Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Interpers Violence. 2022 Apr 25;38(1-2):NP1261–NP1278. doi: 10.1177/08862605221092349

Reproductive Coercion and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Among a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Young Adult Sample

Emily A Muñoz 1, Vi Donna Le 2, Yu Lu 3, Ryan C Shorey 1, Jeff R Temple 4
PMCID: PMC9592682  NIHMSID: NIHMS1802192  PMID: 35467974

Abstract

Reproductive coercion is an understudied form of intimate partner violence (IPV) that occurs when a person attempts to control the autonomous reproductive decision making of their intimate partner. Previous research has demonstrated that individuals who experience reproductive coercion are more likely to experience other forms of IPV (e.g., physical and sexual). Research has also shown that Black/African American and Latinx/Hispanic individuals are at an increased risk of experiencing reproductive coercion compared to their White/Non-Hispanic peers. However, most of the research on reproductive coercion has been conducted in family-planning clinics where IPV is reported at a higher rate than in community samples. Thus, using a diverse community sample of female-identifying young adults (N = 370) who were recruited as part of an ongoing longitudinal study on dating violence, we examined the prevalence of lifetime reproductive coercion and its relationship with other forms of IPV, as well as the differences in prevalence among racial and ethnic groups. Lifetime prevalence of being victimized by any form of reproductive coercion was 11.4%. Results indicated that individuals who experienced reproductive coercion were more likely to experience physical and sexual IPV relative to those who did not experience reproductive coercion. With respect to race/ethnicity, 5.6% of White participants, 10.5% of Black/African American participants, and 14.8% of Hispanic/Latinx participants reported experiencing reproductive coercion. Chi-square analyses showed Hispanic/Latinx participants had a significantly higher prevalence of reproductive coercion when compared to White/Non-Hispanic participants. These findings suggest a need for additional research on culturally-specific risk and protective factors related to reproductive coercion among Hispanic/Latinx individuals to identify potential intervention and prevention strategies.

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

Introduction

Reproductive coercion, a serious and understudied public health problem, occurs when a person attempts to control their partner’s autonomous reproductive decision making (Grace & Anderson, 2018). This includes behaviors such as interfering with condom usage, coercing a partner to become pregnant, and controlling the outcome of a pregnancy (e.g., coercing a partner to terminate a pregnancy or coercing them into not terminating a pregnancy; (Grace & Anderson, 2018; Miller et al., 2010). It is estimated that between 8–19% of women experience reproductive coercion victimization from a male partner during their lifetime (Basile et al., 2019; Grace & Anderson, 2018; Miller et al., 2010; Sutherland et al., 2015). It is theorized that reproductive coercion takes two different forms: birth control sabotage and pregnancy coercion (Miller et al., 2010). Birth control sabotage, which is characterized by destroying birth control, removing a condom during sex without the partner’s knowledge, or damaging a condom in order to promote pregnancy, is estimated to affect up to 15% of women in their lifetime (Miller et al., 2010). Pregnancy coercion, which includes pressuring a partner to become pregnant or not to become pregnant by using physical or verbal threats, is estimated to impact up to 19% of women in their lifetime (Miller et al., 2010; Sutherland et al., 2015).

Reproductive coercion is associated with several adverse health outcomes, including depressive symptoms (Alexander et al., 2019), unintended pregnancy (Capasso et al., 2019), and increased risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), as well delays in obtaining contraceptives and reduced use of prescription birth control (Early et al., 2015; Gee et al., 2009). Further, reproductive coercion often co-occurs with other forms of intimate partner violence (IPV; e.g., physical violence) and is associated with victimization experiences such as stalking, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape-related pregnancy (Katz et al., 2017; Swan et al., 2020; Basile et al., 2018).

