Skip to main content
NCBI home page
HHS Author Manuscripts logoLink to HHS Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Mar 17.
Published in final edited form as: Violence Against Women. 2023 Aug 21;29(14):2775–2786. doi: 10.1177/10778012231196059

Reproductive Coercion and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Among Young Adult Males

Emily A Muñoz 1, Vi Donna Le 2, Ryan C Shorey 1, Jeff R Temple 3
PMCID: PMC11912085  NIHMSID: NIHMS1973249  PMID: 37603586

Abstract

Reproductive coercion is any behavior that attempts to control the autonomous reproductive decision-making of an intimate partner. Very little research has focused on males who perpetrate reproductive coercion. Using a diverse community sample of young adults, we examined the prevalence of lifetime reproductive coercion perpetration and its relationship with other forms of intimate partner violence (IPV). Results demonstrated that approximately 6.4% of the men reported perpetrating reproductive coercion in their lifetime. Chi-square analyses demonstrated that men who reported sexual (16.2%), physical (11.1%), or psychological (59.1%) IPV perpetration, relative to men who did not, reported a significantly higher prevalence of reproductive coercion perpetration.

Keywords: Reproductive coercion, intimate partner violence, pregnancy coercion, birth control sabotage

Introduction

Reproductive coercion, an understudied form of intimate partner violence (IPV), has serious health consequences for people who can become pregnant, including sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unintended pregnancy (Grace & Anderson, 2018). Reproductive coercion is any behavior by one partner that attempts to control the autonomous reproductive decision-making of the other partner including birth control sabotage, pregnancy coercion, and abortion coercion (Grace & Anderson, 2018). While reproductive coercion can include behaviors that attempt to prevent pregnancy from occurring (e.g., coercing the use of emergency contraception), the current study will address two forms of reproductive coercion that are most frequently discussed in the current literature on reproductive coercion: birth control sabotage and pregnancy coercion with the intention of promoting pregnancy. It is estimated that 15% of women have experienced birth control sabotage in their lifetime, which includes behaviors such as destroying birth control, removing a condom during sex without the partner’s knowledge, or damaging a condom in order to promote pregnancy (Miller et al., 2010). Up to 19% of women experience pregnancy coercion in their lifetime (Miller et al., 2010; Sutherland et al., 2015), which includes pressuring a partner to become pregnant or not to become pregnant through physical or verbal threats. Taken together, a sizeable minority of women are victims of some form of reproductive coercion during their lifetime, with National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) estimating that 8.4% of women experienced reproductive coercion during their lifetime (Basile et al., 2019).

Male-perpetrated reproductive coercion also intersects with other forms of IPV, such that individuals who experience sexual and physical IPV are at a greater risk of experiencing reproductive coercion (Miller et al., 2010). Research has demonstrated that violence in intimate relationships begins in adolescence (e.g., teen dating violence), and then peaks in young adulthood, thus there is a critical need to examine reproductive coercion perpetration among young adults (O’Leary, 1999; Shorey et al., 2017).

Despite the accumulating evidence that reproductive coercion victimization is prevalent and associated with adverse health outcomes, very little research has focused on men who perpetrate reproductive coercion. One recent qualitative study found that six of 23 young adult Black men ages 18–25 recruited from a community in Baltimore City reported engaging in reproductive coercion toward an intimate partner (Alexander et al., 2021). The men who endorsed perpetration perceived reproductive coercion as a means of fulfilling the masculine social norms of fatherhood and dominance over female partners. More recent quantitative research with males sampled from a college health clinic has demonstrated that approximately 2.3% of participants perpetrated reproductive coercion in the past 4 months and that perpetration was related to sexual violence perpetration (Grace et al., 2023).

