Hannah R. Steinke, MSW, Social Work Doctoral Student, Contributing Author

ABSTRACT

The dynamics of domination, power, coercion, control, and entrapment in both intimate partner violence and human trafficking highlight the need to understand the theory of coercive control. One common consequence of coercive control within human trafficking populations is trauma-coerced attachment—the victim’s powerful emotional attachment and dependency on the abuser. Coercive control also contributes to the victim-offender intersectionality, a complex and critical area of human trafficking research, policy, and practice.

Learning objectives

By the end of this chapter, the student will be able to:

• Define coercive control and understand the common coercive control tactics used to gain and maintain power and control over a trafficked person.
• Apply an understanding of trauma-coerced attachment to social work practice.
• Recognize the complexities of the victim-offender intersectionality.

 Key Words: coercive control, trauma-coerced attachment, distorted cognitions, victim-offender intersectionality

Evan Stark’s Theory of Coercive Control

In many cases, human trafficking intersects with intimate partner violence (IPV). The dynamics of domination, power, coercion, control, and entrapment in both intimate partner violence and human trafficking highlight the need to understand the theory of coercive control. The term coercive control was first coined by Evan Stark, a social worker whose work predominantly focused on the plight of victims of intimate partner violence. In 2007, Stark detailed his theory in his first book on the topic, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. While this theory was initially developed to explain situations of intimate partner violence, it has become foundational in human trafficking literature, particularly studies focused on trauma-coerced attachment (to be discussed further in this chapter). Coercive control explains the complexities of the multidimensional nuances that create invisible chains that hold victims captive, even when an opportunity may present itself for their escape from the abuser. Further, Stark argued that coercive control was rooted primarily in gender inequity and motivated by the abuser’s malevolent self-interests. Since Stark’s theory was disseminated, over 600 empirical studies, grounded in the theory of coercive control, have been published (Stark, 2023). Additionally, Stark’s work has resulted in policy changes in Australia, England, Scotland, and Wales criminalizing coercive control in cases of intimate partner violence (Barlow et al., 2020; Stark & Hester, 2019; Wangmann, 2022).

Contrary to other IPV theories that pathologize victim behavior, the theory of coercive control focuses on the abuser’s motivation and behavior and the consequences imposed on the victim. Coercive control is defined as patterns of behavior enacted by one person (the abuser) with the intent to dominate, control, and restrict the autonomy of another (the victim) through a host of physical and non-physical tactics (Stark, 2013). Tactics most often associated with coercive control include threats; isolation; manipulation; monitoring the victim’s movements, communications, and behavior; gaslighting; name-calling; belittling; humiliation; degradation; enforcing specific ideations, gender roles, or expectations; limiting access to financial or other resources; and using children or other loved ones as weapons of manipulation and control. The most poignant reality of coercive control is the insidious way the abuser uses the victim’s characteristics, values, and needs as a point of exploitation and coercion. For example, at the beginning stages when a victim is being lured into the relationship, the abuser may leverage a victim’s need for belonging, closeness, or a felt sense of “love”. After the victim has been entrapped, the abuser may leverage the victim’s physical or financial needs in such a way as to be the “provider” of such needs, while isolating the victim from connections that could otherwise meet those needs.

Trauma-Coerced Attachment

Coercive control can lead to the development of trauma-coerced attachment, the victim’s powerful emotional attachment and dependency on the abuser (Raghavan & Doychak, 2015). The term was first coined by two researchers seeking to understand the complex phenomenon previously referred to as trauma-bonding within the context of human trafficking. Central to their work, Raghavan and Doychak reconceptualized the concept of trauma-bonding to reflect the coercive nature of the relationship that causes the bond to develop, thus renaming the phenomenon to “trauma-coerced attachment”. A primary outcome of trauma-coerced attachment is the victim’s loss of self and agency. Further, the victim gradually acquires the abuser’s perspective, shaping the victim’s perception of the external world and their perception of self (Casassa et al., 2022; Doychak & Raghavan, 2023). The powerful dependency leads to ideations and feelings that keep the victim entrapped, while the shift in world/self-view leads to behaviors that ultimately protect the abuser/trafficker and blame self (see Figure 1) (Doychak & Raghavan, 2023). The impacts of trauma-coerced attachment are significant, with implications being noted in physical and mental health sequelae, as well as affecting a victim’s decision to stay in the relationship despite the pain or suffering experienced in that relationship (Doychak & Raghavan, 2020). Further, in cases of trauma-coerced attachment, it is common for victims to report such pain and suffering as a product of their own doing (self-blame) while holding the abuser on a pedestal (believing the abuser is somehow wise, thoughtful, kind, and well-intended). Though researchers have posed multiple hypotheses related to the causation of trauma-coerced attachment, many believe the combination of coercive control, power imbalances in the trafficker/trafficked relationship, and the use of both reward and punishment lead to the formation of these counterintuitive bonds of affection, loyalty, and devotion to the abuser/trafficker (Casassa et al., 2022; Raghavan & Doychak, 2015).