Many studies on reproductive coercion have used data collected from healthcare settings where IPV is typically reported by women at a higher rate than in the general population (Keeling & Birch, 2004). The single study that sampled from the general population (i.e., non-clinical, non-college sample) included measures that did not assess the intention of the coercive behavior (i.e., How many of your current or ex romantic or sexual partners have ever refused to use a condom when you wanted them to use one? Basile et al., 2019), making it difficult to discern whether the behavior(s) constituted reproductive coercion or other behavior such as condom refusal/non-consensual condom removal, which may be motivated by factors other than the desire to control the partner’s reproductive autonomy. Given these limitations, it is important to examine reproductive coercion among diverse samples of women from community (non-clinic) settings where the intention of reproductive coercion behavior is assessed.

Reproductive Coercion and Other Forms of Intimate Partner Violence

Rates of reproductive coercion are typically higher among women who have experienced other forms of IPV compared to those who have not. In a sample of women recruited from five family planning clinics in California, Miller and colleagues (2010) found that 79% of women who reported experiencing birth control sabotage, and 74% of women who reported pregnancy coercion, also reported experiencing some other form of IPV. Only 7% of women who did not report experiencing sexual or physical IPV reported reproductive coercion. Another study that recruited women from a family planning clinic found that experiencing reproductive coercion in the absence of other IPV increased the odds that women would seek reproductive health services (Kazmerski et al., 2015). Further, women who experienced both reproductive coercion and other forms of IPV, compared to women who did not experience any forms of IPV victimization, were 3.6 times more likely to seek multiple pregnancy tests, 2.5 times more likely to receive STI testing, and 2.4 times more likely to use emergency contraception compared to women who did not experience any forms of IPV victimization. Additionally, co-occurring reproductive coercion and physical and sexual IPV increased the odds of women seeking various reproductive health services by greater than threefold when compared to women who reported neither reproductive coercion nor physical and sexual IPV.

Relevant to the present study, recent findings have demonstrated that between 8% and 30% of college women have experienced some form of reproductive coercion (Katz et al., 2017; Sutherland et al., 2015; Swan et al., 2020). While these studies provide important information on the prevalence of reproductive coercion among young adults (people between the ages of 18–25), these studies were conducted with samples comprised of predominantly White women in higher education, thus limiting their generalizability. The present study seeks to build on these findings by assessing the co-occurrence of other forms of IPV and reproductive coercion in a non-clinical sample of racially and ethnically diverse people who can become pregnant.

Reproductive Coercion and Race/Ethnicity

Recent studies have found that the prevalence of reproductive coercion and other forms of co-occurring IPV is higher among racial and ethnic minority women (Hill et al., 2019; Holliday et al., 2017). In samples of women seeking family planning services, researchers have consistently found that Black and multiracial women have a heightened risk of reproductive coercion (Clark et al., 2014; Holliday et al., 2017). Using data from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), Basile et al. (2019) found that Black women experienced significantly higher rates of lifetime (14.8%) and past year (3.3%) reproductive coercion, relative to other racial/ethnic groups. The same study found that in their nationally representative sample, Hispanic women had significantly higher lifetime (9.9%) and past year prevalence (1.8%) of reproductive coercion than Non-Hispanic White women, who had a lifetime prevalence of 7% and a past year prevalence of .9%. To the best of our knowledge, the study using NISVS data is the only study to examine racial and ethnic differences in reproductive coercion victimization in a nationally representative and racially/ethnically diverse non-clinical sample. The current study will replicate and extend these findings by examining reproductive coercion in a racially and ethnically diverse sample of young adults; which will help inform prevention and intervention efforts by identifying populations at disproportionate risk for reproductive coercion. To be clear, race/ethnicity itself is not a risk factor for reproductive coercion; rather, structural risk factors such as economic instability, mass incarceration, and systematic racism and discrimination that disproportionally affect racial/ethnic minority groups may increase the risk for reproductive coercion as they do for other forms of violence (Kaplan & Bennett, 2003). While the current study does not examine experiences of racism and discrimination, findings can be interpreted using this framework.