While these studies yielded important findings, they are limited to samples recruited from healthcare and college settings. Thus, additional studies are needed in order to fully understand the scope of male-perpetrated reproductive coercion, and its relationship to perpetration of other forms of IPV. To address this gap, we examine the prevalence of male-perpetrated reproductive coercion and other forms of IPV among a large ethnically diverse community sample. More specifically, this study will examine behaviors that are perpetrated with the intention of promoting pregnancy. The rationale for focusing on these behaviors is that (a) these are the forms of reproductive coercion that have been frequently examined in the literature on victimization, and (b) these behaviors have been shown to have significant overlap with other forms of IPV, and significant health consequences for victims (e.g., unintended pregnancy, STIs, etc.; Grace & Anderson, 2018). While behaviors that reduce the likelihood of pregnancy occurring are equally as concerning in how they limit victims’ reproductive autonomy, pregnancy-promoting forms of reproductive coercion may carry serious reproductive health consequences for victims who become pregnant when they do not want to be given recent legislation that has limited access to abortion care in the United States (Crear-Perry et al., 2022).

Given that research has revealed disparities in experiences of reproductive victimization among marginalized racial and ethnic groups, it is important to examine racial and ethnic differences in reproductive coercion perpetration. For example, a recent study using data from the NISVS found that Black and Hispanic women experienced significantly higher rates of lifetime reproductive coercion (14.8% and 9.9% respectively) than non-Hispanic White women (7%; Basile et al., 2019). These findings indicate that Black/African-American and Latinx/Hispanic individuals who can become pregnant are at a heightened risk of experiencing reproductive coercion; however, it is less clear whether individuals who hold these identities are also at an increased risk of perpetrating this form of IPV. It is important to note that race and ethnicity themselves are not a risk factor for reproductive coercion; instead, structural risk factors such as poverty, systemic racism, and discrimination may increase the risk for reproductive coercion perpetration as it does for other forms of IPV (Kaplan & Bennett, 2003). While the current study does not examine such factors, findings should be interpreted using this framework.

Current Study

In the present study, we examined the prevalence of reproductive coercion perpetration in a racially and ethnically diverse sample of male-identifying young adults (ages 18–25), as well as whether reproductive coercion perpetration varied across racial and ethnic groups. We further examine whether men who perpetrated other forms of IPV, including physical, sexual, and psychological violence, were more likely to perpetrate reproductive coercion. Because this is among the first studies to examine the perpetration of reproductive coercion, no a priori hypotheses were made.

Method

Participants

The current study included a sample of 197 male-identified individuals from an ongoing 15-year longitudinal study on intimate relationships who were originally recruited from seven public high schools in Texas in 2010 (Temple et al., 2013). The seven public high schools were selected because they were representative of the racial/ethnic diversity, as well as the socioeconomic status, of the surrounding communities. All students enrolled were eligible to participate, and they were recruited during class periods where attendance was mandatory (i.e., English, World Geography, and Health). Parental permission and assent from students were obtained prior to participation in the study. Participants completed the survey in paper-and-pencil format at Wave 1 and in later waves, those who were no longer attending the recruitment schools completed an online survey. In the survey, the participants were asked to respond to a demographic questionnaire, and a series of measures that assessed IPV victimization and perpetration, substance use, alcohol use, and mental health. In terms of compensation, students received a $10 gift card for their participation in Waves 1–3 (2010–2012), a $20 gift card in Waves 4 and 5 (2013 and 2014), and a $30 gift card in Wave 6 (2015). Current data are from year 6 of this study and include participants who completed the reproductive coercion measure. The mean age was 20.14 (SD=0.77). The sample identified as 32.5% White/non-Hispanic, 32% Latinx/Hispanic, 23.4% Black/African American, 4.1% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 8.1% as more than one race. At the time of the study, 98% of participants reported having never been married, 1.5% reported being married, and 0.5% reported being separated. Of participants who were in an intimate relationship at the time of the survey (n=103), 90% reported dating females, and 10% reported dating males. Participants who were in intimate relationships with males (n=10), or who were not in an intimate relationship (n=94), were included in the analytic sample (N=197) because the measure of reproductive coercion assessed lifetime prevalence and it is possible that they perpetrated reproductive coercion in a relationship with a previous female partner. Further, reproductive coercion can occur in the context of casual sexual relationships in which participants identify themselves as single (Clark et al., 2014). More importantly, research on reproductive coercion has shown that women who identify as single or dating more than one partner are at an increased risk for experiencing reproductive coercion compared to women who report being in a relationship (Miller et al., 2010). Therefore, we elected to include single men in the sample, as they may have casual relationships with females in which they perpetrate reproductive coercion, but still identify as single.

