Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Coercive Control in Commercial Sexual Exploitation: Examining Prevalence and the Pros and Cons of Semi-Structured Interviews Versus Likert-Scale Self-Reports
The inclusion of coercion in trafficking law has highlighted the need for a comprehensive, practical, and ecologically valid assessment of coercion. Accordingly, we examined coercive control (CC) using a semi-structured interview (The Brief Interview of Coercive Control [BICC]; Raghavan & Doychak, 2025) and a Likert self-report (The Checklist of Controlling Behaviors [CCB]; Lehmann et al., 2012) to systematically document type, frequency, and severity of CC in a sample of former victims of sex trafficking. CC tactics including surveillance and stalking, microregulation, manipulation, isolation, intimidation (including nonphysical and physical abuse), degradation, deprivation, and sexual abuse/coercion were present in all 68 narratives with over half of the sample feeling afraid and experiencing 5 or more tactics daily. Despite high levels of overall coercion, rates of physical violence were relatively low when compared to other tactics as measured by both the BICC and the CCB. Overall, findings suggest the CC framework can be reliably used to assess the abuses endured in this population. However, differences in findings of CC when using the BICC versus the CCB suggest that although both assessments detected coercion, semi-structured and impact-anchored assessments capture CC victimization more comprehensively than do checklist self-report measures. These findings highlight the importance of considering the costs and benefits of various methodology when assessing or measuring CC.
AdamsA. E.GreesonM. R.LittwinA. K.JavorkaM. (2020). The Revised Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA2): Development and initial psychometric testing of an updated measure of economic abuse in intimate relationships. Psychology of Violence, 10(3), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000244
2.
BaldwinS. S.FehrenbacherA. E.EisenmanD. P. (2014). Psychological coercion in human trafficking: An application of Biderman’s framework. Qualitative Health Research, 25, 1171–1181.
3.
BarbaroL.RaghavanC. (2018). Patterns in coercive controlling behaviors among men mandated for batterer treatment: Denial, minimization, and consistency of tactics across relationships. Partner Abuse, 9, 270–290.
4.
BledsoeL. K.SarB. K. (2011). Intimate partner violence control scale: Development and initial testing. Journal of Family Violence, 26(3), 171–184.
BrownC.HegartyK. (2021). Development and validation of the TAR Scale: A measure of technology-facilitated abuse in relationships. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 3, Article 100059.
7.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
8.
DeshpandeN. A.NourN. M. (2013). Sex trafficking of women and girls. Reviews in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 6, 22–27.
9.
DoychakK. (2022). Coercive control and trauma-coerced attachment in commercial sexual exploitation: A mixed-method examination (Publication No. 29257948) [Doctoral dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center John Jay College]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
10.
DoychakK.RaghavanC. (2018). “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
11.
DoychakK.RaghavanC. (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), Article 100323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtd.2023.100323
12.
DuttonM. A.GoodmanL.TerrellD.SchmidtR. J.FujimotoA. (2007). Coercion in Intimate Partner Relationships (CPR): A measure of demands, surveillance, coercive tactics, and behavioral response to coercive tactics (Final report). National Institute of Justice.
13.
FarleyM. (2005). Prostitution harms women even if indoors: Reply to Weitzer. Violence Against Women, 11(7), 950–964.
14.
FarleyM.KennedyM. A. (2024). Torture and its sequelae among prostituted women in the United States. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 15(1), Article 2404307.
15.
FelicianoS. (2023). Using the framework of coercive control to explain cult relationships [Master’s thesis, John Jay College of Criminal Justice]. CUNY Academic Works.
16.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134–2156.
17.
Graham-KevanN.ArcherJ. (2003). Physical aggression and control in heterosexual relationships: The effect of sampling. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 181–196.
18.
GutowskiE. R.GoodmanL. A. (2023). Coercive control in the courtroom: The Legal Abuse Scale (LAS). Journal of Family Violence, 38(3), 527–542.
19.
HaganE.RaghavanC.DoychakK. (2019). Functional isolation: Understanding isolation in trafficking survivors. Sexual Abuse, 33, 176–199.
20.
HermanJ. L. (1992a). Complex PTSD: A syndrome in survivors of prolonged and repeated trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 5, 377–391.
21.
HermanJ. L. (1992b). Trauma and recovery. Basic Books.
22.
HodgeD. (2008). Sex trafficking in the United States: A domestic problem with transnational dimensions. Social Work, 53, 143–152.
23.
HomK. A.WoodsS. J. (2013). Trauma and its aftermath for commercially sexually exploited women as told by front-line service providers. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 34, 75–81. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2012.723300
JabineT. B.StrafM. L.TanurJ. M.TourangeauR. (1984). Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: Building a bridge between disciplines. National Academy Press.
KenneyT.RaghavanC. (2024). Predatory helpfulness: A replication (and expansion) study examining grooming and recruitment tactics in sex trafficking. Journal of Human Trafficking, 10, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322705.2024.2327950
28.
LeggA.RaghavanC. (2020). Not safe for all: A mixed methods study of violence in men in commercial sex. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000374
29.
LehmannP.SimmonsC. A.PillaiV. K. (2012). The validation of the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB): Assessing coercive control in abusive relationships. Violence Against Women, 18, 913–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212456522
30.
LovelandJ. E.RaghavanC. (2017). Coercive control, physical violence, and masculinity. Violence and Gender, 4(1), 1–6.
31.
MyhillA. (2015). Measuring coercive control: What can we learn from national population surveys?Violence Against Women, 21(3), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214568032
32.
MyhillA.HohlK. (2016). The “Golden Thread”: Coercive control and risk assessment for domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(21–22), 4477–4497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516675464
33.
PomerantzJ.CohenS. J.DoychakK.RaghavanC. (2021). Linguistic indicators of coercive control: Evidenced in sex trafficking narratives. Violence and Gender, 8(4), 175–186.
34.
PrebleK. M. (2019). Under their “control”: Perceptions of traffickers’ power and coercion among international female trafficking survivors during exploitation. Victims & Offenders, 14, 199–221.
35.
RaghavanC.DoychakK. (2025). Assessing coercive control in forensic settings: A review of the development and application of the Brief Interview of Coercive Control (BICC). Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 25, 1–18.
36.
ReidJ. A. (2016). Entrapment and enmeshment schemes used by sex traffickers. Sexual Abuse, 28, 491–511.
37.
ShivelyM.KliorysK.WheelerK.HuntD. (2012). A national overview of prostitution and sex trafficking demand reduction efforts: Final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
38.
SmithP. H.EarpJ. A.DeVellisR. (1995). Measuring battering: Development of the Women’s Experience with Battering (WEB) Scale. Women’s Health (Hillsdale, NJ), 1(4), 273–288.
39.
StarkE. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.
40.
StarkE. (2013). The dangers of dangerousness assessment. Family & Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly, 6(2), 13–22.
41.
StarkE. (2023). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
42.
StarkC.HodgsonC. (2003). Sister oppressions: A comparison of wife battering and prostitution. In FarleyM. (Ed.), Prostitution, trafficking and traumatic stress (pp. 17–32). Haworth.
43.
SullivanT. P.ChiaramonteD.ClarkD. A.SwanS. C. (2023). Intimate Partner Violence Fear–11 Scale: An item response analysis. Psychology of Violence, 13(2), 161.
44.
ThallerJ.CiminoA. N. (2016). The girl is mine: Reframing intimate partner violence and sex work as intersectional spaces of gender-based violence. Violence Against Women, 23, 202–221.
45.
TourangeauR.RipsL. J.RasinskiK. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press.
46.
UngerL. D.DoychakK.RaghavanC. (2021). Isolation and support dynamics among women in a pimp-based commercial sex ring. Journal of Human Trafficking, 9(3), 328–347.