Current Study

We examined the lifetime prevalence of reproductive coercion in a racially and ethnically diverse sample of female-identifying young adults who are participating in an ongoing, longitudinal study of intimate relationships. We hypothesized that victims of reproductive coercion would have a heightened risk of physical, sexual, and psychological IPV victimization relative to individuals who were not victims of reproductive coercion. Given the limited existing literature, we hypothesized that Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American participants would be more likely to experience reproductive coercion than their White/Non-Hispanic counterparts.

Method

Participants

The current study included a sample of 370 female-identified individuals from a longitudinal study on intimate relationships who were originally recruited from seven public high schools in Texas (Temple et al., 2013). These seven public high schools were selected because they are representative of the surrounding communities in terms of racial/ethnic diversity and the number of low-income students who attend. All students were eligible to participate, and recruitment took place during school hours in classes that students were required to attend (i.e., English, World Geography, and Health). Parental permission and assent from students were obtained prior to assessment. Participants completed the survey in paper-and-pencil format at Wave 1 and in later waves, these who were not attending the recruitment schools completed the survey online. 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 Wave 6 (2015) of this ongoing study and includes participants who completed the reproductive coercion measure.

Participants ages ranged from 19–22 years old, and the mean age of participants was 20.05 (SD =.73). The sample identified as 28.9% White/Non-Hispanic, 32.7% Latinx/Hispanic, 25.7% Black/African American, 4.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 8.1% as more than one race. At the time of the study, 94.3% of participants reported having never been married, 4.6% reported being married, 0.8% reported being separated, and 0.3% reported being divorced. Of participants who were in an intimate relationship at Wave 6 (n = 231), 96.1% reported dating males and 3.9% reported dating females. 84% of the sample reported having sex with at least one person in the past year. Participants who were in intimate relationships with females (n = 9), or who were not in an intimate relationship at Wave 6 (n = 139), were included in the analytic sample (N = 370) because the measure of reproductive coercion assessed lifetime prevalence and it is possible that reproductive coercion was perpetrated by a previous male partner. Further, reproductive coercion can occur in the context of casual sexual relationships in which participants identify themselves as single (Clark et al., 2014).

Measures

Reproductive coercion.

A 10-item measure was used to assess two aspects of lifetime reproductive coercion: pregnancy coercion and birth control sabotage (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 and colleagues (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 (RCS; McCauley et al., 2017) was not available at the time of data collection, however these items are similar to those included in the RCS. Lifetime pregnancy coercion was assessed using the following five items rated on a Yes/No scale: “Has someone you were dating or going out with ever told you not to use any birth control (like the pill, shot, ring, etc.)?,” “said he would leave you if you didn’t get pregnant?,” “told you he would have a baby with someone else if you didn’t get pregnant?,” “hurt you physically because you did not agree to get pregnant?,” and “tried to force or pressure you to become pregnant?” Lifetime birth control sabotage was assessed with the following five items using a Yes/No scale, with the option to select that they preferred not to respond: “Has someone you were dating or going out with ever taken off the condom while you were having sex so that you would get pregnant?,” “put holes in the condom so you would get pregnant?,” “broken a condom on purpose while you were having sex so you would get pregnant?,” “taken your birth control away from you or kept you from going to the clinic to get birth control so that you would get pregnant?,” and “made you have sex without a condom so you would get pregnant?”

A total lifetime reproductive coercion score was calculated by summing all items for participants who completed at least 80% of items, which was the full sample (N = 370). In violence studies, there are typically a large number of participants who reported that they never experienced 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 threatening behavior, abuse, and verbal/emotional abuse, with abuse further divided into relational abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse. Items were preceded by specific questions about participants’ dating histories (e.g., whether or not they have dated, number of dating partners, 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 don’t 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 the 4 physical victimization questions, 10 psychological victimization questions, and 4 sexual victimization questions. The CADRI has been shown to have a strong factor structure (Shorey et al., 2019) and to be sensitive for 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 all other IPV variables and total and subscale scores of reproductive coercion for the entire sample. Next, we created dichotomous variables for lifetime reproductive coercion, and past year psychological IPV, sexual IPV, and physical IPV victimization. Participants who experienced a particular form of victimization were categorized as “1” and those who had not experienced that form of victimization were categorized as “0.” To test our hypotheses, we used chi-square analyses to examine differences between victims and non-victims of reproductive coercion in terms of their experiences with various other forms of IPV and 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 with other races and ethnicities.