Measures

Reproductive Coercion.

A 10-item measure, which is based on existing items used to measure reproductive coercion victimization, assessed two aspects of lifetime reproductive coercion perpetration: birth control sabotage and pregnancy coercion (Miller et al., 2010). These 10 items were selected because they are widely used to measure reproductive coercion (Grace & Anderson, 2018). An item that was used in the original article by Miller et al. (2010; “Have you ever hidden birth control from a sexual partner because you were afraid he’d get upset with you for using it?) was not used because it is not used by Miller in subsequent studies, and it does not assess whether the participant’s partner is attempting to promote pregnancy. These 10 items have been used in racially and ethnically diverse samples recruited from family planning clinics and medical settings (Clark et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2014). Further, a validated measure, such as the Reproductive Coercion Scale (McCauley et al., 2017) was not available at the time of data collection, however, these items are similar to those included in the Reproductive Coercion Scale. Pregnancy coercion was assessed with the following five items using a yes/no response option: “Have you ever done any of the following to a female you were dating, going out with, or married to: told her not to use any birth control (like the pill, shot, ring, etc.)?”, “said you would leave her if she did not get pregnant?,” “told her you would have a baby with someone else if she did not get pregnant?,” “hurt her physically because you did not agree to get pregnant?,” and “tried to force or pressure her to become pregnant?.”

Birth control sabotage, or behaviors that interfered with contraception in order to promote pregnancy, were assessed with the following five items (yes/no): “Have you ever done any of the following to a female you were dating, going out with, or married to: taken off the condom while you were having sex so that she would get pregnant?,” “put holes in the condom so she would get pregnant?,” “broken a condom on purpose while you were having sex so she would get pregnant?,” “taken her birth control away from her or kept her from going to the clinic to get birth control so that she would get pregnant?,” and “made her have sex without a condom so she would get pregnant?.” In violence studies, there are typically a large number of participants who reported that they never experienced or perpetrated coercive behavior, which causes internal consistencies for violence measures to be low and a poor indicator of psychometrics (Ryan, 2013). Thus, consistent with prior violence research, we did not calculate internal consistencies for the reproductive coercion scales (e.g., Haynes et al., 2018; Rueda et al., 2018).

Other Forms of IPV.

The 25-item Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; Wolfe et al., 2001) assessed other forms of IPV. Items were preceded by specific questions about participants’ dating histories (e.g., whether or not they have dated, number of dating partners, and length of relationship). Participants were instructed to mark “who will you be thinking of when you answer these questions?” They could select “I am thinking of somebody that is my boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse right now” or “I do not currently have a boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse, so I will be thinking of my most recent ex-boyfriend/ex-girlfriend.” Participants indicated whether (yes/no) each act happened during a conflict or argument with their dating partner (or former dating partner) during the past 12 months. For the current study, we used four physical victimization questions, 10 psychological victimization questions, and four sexual victimization questions. The CADRI has been shown to have a strong factor structure (Shorey et al., 2019) and to be sensitive to measuring changes in abusive behavior over time (Wolfe et al., 2001). Consistent with our measure of reproductive coercion, we did not calculate internal consistencies for the CADRI due to this being a poor indicator of psychometrics for violence measures (Ryan, 2013).

Data Analytic Plan

All analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS Version 27.0. Scores were summed for each scale used. We then analyzed bivariate associations between psychological, physical, and sexual IPV and total and subscale scores of reproductive coercion perpetration. Next, we created dichotomous variables for lifetime reproductive coercion perpetration, and past-year psychological IPV, sexual IPV, and physical IPV perpetration. Participants who perpetrated a particular form of IPV were categorized as “1” and those who had not perpetrated that form of IPV were categorized as “0.” We used chi-square analyses to examine differences between perpetrators and nonperpetrators of physical, psychological, and sexual IPV in terms of the prevalence of reproductive coercion. Chi-square analyses were also used to examine differences in reproductive coercion prevalence across race/ethnicity. When examining differences between racial and ethnic groups, only Latinx/Hispanic, Black/African American/non-Hispanic, and White/non-Hispanic participants were included in the analyses due to the small number of participants who identified as other races and ethnicities.