Victim-Offender Intersectionality

The impact of trauma-coerced attachment, power, control, and coercion blur the lines between victimization and offending. Traffickers intentionally and surreptitiously utilize victims as shields, perpetuating the dual victimization of individuals who are first victimized by their exploiter and then revictimized by the justice system (Blizard, 2017). The victim-offender intersectionality is the phenomenon of victims committing crimes as a result of their victimization (Shared Hope International, 2020). This intersectionality of victimization and criminal behavior occurs through various mechanisms and can include a variety of criminal acts (e.g., drug dealing, petty theft, robbery, fraud, etc.).

The hierarchal structure of sex trafficking operations often includes a victim with the most responsibility and the most loyalty to the trafficker (e.g., “bottom”, “bottom girl”) second in command under the trafficker and at the “top of the hierarchy of prostitutes” (Crocker, 2017, p.755; Henderson & Rhodes, 2022). Due to the degree of trauma-coerced attachment, such victims are used by the trafficker to manage day-to-day operational tasks such as recruiting victims, transporting victims to appointments, collecting money from fellow victims, maintaining order among the group of victims, and handling the trafficker’s affairs in leu of [2]him, thus acting as a buffer between the trafficker and the criminal justice system (Blizard, 2017; Crocker, 2017; Henderson & Rhodes, 2022; Mogulescu & Goodmark, 2020). A study conducted by Henderson and Rhodes (2022) found many of the “bottoms” had a child or children with the trafficker, which exacerbated the trafficker’s control over the victims due to the trafficker weaponizing the mother’s love and concern for her child as a mechanism to hold her hostage. The victim-offender overlap can also occur when a victim endeavors to protect another victim from interaction with law enforcement (Mogulescu & Goodmark, 2020).

Regardless of the mechanisms at play (i.e., trauma-coerced attachment, force, fraud, coercion, “hostage baby”, protection of another victim, etc.), the behaviors of the victim-offender often lead to ambiguity among law enforcement and the judicial system regarding whether to view the individual as a victim or an offender. Law enforcement consistently fail to identify victims (Henderson & Rhodes, 2022; International Human Rights Clinic [IHRC], 2021), while the context and history of the victim’s lived experiences are rarely explored by the court system (Henderson & Rhones, 2022; Mogulescu & Goodmark, 2020). Additionally, research related to trauma responses of sex trafficking victims also denotes the commonality of victims minimizing or denying their own victimization (Blizard, 2017), and even believing they have a sense of agency when committing trafficking acts due to the power of coercive control and trauma-coerced attachment (Doychak & Raghavan, 2020). Furthermore, the impact of trauma on the neurobiology of victims can lead to behaviors (i.e., trauma responses: fight, flight, freeze, fawn) that can be perceived as belligerent (“fight”) or non-compliant (“freeze”). Such responses can be perceived by law enforcement as uncooperative, criminal, and deserving of punitive measures, rather than a cause for help (IHRC, 2021; Shared Hope International, 2020).

Implications of Coercive Control and Trauma-Coerced Attachment

The lack of understanding among professionals regarding coercive control and trauma-coerced attachment can result in systems failing to respond appropriately to the unique needs of survivors of human trafficking. At the individual level, physical and mental health outcomes are often overlooked as they relate to trauma (see Neurobiology of Trauma). Further, because coercive control and trauma-coerced attachment cause the victim to take on the abuser’s perspective, this shift leads to distorted cognitions (biased/inaccurate patterns of thinking that do not align with reality). These distorted cognitions can pose challenges and create barriers as providers attempt to support victims in finding safety and healing. Finally, while this chapter is intended to introduce the learner to the concepts of coercive control and trauma-coerced attachment, in-depth training on the neurobiology of trauma in relation to these factors (i.e., coercive control, trauma-coerced attachment) is critical for social workers seeking to develop therapeutic interventions to support survivors in their emotional/psychological recovery from coercive control and trauma-coerced attachment. Finally, the constructs of coercive control and trauma-coerced attachment have significant implications for both the micro and macro social worker. While other countries (e.g., England, Wales, Scotland, Australia, etc.) have enacted laws criminalizing coercive control within intimate partner relationships (Stark & Hester, 2019), there is much work to be done within the United States. Policies are needed that prioritize the seriousness and deleterious effects of coercive control within situations of intimate partner violence and human trafficking. The next generation of social workers are well-positioned to carry on this critical work.