Results

Lifetime prevalence of being victimized by any form of reproductive coercion in the overall sample (N = 370) was 11.4%, with 10% reporting pregnancy coercion and 3.3% reporting birth control sabotage (1.9% reporting both pregnancy coercion and birth control sabotage). With respect to other IPV victimization, 16.5% reported sexual IPV, 17.3% reported physical IPV, and 74.8% reported psychological IPV victimization in the past year. Of the 42 participants who endorsed reproductive coercion victimization, 8 had not experienced any other form of IPV in the past year. As shown in Table 1, past year sexual, psychological, and physical IPV victimization were positively and significantly associated with lifetime reproductive coercion overall and pregnancy coercion specifically. Only sexual IPV victimization was positively and significantly associated with birth control sabotage (r=.16, p < .01).

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations among Study Variables (N = 370).

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Reproductive coercion - Total — .94a .61a .29a .20a .21a
2. Pregnancy coercion (5 items) — .31a .28a .22a .25a
3. Birth control sabotage (5 items) — .16a .05 .01
4. Sexual IPV victimization — .41a .41a
5. Psychological IPV victimization — .53a
6. Physical IPV victimization —
Mean .18 .14 .04 .28 3.14 .34
SD .55 .46 .20 .72 2.85 .88
Open in a new tab

Note. Participants were asked to report past year physical, sexual, and psychological IPV and lifetime reproductive coercion.

a

p < .01.

Two (reproductive coercion vs. no reproductive coercion) X two (psychological IPV vs. no psychological IPV; physical IPV vs. no physical IPV; sexual IPV vs. no sexual IPV) chi-square association tests (see Table 2) revealed that victims of lifetime reproductive coercion were significantly more likely to experience past-year physical IPV, χ2 (1) = 17.79, p < .001, and past-year sexual IPV, χ2 (1) = 19.80, p < .001, relative to those who did not experience reproductive coercion. With respect to past-year psychological IPV, no differences emerged between individuals victimized by reproductive coercion in their lifetime and their non-victimized counterparts, χ2 (1) = .953, p = .329.

Table 2.

Prevalence of Other Past-Year IPV Among Participants Reporting Lifetime Reproductive Coercion (N = 370).

Type of Other IPV Victimization Non-victims of Reproductive Coercion (n = 328) Victims of Reproductive Coercion (n = 42) χ2
Physical IPV victimization (n = 64) 14.3% 40.5% 17.79, p < .001
Sexual IPV victimization (n = 61) 13.4% 40.5% 19.80, p < .001
Psychological IPV victimization (n= 276) 74% 81% .95, p = .329
Open in a new tab

Note. Participants were asked to report past year physical, sexual, and psychological IPV and lifetime reproductive coercion.

With respect to prevalence among the three most represented ethnic groups in the sample (n = 323), 5.6% of White/Non-Hispanic participants, 10.5% of Black/African American/Non-Hispanic participants, and 14.8% of Hispanic/Latinx participants reported experiencing reproductive coercion (see Table 3). A 2 (reproductive coercion vs. no reproductive coercion) X 3 (White/Non-Hispanic, Hispanic/Latinx, and Black/African American persons) chi-square association test did not reveal a significant difference, χ2 (2) = 5.18, p = .075.

Table 3.

Prevalence of Lifetime Reproductive Coercion Among Latinx/Hispanic, Black/African-American, and White/Non-Hispanic participants (n = 323).

Type of Lifetime Reproductive Coercion Latinx/Hispanic Persons (n = 121) Black/African-American Persons (n = 95) White/Non-Hispanic Persons (n = 102) Total Prevalence (n = 323)
Any reproductive coercion (n = 34) 14.8% 10.5% 5.6% 10.5%
Birth control sabotage (n = 11) 5.8% 3.1% .09% 3.4%
Pregnancy coercion (n = 30) 12.4% 10.5% 4.6% 9.3%
Open in a new tab

Note. Participants were asked to report lifetime reproductive coercion.

