methods. These studies have added to our empirical understanding of coercive control, but the inconsistent approaches used limit our ability to compare findings and build off of prior studies. Although replication of our cutoff in diverse and larger samples is needed to establish reliability, our study provides a foundation from which to start. Third, our results contribute to the substantive literature on IPV by providing further evidence of the centrality of coercive control for making sense of differences in IPV experiences, namely frequency and severity of violence, harassment and violence after separation, fear, and perceived threat of future harm. These results were consistent with theory and prior research on IPV types as reviewed earlier. Nonetheless, studies are needed that specifically focus on situational couple violence in the postseparation context, as our results suggest greater distress for these mothers compared to mothers without violence and control. Similarly, as suggested by Anderson (2008), our results point to the importance of considering coercive control in relationships without violence. Contributions should be considered in the context of study limitations. Results for mothers with nonviolent coercive control should be interpreted with caution given the small number, which limited power. Moreover, our results are only generalizable to women with children ending their marriages. Mothers, however, may be particularly vulnerable to violence and harassment after separation due to continued contact with former partners related to children (author citation). Given the recent call for examining IPV types among separated women in general samples (Johnson et al., 2014), the nature of our sample may be particularly relevant to future work in this area. Also, selection bias may mean that the most highly controlled mothers are underrepresented in our sample. Waltermaurer, Ortega, and McNutt (2003) found that severely abused women were less likely to participate in in-person interviews; however, they
methods. These studies have added to our empirical understanding of coercive control, but the inconsistent approaches used limit our ability to compare findings and build off of prior studies. Although replication of our cutoff in diverse and larger samples is needed to establish reliability, our study provides a foundation from which to start. Third, our results contribute to the substantive literature on IPV by providing further evidence of the centrality of coercive control for making sense of differences in IPV experiences, namely frequency and severity of violence, harassment and violence after separation, fear, and perceived threat of future harm. These results were consistent with theory and prior research on IPV types as reviewed earlier. Nonetheless, studies are needed that specifically focus on situational couple violence in the postseparation context, as our results suggest greater distress for these mothers compared to mothers without violence and control. Similarly, as suggested by Anderson (2008), our results point to the importance of considering coercive control in relationships without violence. Contributions should be considered in the context of study limitations. Results for mothers with nonviolent coercive control should be interpreted with caution given the small number, which limited power. Moreover, our results are only generalizable to women with children ending their marriages. Mothers, however, may be particularly vulnerable to violence and harassment after separation due to continued contact with former partners related to children (author citation). Given the recent call for examining IPV types among separated women in general samples (Johnson et al., 2014), the nature of our sample may be particularly relevant to future work in this area. Also, selection bias may mean that the most highly controlled mothers are underrepresented in our sample. Waltermaurer, Ortega, and McNutt (2003) found that severely abused women were less likely to participate in in-person interviews; however, they
2015%20JMF%20Crossman.docx