Quiz

Case Study

Summary of Key Points

• Stark’s theory of coercive control contextualizes the experiences of entrapment, power, control, coercion, domination, and oppression that are characteristic of the dynamics of human trafficking.
• An understanding of trauma-coerced attachment and coercive control aids the social worker in recognizing barriers facing clients.
• Coercive control and trauma-coerced attachment are two primary mechanisms through which victims engage in criminal activity (victim-offender intersection).

 Supplemental Learning Materials

Checklist of Controlling Behaviors free Self-Assessment: https://yourtoolkit.com/questionnaire/ccsa/

Katz, E. (2022). Coercive control in children’s and mother’s lives. Oxford University Press.

Smith, J.M. (2021). In control. Dangerous relationships and how they end in murder. Bloomsbury.

Stark, E. (2023). Coercive control. How men entrap women in personal life, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.

Stark, E. (2023). Children of coercive control. Oxford University Press.

 References

 Blizard, I. (2017). Chapter 636: Catching those who fall, an affirmative defense for human trafficking victims, The University of the Pacific Law Review, 48(3), 631-646. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview/vol48/iss3/15

Casassa, K., England, G., & Karandikar, S. (2023). “I needed people to tell me no”: Exploring how participation in human trafficking specialty docket affects survivors’ of sex trafficking experiences of trauma bonding. Victims & Offenders. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2023.2202200

Crocker, S. (2017). Stripping agency from top to bottom: The need for a sentencing guideline safety valve for bottoms prosecuted under the federal sex trafficking statues. Northwestern University Law Review, 3(3), 753-792. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1274&context=nulr&httpsredir=1

Doychak, K. & Raghavan, C. (2020). “No voice or vote”: Trauma-coerced attachment in victims of sex trafficking. Journal of Human Trafficking, 6(3). 339-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322705.2018.1518625

Doychak, K. & Raghavan, C. (2023).Trauma-coerced attachment: Developing DSM-5′s dissociative disorder “identity disturbance due to prolonged and intense coercive persuasion.” European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 7(2). https://doi.10.1016/j.ejtd.2023.100323

Henderson, A. C., & Rhodes, S. M. (2022). “Got sold a dream and it turned into a nightmare”: The victim-offender overlap in commercial sexual exploitation. Journal of Human Trafficking, 8(1), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322705.2021.2019530

International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC). (2021, November 15). Over-policing sex trafficking: How U.S. law enforcement should reform operations. file:///C:/Users/hstei/Downloads/IHRC-Report-1.pdf

Mogulescu, K., & Goodmar, L. (2020). Surveillance and entanglement: How mandatory sex offender registration impacts criminalised survivors of human trafficking. Anti-Trafficking Review, 14, 125-130. https://doi.org/10.14197/atr.2012201410

Raghavan, C., & Doychak, K. (2015). Trauma-coerced bonding and victims of sex trafficking: Where do we go from here? International Journal of Emergency Mental Health and Human Resilience, 17(2), 583-587. https://doi.org/10.4172/1522-4821.1000223

Shared Hope International (2020). Responding to sex trafficking victim-offender intersectionality: A guide for criminal justice stakeholders. https://sharedhope.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SH_Responding-to-Sex-Trafficking-Victim-Offender-Intersectionality2020_FINAL.pdf

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control. How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.

Stark, E. (2013). Coercive control. In Lombard, N., & McMillan, L. (Eds.), Violence Against Women, Current Theory and Practice in Domestic Abuse, Sexual Violence and Exploitation (pp.17-33). Jessica Kingsley Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12131

Stark, E. & Hester, M. (2019). Coercive control: Update and review. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 81-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218816191

Stark, E. (2023). Coercive control. How men entrap women in personal life, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.

Walsh, S. (2016). Sex trafficking and the state: Applying domestic abuse interventions to serve victims of sex trafficking. Human Rights Review, 17(2), 221–245. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1007/s12142-016-0404-8