Results

We first examined the prevalence of lifetime reproductive coercion perpetration in the full sample. In their lifetime, 6.4% of the men reported perpetrating some form of reproductive coercion. Approximately 5.1% perpetrated pregnancy coercion and 1.5% perpetrated birth control sabotage. In terms of IPV perpetration, 16.2% reported perpetrating sexual violence, 11.1% reported perpetrating physical violence, and 59.1% reported perpetrating psychological violence in the past year. Additional information about the prevalence of violence perpetration in this sample, as well as endorsement rates of CADRI items by wave, are reported elsewhere (Shorey et al., 2019). As displayed in Table 1, bivariate correlations showed that sexual, psychological, and physical violence perpetration was significantly and positively associated with both the pregnancy coercion and birth control sabotage subscale scores, as well as the reproductive coercion perpetration scale total score.

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations Among Measures of Reproductive Coercion and Violence Perpetration.

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Reproductive coercion—total — .97* .94** .54** .24** .53**
2. Pregnancy coercion — .85** .52** .29** .51**
3. Birth control sabotage — .51** .17* .55**
4. Sexual violence perpetration — .38** .47**
5. Psychological violence perpetration — .36**
6. Physical violence perpetration —
M 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.23 2.35 0.21
SD 0.79 0.45 0.40 0.62 2.90 0.70
Open in a new tab
**

p < .01.

*

p < .05.

Next, we analyzed group differences between men who did and did not perpetrate reproductive coercion on the prevalence of perpetration of other forms of IPV using the chi-square association test. First, men who reported reproductive coercion, relative to men who did not report reproductive coercion, reported a significantly higher prevalence of sexual violence perpetration (63.6% vs. 13.4% respectively), χ2 (1)=19.23, p<.05. Analyses also demonstrated that men who reported reproductive coercion, relative to men who did not report reproductive coercion, reported a significantly higher prevalence of physical violence perpetration (72.7% vs. 7.5% respectively), χ2 (1)=44.50, p<.05. Finally, men who reported reproductive coercion, relative to men who did not report reproductive coercion, reported a higher prevalence of psychological violence perpetration (100% vs. 56.7% respectively), χ2 (1)=8.04, p<.05.

Finally, we examined the prevalence of reproductive coercion perpetration among each of the most represented racial and ethnic groups in the sample. Among the men in the study who identified as White, 4.7% reported perpetrating any form of reproductive coercion. As shown in Table 2, 4.3% of the Black/African-American men and 9.5% of the Hispanic/Latinx men in the sample reported perpetrating any form of reproductive coercion. A 2 (reproductive coercion vs. no reproductive coercion) × 3 (White/non-Hispanic, Hispanic/Latinx, and Black/African-American) chi-square did not indicate significant differences in rates of reproductive coercion perpetration across race/ethnicity, χ2 (2)=1.67, p=.433.

Table 2.

Prevalence of Perpetration by Race/Ethnicity.

Type of perpetration Hispanic/Latinx (n = 63) White/non-Hispanic (n = 64) Black/African-American (n = 46) Total (n = 173)
Reproductive coercion 9.5% (n = 6) 4.7% (n = 3) 4.3% (n = 2) 6.4% (n = 11)
Physical IPV 17.5% (n = 11) 3.1% (n = 2) 13% (n = 6) 11% (n = 19)
Sexual IPV 20.6% (n = 13) 6.3% (n = 4) 21.7% (n = 10) 15.6% (n = 27)
Psychological IPV 70.6% (n = 41) 56.3% (n = 36) 62.2% (n = 28) 61% (n = 105)
Open in a new tab