Due to small sample sizes for each racial/ethnic group and the 2 X 3 chi-square approaching significance, we conducted follow-up 2 (reproductive coercion vs. no reproductive coercion) X 2 (White/Non-Hispanic persons vs. Hispanic/Latinx persons; White/Non-Hispanic vs. Black/African American persons; Hispanic/Latinx persons vs. Black/African American persons) chi-squares. These results, which should be interpreted with caution since the overall chi-square was not significant, showed Hispanic/Latinx participants had a significantly higher lifetime prevalence of reproductive coercion when compared to White/Non-Hispanic participants, 14.8% versus 5.6%, χ2 (1) = 5.18, p = .023. However, there were no significant differences in the lifetime prevalence of reproductive coercion between White/Non-Hispanic and Black/African American participants, 5.6% versus 10.5%, χ2 (1) = 1.67, p = .196, or Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx participants, 10.5% versus 14.8%, χ2 (1) = .89, p = .345. Table 3 presents the prevalence of each type of lifetime reproductive coercion among Latinx/Hispanic, Black/African-American, and White/Non-Hispanic participants (n = 323).

Discussion

In our racially and ethnically diverse sample of female-identifying young adults, we found that a sizeable minority of participants (~11%) reported lifetime victimization of reproductive coercion. Approximately 10% experienced pregnancy coercion and 3.3% experienced birth control sabotage in their lifetime. While these rates are expectedly lower than what has been found in women sampled from family planning clinics (e.g., Miller et al., 2010), they are consistent with the only nationally representative study on reproductive coercion (Basile et al., 2019), providing further evidence that reproductive coercion is a prevalent type of intimate partner violence impacting young adults.

Partially supporting our hypotheses, we found that individuals victimized by reproductive coercion were more likely to report physical and sexual IPV relative to those who did not experience reproductive coercion. This finding is consistent with previous research with clinical and non-clinical samples, which further supports the notion that reproductive coercion often co-occurs with other types of IPV (Clark et al., 2014; Holliday et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2010). However, a significant difference did not emerge with respect to the prevalence of psychological IPV victimization between participants who experienced reproductive coercion and their non-victimized counterparts. The high prevalence of psychological IPV across all relationships, consistent with prior research (e.g., Brem et al., 2019), may explain the failure to find a significant difference between these two groups. To further inform violence prevention and intervention strategies, future research could consider investigating the temporal link between other forms of IPV and reproductive coercion. Determining whether other forms of IPV are risk factors for reproductive coercion, or vice versa, may have important implications for when and where prevention strategies could be effectively delivered.

We found that the lifetime prevalence of reproductive coercion was significantly higher for participants who identified as Hispanic/Latinx relative to those who identified as White/Non-Hispanic. This finding should be interpreted with caution, however, as this was based on post-hoc analysis. Still, this result is consistent with studies from family planning clinic samples (Clark et al., 2014; Holliday et al., 2017) and a nationally representative sample (Basile et al., 2019). Contrary to previous research, no significant difference in rates of reproductive coercion emerged between Black/African American participants and their White/Non-Hispanic participants. However, our relatively small sample size for examining differences across race/ethnicity may have precluded detecting a statistically significant difference in reproductive coercion between Black/African American and White/Non-Hispanic participants. Indeed, Black/African American participants had a prevalence of reproductive coercion almost double that of White/Non-Hispanic participants, and thus future research with larger samples is needed to continue examining race/ethnic differences in reproductive coercion.

When interpreting differences across race/ethnicity in regard to reproductive coercion, it is important to consider that racial and ethnic differences in reproductive coercion, or other forms of IPV, do not indicate that individuals who belong to these groups are at risk because of their culture or race/ethnicity predisposes them, or their partners, to violence. Rather, structural risk factors such as economic instability, structural racism, and experiences of discrimination can influence the risk for reproductive coercion victimization/perpetration as it does for other forms of violence (Kaplan & Bennett, 2003). These acute and chronic stressors experienced by people of color may contribute to tension in relationships that can result in maladaptive ways of coping with relationship conflict (Holliday et al., 2019). Thus, future research that examines how these factors (i.e., systemic racism, minority stress, and structural factors such as poverty and mass incarceration) relate to reproductive coercion and other forms of interpersonal violence in racial/ethnic minority groups would be beneficial.

Specific to Latina women, a recent qualitative study documented that variables such as immigration status, machismo, and the importance of family are relevant to Latina women’s experiences with reproductive coercion as both risk factors and as opportunities for resilience (Grace et al., 2020). Indeed, women described machismo, culturally-specific masculine gender norms, as being the cause of their partner’s coercive behavior and viewed their family as a source of strength that enabled them to endure or leave these abusive relationships. Given these findings, and the high rates of reproductive coercion among Hispanic/Latinx people in the current community-based study, future research on culturally-specific risk and protective factors will enhance our current understanding of reproductive coercion in racial and ethnic minority populations.

Reproductive coercion is a form of IPV that research has shown to be associated with adverse sexual and reproductive health outcomes. Thus, our findings have important implications for the reproductive health of all people, but particularly Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx young adults. Given the high prevalence of reproductive coercion among Black/African American and Latinx/Hispanic participants in the sample, it may be beneficial for health care professionals to begin screening for reproductive coercion and other forms of IPV during adolescence and young adulthood. Screening for other forms of IPV with individuals who can become pregnant is suggested by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF, 2017). This is consistent with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recently published IPV prevention technical package, which includes screening for reproductive coercion as well (Niolon et al., 2017). Hispanic/Latinx individuals are also less likely to receive regular cervical cancer screening compared to other racial and ethnic groups, which may be related to experiences of reproductive coercion and other forms of IPV (Finer & Zolna, 2016; Zhou et al., 2010). Further, 64% of Black/African American women and 50% of Latinx/Hispanic women experience unintended pregnancy (Finer and Zolna, 2016); notable since it has been shown that Black/African American women who experience both other forms of IPV and reproductive coercion are at an increased risk of experiencing unintended pregnancy (Holliday et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2010). Additional research in this area is needed to better understand the impact of reproductive coercion on the health of people who can become pregnant. Our understanding of this topic could benefit from attending to aspects of participants’ material conditions (i.e., access to resources such as healthcare, housing, contraceptives, and comprehensive sex education) that may influence the relationship between reproductive coercion and adverse health outcomes. Although there is a need for evidence-based strategies that specifically target reproductive coercion, the CDC’s technical packages on IPV and sexual violence (SV) prevention include strategies compiled from the best available evidence to prevent IPV and SV that may also prevent reproductive coercion (Basile et al., 2016; Niolon et al., 2017). These strategies include teaching safe and healthy relationship skills, disrupting the developmental pathways towards partner violence, and strengthening economic supports.

Limitations

Several important limitations should be considered when interpreting our findings. First, because the data are cross-sectional, we cannot determine whether other IPV preceded reproductive coercion, if reproductive coercion preceded other IPV, or if they co-occurred. Longitudinal research looking at the temporal relationship between reproductive coercion and other forms of IPV will enhance existing screenings and interventions for IPV. Another notable limitation is the exclusion of items assessing a partner’s control of pregnancy outcomes (i.e., forcing or preventing the termination of a pregnancy). This form of reproductive coercion has been relatively understudied, and items assessing coerced termination/non-termination should be added to future reproductive coercion measurements and studies (Grace & Anderson, 2018). Additionally, the sample size for participants who did not identify as Hispanic/Latinx, Black/African American, or White/Non-Hispanic was small. Therefore, we were unable to analyze subgroup differences outside of these three racial and ethnic groups. Further, the sample size of participants who identified as Black/African American was also smaller relative to other groups and this may have contributed to the non-significant findings for differences between groups. Future research would benefit from larger and more diverse samples. Research in this area may also benefit from examining cultural and societal expectations for reproduction, as these may also shape experiences with reproductive coercion. Sociocultural variables, such as beliefs about contraception and unintended pregnancy, may worsen adverse health outcomes related to reproductive coercion and ultimately limit the reproductive autonomy of people who can become pregnant (Hernandez et al., 2020). Research that addresses social and cultural norms surrounding reproductive coercion is needed in order to fully understand racial/ethnic disparities that have been documented by this study and others.

An additional limitation of this study is that gender identity was not comprehensively assessed, as participants were only asked to indicate if they were female or male. Unfortunately, this did not allow us to examine the prevalence of reproductive coercion among transgender and gender diverse individuals. Future research may consider taking a more inclusive and non-heteronormative approach to the study of reproductive coercion, and IPV more broadly. This includes fully assessing sexual orientation and gender identity and using language that recognizes that reproductive coercion can affect anyone who has the capacity to become pregnant. Moreover, future research can consider attending to how sexual orientation and gender diversity uniquely influence these important public health problems. For example, one study reported that women who had sex with both men and women were at a greater risk of experiencing reproductive coercion, thus more research is needed to fully understand how sexual and gender minority stress contribute to people’s experiences of reproductive coercion (Alexander et al., 2019). Finally, future studies may consider examining reproductive coercion and other forms of IPV across different relationship types (e.g., committed relationship, married, dating, not exclusive) in order to inform intervention and prevention efforts.

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrated 1) that individuals who experienced reproductive coercion are at an increased risk for experiencing physical and sexual IPV relative to their non-victimized counterparts and 2) a higher prevalence of reproductive coercion among participants who identified as Hispanic/Latinx relative to participants who identified as Non-Hispanic White. Results are consistent with past research and suggest that culturally sensitive and inclusive screening for reproductive coercion and other IPV are needed.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Award Numbers K23HD059916 and R01HD099199 (PI: Temple) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), as well as Award Number 2012-WG-BX-0005 (PI: Temple) from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NICHD or NIJ.

Author Biographies

Emily Munoz, MA Emily Munoz is a graduate student in the Clinical Psychology Ph.D. program 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 Vi Donna Le 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 prevention of child sexual abuse, rape prevention education, and technology facilitated violence.

Yu Lu, PhD Dr. Yu Lu is an assistant professor in the Department of Health and Exercise Science at the University of Oklahoma. Her primary research interest is in health disparities in the context of risk behaviors such as substance use and interpersonal violence.

Ryan C. Shorey, PhD. 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: Dr. Jeff R. Temple 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, Willie TC, McDonald-Mosley R, Campbell JC, Miller E, & Decker MR (2021). Associations between reproductive coercion, partner violence, and mental health symptoms among young Black women in Baltimore, Maryland. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17–18), NP9839–NP9863. 10.1177/0886260519860900 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Basile KC, DeGue S, Jones K, Freire K, Dills J, Smith SG, & Raiford JL (2016). STOP SV: A technical package to prevent sexual violence. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Google Scholar]
  3. Basile KC, Smith SG, Liu Y, Kresnow MJ, Fasula AM, Gilbert L, & Chen J (2018). Rape-related pregnancy and association with reproductive coercion in the US. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 55(6), 770–776. 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.07.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Brem MJ, Stuart GL, Cornelius TL, & Shorey RC (2019). A longitudinal examination of alcohol problems and cyber, psychological, and physical dating abuse: The moderating role of emotion dysregulation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20). 10.1177/0886260519876029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Capasso A, DiClemente RJ, & Wingood GM (2019). Pregnancy Coercion as a Risk Factor for HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Young African American Women. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (1999), 82(Suppl 2), S155–S161. 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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), 42–48. 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.09.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Early D, Cross Riedel J, Thiel de Bocanegra H, Swann D, & Schwarz EB (2015). Differences in contraceptive use between women reporting reproductive coercion and intimate partner violence. Contraception, 92(4), 362. 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.06.043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Finer LB, & Zolna MR (2016). Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011. The New England Journal of Medicine, 374(9), 843–852. 10.1056/NEJMsa1506575 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gee RE, Mitra N, Wan F, Chavkin DE, & Long JA (2009). Power over parity: intimate partner violence and issues of fertility control. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 201(2), 148–e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Grace KT, Decker MR, Alexander KA, Campbell J, Miller E, Perrin N, & Glass N (2020). Reproductive coercion, intimate partner violence, and unintended pregnancy among Latina women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), 1604–1636. 10.1177/0886260520922363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. Hernandez ND, Chandler R, Nava N, Tamler I, Daley EM, Baldwin JA, Buhi ER, O’Rourke K, Romero-Daza N, & Grilo S (2020). Young adult US-born Latina women’s thoughts, feelings and beliefs about unintended pregnancy. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 22(8), 920–936. 10.1080/13691058.2019.1642517 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hill AL, Jones KA, McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Silverman JG, & Miller E (2019). Reproductive coercion and relationship abuse among adolescents and young women seeking care at school health centers. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 134(2), 351–359. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003374 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. Holliday CN, Morse SM, Irvin NA, Green-Manning A, Nitsch LM, Burke JG, Campbell JC, & Decker MR (2019). Concept mapping: Engaging urban men to understand community influences on partner violence perpetration. Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 96(1), 97–111. 10.1007/s11524-018-0297-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kaplan JB, & Bennett T (2003). Use of race and ethnicity in biomedical publication. Jsls: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 289(20), 2709–2716. 10.1001/jama.289.20.2709 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Katz J, Poleshuck EL, Beach B, & Olin R (2017). Reproductive coercion by male sexual partners: Associations with partner violence and college women’s sexual health. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(21), 3301–3320. 10.1177/0886260515597441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kazmerski T, McCauley HL, Jones K, Borrero S, Silverman JG, Decker MR, Tancredi D, & Miller E (2015). Use of reproductive and sexual health services among female family planning clinic clients exposed to partner violence and reproductive coercion. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 19(7), 1490–1496. 10.1007/s10995-014-1653-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Keeling J, & Birch L (2004). The prevalence rates of domestic abuse in women attending a family planning clinic. The Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 30(2), 113–114. 10.1783/147118904322995500 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. McCauley Heather L, Silverman Jay G, Jones Kelley A, Tancredi Daniel J, Decker Michele R, McCormick Marie C, Austin S Bryn, Anderson Heather A, & Miller Elizabeth (2017). Psychometric properties and refinement of the Reproductive Coercion Scale. Contraception, 95(3), 292–298. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.09.010. 27639927. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Levenson RR, Waldman J, Schoenwald P, & Silverman JG (2010). Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception, 81(4), 316–322. 10.1016/j.contraception.2009.12.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Niolon PH, Kearns M, Dills J, Rambo K, Irving S, Armstead TL, & Gilbert L (2017). Preventing intimate partner violence across the lifespan: A technical package of programs, policies, and practices. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Google Scholar]
  26. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. 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. https://doi.org/0.1037/pas0000678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. Swan LET, Mennicke A, & Kim Y (2020). Reproductive coercion and interpersonal violence victimization experiences among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23–24). 10.1177/0886260519898424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Temple Jeff R, Shorey Ryan C, Fite Paula, Stuart Gregory L, & Le Vi Donna (2013). Substance use as a longitudinal predictor of the perpetration of teen dating violence. J Youth Adolesc, 42(4), 596–606. 10.1007/s10964-012-9877-1. 23187699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force., & United States (2000). U.S. Preventive services Task force (USPSTF). U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. Zhou J, Enewold L, Peoples GE, Clifton GT, Potter JF, Stojadinovic A, & Zhu K (2010). Trends in cancer screening among Hispanic and white non-Hispanic women, 2000–2005. Journal of Women’s Health, 19(12), 2167–2174. 10.1089/jwh.2009.1909 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES