perceived control. Perpetrators often show traits like poor anger control, alexithymia, and impulsivity (Maloney et al., 2023). These traits can hinder a perpetrator’s ability to manage their distress effectively (Gratz & Roemer, 2004, as cited in Maloney et al., 2023).

Theoretical models consider emotion dysregulation an “impelling factor" that increases the likelihood of aggression in perpetrators when provoked (Birkley & Eckhardt, 2015, as cited in Maloney et al., 2023). In contrast, effective emotion regulation skills can inhibit such behaviour. For example, a perpetrator might interpret a partner’s late arrival as rejection. Lacking emotional regulation, they may respond by monitoring their partner's movements. Such behaviour will help them to moderate their feelings of vulnerability (Maloney et al., 2023).

Learning Checkpoint 2 1 Victims / survivors of coercive can experience CPTSD: True False 2 Victim / survivors always blame the perpetrators for the abuse they endure: True False 3 Perpetrators of coercive control can struggle with negative emotions like anger, fear, and anxiety: True False

Conclusion

This chapter explored how IPV is defined as abuse that includes physical, sexual, and psychological harm, occurring in intimate relationships (Mathews et al., 2025). Coercive control is understood as a repeated pattern of dominating and intimidating behaviours. Coercive control includes actions such as isolation, surveillance and economic restriction (Lohmann et al., 2024). Understanding these dynamics is vital for recognising forms of abuse that extend beyond physical violence (Brandt & Rudden, 2020). Legal systems in many countries have now moved towards criminalising coercive control (Simic, 2025).

The chapter explored how coercive control manifests in diverse relationship contexts. These include heterosexual, LGBTQIA+, and relationships involving individuals with disabilities (Jennings-FitzGerald et al., 2024; MacDonald et al., 2024). This diversity underlines the pervasive nature of coercion. Relationship dynamics have distinct challenges faced by different victim/ survivors.

Experiencing coercive control has profound psychological consequences. These include CPTSD, learned helplessness, and diminished self-esteem (Lohmann, 2024; Iftikhar et al., 2025). These effects help explain why many survivors struggle to leave abusive relationships. Such trauma responses and emotional dependencies create significant barriers to escape (Iftikhar et al., 2025).

Psychological models, such as social learning theory, attachment theory, and emotion regulation, provide valuable insights into perpetrators behaviours. They help explain the underlying motivations behind their actions. They explore patterns of learned behaviour, attachment insecurities, and emotional dysregulation that perpetuate abusive behaviours (Copp et al., 2020; Arseneault et al., 2023; Maloney et al., 2023).

This chapter highlighted the need for trauma-informed approaches in supporting victims and survivors. Victims and survivors need ongoing support after the relationship ends to rebuild their sense of safety, autonomy, and well-being. The effects of abuse often persist long after the relationship is over (Lohmann, 2024). Increased awareness and coordinated intervention strategies are essential to disrupting cycles of abuse.

See also

• Domestic violence (Wikipedia)
• Domestic violence against men (Wikipedia)
• Domestic violence and emotion regulation in children (Book chapter, 2015)
• Domestic violence motivation (Book chapter, 2021)

• Intimate partner violence (Wikipedia)
• Leaving violent relationship motivation for women

References

Arseneault, L., Brassard, A., Lefebvre, A., Lafontaine, M., Godbout, N., Daspe, M., Savard, C., & Péloquin, K. (2023). Romantic attachment and intimate partner violence perpetrated by individuals seeking help: The roles of dysfunctional communication patterns and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 39(8), 1557–1568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00600-z

Brandt, S., & Rudden, M. (2020). A psychoanalytic perspective on victims of domestic violence and coercive control. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 17(3), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/aps.1671

Copp, J. E., Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2016). The development of Attitudes toward intimate partner Violence: an examination of key correlates among a sample of young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(7), 1357–1387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516651311

Dichter, M. E., Thomas, K. A., Crits-Christoph, P., Ogden, S. N., & Rhodes, K. V. (2018). Coercive Control in Intimate Partner violence: Relationship with Women’s Experience of violence, Use of violence, and danger. Psychology of Violence, 8(5), 596–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000158

Healey, L. (2013). Voices against violence paper two: Current issues in understanding and responding to violence against women with disabilities. Women with Disabilities Victoria, Office of the Public Advocate, & Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria.https://www.wdv.org.au/our-work/building-the-knowledge/voices-against-violence/

Iftikhar, K., Hasan. S., Ali Kazmi, S. M. (2025). Learned helplessness and Self-Esteem among Young Female Victims of Intimate Partner Violence. International Journal of Social Science Bulletin, 3(7), 269-279. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15867692

Lehmann, P., Simmons, C. A., & Pillai, V. K. (2012). The Validation of the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB). Violence against Women, 18(8), 913–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212456522

Lohmann, S., Cowlishaw, S., Ney, L., O’Donnell, M., & Felmingham, K. (2023). The Trauma and Mental Health Impacts of Coercive Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 25(1), 630–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231162972

Jennings‐Fitz‐Gerald, E., Smith, C. M., N. Zoe Hilton, Radatz, D. L., Lee, J., Ham, E., & Snow, N. (2024). A scoping review of policing and coercive control in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer plus intimate relationships. Sociology Compass, 18(7). https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13239

Kassing, K., & Collins, A. (2025). “Slowly, Over Time, You Completely Lose Yourself”: Conceptualizing Coercive Control Trauma in Intimate Partner Relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605251320998

Macdonald, J., Willoughby, M., Gartoulla, P., Cotton, E., March, E., Alla, K., & Strawa, C. (2024). Discovering what works for families Australian Government Australian Institute of Family Studies fAIFS What the research evidence tells us about coercive control victimisation. https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-02/2311_CFCA_Coercive-control-victimisation.pdf

Maloney, M. A., Eckhardt, C. I., & Oesterle, D. W. (2023). Emotion regulation and intimate partner violence perpetration: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 100, 102238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102238

Mathews, B., Hegarty, K. L., MacMillan, H. L., Madzoska, M., Erskine, H. E., Pacella, R., Scott, J. G., Thomas, H., Franziska Meinck, Higgins, D., Lawrence, D. M., Haslam, D., Roetman, S., Malacova, E., & Cubitt, T. (2025). The prevalence of intimate partner violence in Australia: a national survey. The Medical Journal of Australia, 222(9). https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52660

Mayeda, D. T., Cho, S. R., & Vijaykumar, R. (2019). Honor-based violence and coercive control among Asian youth in Auckland, New Zealand. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 25(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2019.1611010

Myhill, Andy (2015-03-01). "Measuring Coercive Control: What Can We Learn From National Population Surveys?". Violence Against Women 21 (3): 355–375. doi:10.1177/1077801214568032

Neilson, E. C., Gulati, N. K., Stappenbeck, C. A., George, W. H., & Davis, K. C. (2021). Emotion Regulation and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration in Undergraduate Samples: A Review of the Literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(2), 152483802110360. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211036063

O’Brien, W., & Maras, M.-H. (2024). Technology-facilitated coercive control: response, redress, risk, and reform. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 38(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2023.2295097

Rakovec-Felser, Z. (2014). Domestic Violence and Abuse in Intimate Relationship from Public Health Perspective. Health Psychology Research, 2(3), 62–67. https://doi.org/10.4081/hpr.2014.1821

Simic, Z. (2025). Seeing the signs: thinking historically about coercive control. Women’s History Review, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09612025.2025.2530251

Stubbs, A., & Szoeke, C. (2022). The effect of intimate partner violence on the physical health and health-related behaviors of women: A systematic review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(4), 1157–1172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020985541

Walklate, S., & Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2019). The Criminalisation of Coercive Control: The Power of Law? International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 8(4), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v8i4.1205

‌ World Health Organization. (2024, March 25). Violence against Women. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

External links

If you would like further information, contact these service providers:

• 1800Respect - https://1800respect.org.au/violence-and-abuse/domestic-and-family-violence
• National Domestic Violence Helpline - https://www.thehotline.org/
• Rainbow Sexual, Domestic and Family Violence Helpline - https://fullstop.org.au/get-help/our-services/rainbowviolenceandabusesupport
• World Health Organization - https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women