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Discussion

In one of the few studies to examine the perpetration of reproductive coercion, we found that 6.4% of male-identifying participants reported perpetrating reproductive coercion in their lifetime. Specifically, 5.1% reported perpetrating pregnancy coercion and 1.5% reported perpetrating birth control sabotage. We also found that 16.2% of participants reported perpetrating sexual IPV, 11.1% reported perpetrating physical IPV, and 59.1% perpetrated psychological IPV. While the perpetration of other forms of IPV is high in this sample, the findings in the current study underscore how serious IPV is as a public health problem among individuals in this age group. Further, this prevalence rate is consistent with previous research on perpetration in samples of young adults, which has consistently demonstrated that IPV tends to peak in young adulthood (Bliton et al., 2016; Johnson et al., 2015; Shorey et al., 2017).

Further, we found that participants who perpetrated other forms of IPV, specifically sexual, psychological, and physical violence, were more likely to perpetrate reproductive coercion relative to participants who did not perpetrate other forms of IPV. This finding is consistent with research on victims of reproductive coercion that demonstrates a clear association between other forms of IPV and reproductive coercion victimization (Clark et al., 2014; Holliday et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2010). However, longitudinal research is needed to determine the temporal link between these forms of violence. Furthermore, given the association between reproductive coercion and other forms of IPV, it may be beneficial to examine whether existing interventions for physical, sexual, and psychological IPV are effective in reducing reproductive coercion perpetration as well.

Inconsistent with the limited research on reproductive coercion victimization, which demonstrates that Black/African-American and Hispanic/Latinx individuals are at an increased risk (Basile et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2014; Holliday et al., 2017), racial and ethnic differences did not emerge with respect to perpetration. This null finding may be a byproduct of our small cell sizes. It is important to note that structural risk factors for violence perpetration, such as socioeconomic status and exposure to racism and discrimination, were not examined. Future research with larger samples that examine these risk factors is needed to clarify the relationship between race/ethnicity and reproductive coercion perpetration. This research could provide critical insight into differences in risk factors for IPV perpetration across populations and could potentially inform intervention and prevention efforts.

Limitations

Several important limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the sample size is relatively small and the number of individuals who identified within each racial/ethnic category limited our ability to examine racial/ethnic subgroups outside of African-American/Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and White/non-Hispanic. Further, the overall sample size was small, as was the percentage of individuals reporting reproductive coercion, which may have contributed to the nonsignificant findings for differences between groups. Second, this study utilized cross-sectional data, which did not allow us to examine factors, such as previous perpetration of other forms of IPV, related to the perpetration of reproductive coercion over time.

Finally, an important limitation of the current study is the fact that only pregnancy-promoting coercive behaviors were assessed. Initial research on reproductive coercion shows that approximately 0.1–0.5% of women have experienced abortion coercion, in which their partner attempts to control the outcome of a pregnancy by pressuring them into terminating it (Chibber et al., 2014; Finer et al., 2005). More recent research has identified that victimization rates of pregnancy-preventing forms of reproductive coercion are equivalent to pregnancy-promoting forms of reproductive coercion (Sheeran et al., 2022). This study reported that approximately 7.5% of their sample had experienced abortion coercion or physical violence that was meant to induce miscarriage. Among men, ~4% report pressuring their partner to terminate a pregnancy and ~8% report pressuring their partner into not terminating a pregnancy (Silverman et al., 2010). Given this finding, and the limited research on abortion coercion, future research should consider assessing this aspect of reproductive coercion perpetration as it relates to other forms of IPV.

Future Directions

These findings have several important implications for future research. First, these findings suggest that it may be beneficial for future research on reproductive coercion to examine risk factors, such as trait jealousy and aggression, that have been identified as being related to other forms of IPV and may also be related to reproductive coercion perpetration. This would be an important step in identifying common risk factors that could be potential targets for intervention and prevention programming. Second, it is possible that, like other forms of IPV, reproductive coercion perpetration peaks at a certain age, such as young adulthood (e.g., 18–25; O’Leary, 1999; Shorey et al., 2017). Therefore, research on reproductive coercion with populations other than young adults is needed to determine when reproductive coercion perpetration is most common throughout the life span. Finally, it is possible that reproductive coercion perpetration has significant overlap with other coercive sexual behaviors that do not attempt to coerce pregnancy, such as coercive condom use resistance or nonconsensual condom removal. Thus, distinguishing coercive behaviors intended to promote pregnancy from other coercive sexual behaviors will be critical to our understanding of the perpetration of reproductive coercion.

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrated that individuals who perpetrated reproductive coercion had a higher prevalence of physical, sexual, and psychological IPV perpetration relative to individuals who do not perpetrate reproductive coercion, and perpetration of reproductive coercion did not differ between Hispanic/Latinx, Black/African-American, White/non-Hispanic participants. As this is one of the few studies to examine reproductive coercion perpetration in young adult men, including associations with other forms of IPV and potential differences across race and ethnicity, replication and extension of findings are warranted.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the National Institute of Justice and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grant numbers 2012-WG-BX-0005, K23HD059916, and R01HD099199).

Biographies

Emily Muñoz, MA, is a graduate student in clinical psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Her research focuses on intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion with an emphasis on cultural risk and resilience factors.

Vi Donna Le, PhD, is a behavioral scientist at CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in the Division of Violence Prevention. Vi has extensive experience in teen dating violence and intimate partner violence research and prevention programming (implementation, evaluation, and dissemination), including the comprehensive model—dating matters. Her work also includes the prevention of child sexual abuse, rape prevention education, and technology-facilitated violence.

Ryan C. Shorey, PhD, is an associate professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His research focuses on intimate partner violence, substance misuse, and the intersection between these two public health problems.

Jeff R. Temple, PhD, is the John Sealy Distinguished Chair in Community Health and the Founding Director of the Center for Violence Prevention at the University of Texas Medical Branch. His research focuses on interpersonal relationships, with a particular emphasis on understanding factors related to the onset, course, consequences, prevention, and intervention of teen dating and intimate partner violence.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Alexander KA, Arrington Sanders R, Grace KT, Thorpe RJ, Doro E, & Bowleg L (2021). Having a child meant I had a real life: Reproductive coercion and childbearing motivations among young black men living in Baltimore. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17–18), NP9197–NP9225. 10.1177/0886260519853400 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Basile KC, Smith SG, Liu Y, Miller E, & Kresnow M (2019). Prevalence of intimate partner reproductive coercion in the United States: Racial and ethnic differences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22), NP12324–NP12341. 10.1177/0886260519888205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bliton CF, Wolford-Clevenger C, Zapor H, Elmquist J, Brem MJ, Shorey RC, & Stuart GL (2016). Emotion dysregulation, gender, and intimate partner violence perpetration: An exploratory study in college students. Journal of Family Violence, 31(3), 371–377. 10.1007/s10896-015-9772-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chibber KS, Biggs MA, Roberts SC, & Foster DG (2014). The role of intimate partners in women’s reasons for seeking abortion. Women’s Health Issues, 24(1), e131–e138. 10.1016/j.whi.2013.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark LE, Allen RH, Goyal V, Raker C, & Gottlieb AS (2014). Reproductive coercion and co-occurring intimate partner violence in obstetrics and gynecology patients. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 210(1), 42.e1–42.e8. 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.09.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Crear-Perry J, Hassan A, & Daniel S (2022). Advancing birth equity in a post-Dobbs US. JAMA, 328(17), 1689–1690. 10.1001/jama.2022.19468 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Finer LB, Frohwirth LF, Dauphinee LA, Singh S, & Moore AM (2005). Reasons US women have abortions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3), 110–118. 10.1363/3711005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Grace KT, & Anderson JC (2018). Reproductive coercion: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(4), 371–390. 10.1177/1524838016663935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Grace KT, Decker MR, Holliday CN, Talis J, & Miller E (2023). Reproductive coercion in college health clinic patients: Risk factors, care seeking and perpetration. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 79(4), 1464–1475. 10.1111/jan.v79.4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Haynes EE, Strauss CV, Stuart GL, & Shorey RC (2018). Drinking motives as a moderator of the relationship between dating violence victimization and alcohol problems. Violence Against Women, 24(4), 401–420. 10.1177/1077801217698047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Holliday CN, McCauley HL, Silverman JG, Ricci E, Decker MR, Tancredi DJ, Burke JG, Documét P, Borrero S, & Miller E (2017). Racial/ethnic differences in women’s experiences of reproductive coercion, intimate partner violence, and unintended pregnancy. Journal of Women’s Health, 26(8), 828–835. 10.1089/jwh.2016.5996 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Johnson WL, Giordano PC, Manning WD, & Longmore MA (2015). The age-IPV curve: Changes in the perpetration of intimate partner violence during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 708–726. 10.1007/s10964-014-0158-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kaplan JB, & Bennett T (2003). Use of race and ethnicity in biomedical publication. JAMA, 289(2), 2709–2716. 10.1001/jama.289.20.2709 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. McCauley HL, Silverman JG, Jones KA, Tancredi DJ, Decker MR, McCormick MC, Austin SB, Anderson HA, & Miller E (2017). Psychometric properties and refinement of the Reproductive Coercion Scale. Contraception, 95(3), 292–298. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.09.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Miller E, Jordan B, Levenson R, & Silverman JG (2010). Reproductive coercion: Connecting the dots between partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception, 81(6), 457–459. 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.02.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Miller E, McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Decker MR, Anderson H, & Silverman JG (2014). Recent reproductive coercion and unintended pregnancy among female family planning clients. Contraception, 89(2), 122–128. 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.10.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Miller E, McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Decker MR, Anderson H, & Silverman JG (2014). Recent reproductive coercion and unintended pregnancy among female family planning clients. Contraception, 89(2), 122–128. 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.10.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. O’Leary KD (1999). Developmental and affective issues in assessing and treating partner aggression. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(4), 400. 10.1093/clipsy.6.4.400 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Rueda HA, Yndo M, Williams LR, & Shorey RC (2018). Does Gottman’s Marital Communication Conceptualization Inform Teen Dating Violence? Communication Skill Deficits Analyzed Across Three Samples of Diverse Adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11–12), NP6411–NP6440. 10.1177/0886260518814267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ryan KM (2013). Issues of reliability in measuring intimate partner violence during courtship. Sex Roles, 69(3–4), 131–148. 10.1007/s11199-012-0233-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sheeran N, Vallury K, Sharman LS, Corbin B, Douglas H, Bernardino B, Hach M, Coombe L, Keramidopoulos S, Torres-Quiazon R, & Tarzia L (2022). Reproductive coercion and abuse among pregnancy counselling clients in Australia: Trends and directions. Reproductive Health, 19(1), 1–10. 10.1186/s12978-022-01479-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Shorey RC, Allan NP, Cohen JR, Fite PJ, Stuart GL, & Temple JR (2019). Testing the factor structure and measurement invariance of the conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationship Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 31(3), 410–416. 10.1037/pas0000678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Shorey RC, Cohen JR, Lu Y, Fite PJ, Stuart GL, & Temple JR (2017). Age of onset for physical and sexual teen dating violence perpetration: A longitudinal investigation. Preventive Medicine, 105, 275–279. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.10.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Silverman JG, Decker MR, McCauley HL, Gupta J, Miller E, Raj A, & Goldberg AB (2010). Male perpetration of intimate partner violence and involvement in abortions and abortion-related conflict. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1415–1417. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.173393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sutherland MA, Fantasia HC, & Fontenot H (2015). Reproductive coercion and partner violence among college women. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 44(2), 218–227. 10.1111/1552-6909.12550 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Temple JR, Shorey RC, Fite P, Stuart GL, & Le VD (2013). Substance use as a longitudinal predictor of the perpetration of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 596–606. 10.1007/s10964-012-9877-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Wolfe DA, Scott K, Reitzel-Jaffe D, Wekerle C, Grasley C, & Straatman AL (2001). Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 277–293. 10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.277 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES