Coercive Control: The Hidden Pattern That Breaks People — and Workplaces

By Rose Byass

Coercive control is one of the most damaging — and least recognised — forms of abuse. It is not only about stopping someone seeing their friends or forbidding them from doing things; it is a pattern of interpersonal domination that ranges from subtle manipulation to gross intimidation and blatant public humiliation. It slowly strips away a person’s autonomy, safety and capacity to judge what is real. Coercive control rewires the brain long before “obvious” injury appears — and it follows people to work, undermining safety, performance and wellbeing. Robust Leaders offers this primer to help organisations, leaders and communities recognise, respond to and prevent coercive control.

What is coercive control?

Coercive control describes a sustained pattern of behaviours used to dominate and subordinate another person in an intimate or formerly intimate relationship. Rather than a single violent act, coercive control is a strategy: it uses intimidation, humiliation, surveillance, isolation, economic manipulation and unpredictable behaviour to remove someone’s agency. The academic conceptualisation often attributed to Evan Stark emphasises that coercive control is about deprivation of autonomy — not merely individual acts of violence. It is the pattern, the intent and the cumulative effect that make it abusive. Key elements include:

• Control of movement and relationships (stopping contact with friends/family, monitoring communication).
• Economic control (withholding money, sabotaging employment).
• Surveillance and digital abuse (tracking phones, CCTV, secret cameras).
• Psychological tactics such as gaslighting, love-bombing, threats, and public humiliation.
• Creating chaos and confusion — changing plans at the last minute, unpredictably switching between charm and rage — to keep the victim disoriented and dependent.

This combination — often episodic, sometimes blatant — wears down resistance and destroys self-trust.

The law is catching up — Australia’s recent reforms

For decades, coercive control lived in a grey legal zone: damaging, widespread, but difficult to prosecute because most legal systems were structured around discrete, physical acts. In recent years Australia has begun to change that.

• New South Wales (NSW) introduced a standalone coercive control offence that commenced on 1 July 2024. The NSW law recognises repeated patterns of behaviour intended to coerce or control a current or former intimate partner. Early enforcement has shown the challenges of translating pattern-based offences into criminal charges, but prosecutions and monitoring reports are already shaping practice. 
• Queensland passed landmark reforms known colloquially as Hannah’s Law, named after Hannah Clarke and her children. The reforms make coercive control a criminal offence from 26 May 2025 and place the law alongside other measures to improve victim safety and offender accountability. The move followed years of advocacy and was catalysed by the tragic 2020 murder of Hannah Clarke and her children. 
• South Australia has now followed these jurisdictions. In September 2025 the South Australian Government passed legislation to criminalise coercive control and to embed pattern-based abuse in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. This marks another state-level recognition that coercive control is a serious criminal form of domestic and family violence. 

These reforms are historic. They change how courts, police and service systems define and respond to harassment, manipulation and psychological abuse — but they also raise implementation challenges: gathering pattern evidence, protecting victims from retraumatisation in legal processes, and ensuring specialist training for police, prosecutors and judges. Early monitoring reports show the legal system learning to adapt to a different kind of offence. 

A lived example: how coercive control looks in real life

I want to put this in concrete terms because theory can feel distant. I speak from lived experience. In my last relationship the patterns were subtle at first and then became obvious. He would change plans at the last minute; when I asked why he would answer with abuse — “fuck off, c##t” — and refuse to explain. He gaslit me constantly: denying things he had said, accusing me of imagining things, and making me doubt my memory. He would accuse me of having bipolar and being emotionally unstable. There were periods of intense attention and praise (love-bombing), which suddenly switched into coldness and cruelty. He also abused me in public, humiliating me in front of others. We weren’t living together, but he never let me have a key to his house. Once, after a night out, I realised my house and car keys were locked in his house. He refused to let me go home — and wouldn’t give me a key so I could leave safely. I had to stay at the pub with him until after midnight even though I had to be up at 5 a.m. for work the next morning. I had less than four hours’ sleep. That deliberate deprivation of autonomy — controlling where I could go and when I could rest — is coercive control. That wasn't a one off event. On another occasion, he slipped into a psychotic delusional episode and accused me of being his ex girlfriend Kelly and pushed me out of his car.

 It’s logistical, humiliating and strategic. Fragments of “small” actions like these add up to total control. I include this because the experience is not about weakness; it’s about deliberate tactics that exploit dependence, routine and trust. Even intelligent, accomplished people are vulnerable — when the pattern accumulates and the brain starts changing, we can trust the abuser’s version of reality instead of our own.

How coercive control changes the brain

Neuroscience helps us understand why coercive control is so effective — and so damaging. Sustained interpersonal threat and unpredictability initiate chronic stress responses that fundamentally alter brain circuits involved in memory, emotion and decision-making. Key neurobiological effects documented in the literature include:

• HPA-axis dysregulation. Repeated activation of stress systems changes hormonal feedback loops (cortisol secretion), which affects mood, sleep, immune function and neural plasticity. Chronic stress can lead to persistent dysregulation linked to depression and anxiety. 
• Hippocampal changes. The hippocampus (critical for memory and contextual processing) shows volumetric and structural changes after prolonged stress, affecting memory, concentration and the ability to encode safe vs dangerous contexts. This is one reason victims can lose confidence in their memory and struggle to record patterns reliably. 
• Amygdala hyper-reactivity. The amygdala — the brain’s threat detector — becomes more reactive, producing hypervigilance, exaggerated fear responses and heightened anxiety. Survivors often report feeling “on edge” or constantly scanning for danger. 
• Prefrontal cortex (PFC) impairment. The PFC, responsible for executive control and decision-making, is sensitive to prolonged stress. When its regulatory function is dampened, people struggle to plan, make choices and regulate emotions — which can make leaving dangerous relationships even harder. 
• Physical brain injury: emerging IPV research also documents high rates of head injury (including strangulation and repeated blows) in survivors. These physical injuries compound stress-driven changes and can produce lasting cognitive impairment. Clinical studies are increasingly flagging brain injury as a common and under-recognised consequence of intimate partner violence. 

Put simply: coercive control doesn’t just “hurt feelings.” It creates a chronic stress environment that reconfigures brain circuits, producing anxiety, memory problems, impaired decision-making and other effects that make escape and recovery more difficult. That is why “I should have left” statements are often not helpful; the science explains why leaving is complicated and courageous.

Who uses coercive control — not a single “type” but recurring patterns

It’s tempting to want a simple portrait of abusers. Research shows that while coercive control is not confined to a single clinical diagnosis, certain personality profiles and behavioural traits are over-represented among perpetrators. Two groups are repeatedly discussed in the literature:

• Narcissistic traits: grandiosity, entitlement, a need for admiration and hypersensitivity to criticism. Narcissistic partners often use charm and idealisation (love-bombing) to create devotion, then exploit and control when their needs are not prioritised. Systematic reviews link narcissistic traits to higher risk of emotional abuse and control tactics, although the relationship is complex and gendered. 
• Psychopathic / antisocial traits: calculated manipulation, lack of remorse or empathy, and a willingness to use coercion instrumentally. Psychopathic traits are associated with higher risk of severe, persistent intimate partner violence and recidivism. Research suggests psychopathic traits are a significant risk factor for dangerous IPV behaviour. 

Important caveats: many coercive controllers will not have a formal personality disorder diagnosis. Patterns of controlling behaviour can appear across socioeconomic backgrounds, cultures and relationship types. Other risk factors include learned behaviour from family of origin, substance misuse, controlling social beliefs and situational stressors. The right response is behavioural: focus on what a person does (surveillance, threats, economic sabotage), not on making premature diagnostic labels.

Patterns from prior relationships: how coercive control evolves

Perpetrators often follow common sequences that are easy to miss when you’re in the relationship:

1. Love-bombing and idealisation. The relationship begins with intense attention, flattery and fast attachment. This builds emotional dependence.
2. Subtle boundary testing. Small restrictions, comments about who you spend time with, or “jokes” at your expense. These are often rationalised away.
3. Escalation and public humiliation. Criticism becomes derision; the abuser degrades the partner in front of friends or colleagues, wearing down self-esteem.
4. Control of practical levers. Bank accounts, keys, transport and childcare become tools of leverage. Withholding a key (as in the example above) is not trivial: it removes mobility and choice.
5. Intermittent reinforcement. Apologies, gifts and charm return intermittently, which strengthens attachment and confuses the victim — the classic trauma-bonding cycle.
6. Entrenchment and isolation. Over time the victim’s social network shrinks, choices narrow, and patterns feel “normal” until external events or crises reveal the harm.

Recognising these sequences is central to early intervention.

The workplace impact — why coercive control is a WHS issue

Coercive control does not end at the front door. The effects travel to work in concrete ways: absenteeism, reduced concentration, impaired decision-making, safety risks and higher turnover. Victims may be monitored by abusers while at work, coerced into leaving early, or be subject to harassment or stalking at their workplace. In extreme cases the perpetrator targets the victim at work physically or via threats. Australian WHS guidance is explicit: family and domestic violence are workplace issues, and employers have duties to identify and manage risks to worker health and safety. Safe Work Australia explains that PCBUs (persons conducting a business or undertaking) should treat domestic violence as a hazard, create policies, provide training, and implement practical controls such as privacy protections and flexible work arrangements. Employers also have obligations under anti-discrimination and workplace laws to support affected employees. Practical workplace actions include:

• Creating a clear DFV policy and response pathway.
• Training managers to recognise red flags (sudden performance drops, partner always present in calls/meetings, unusual injuries).
• Offering practical supports: paid domestic violence leave, flexible hours, safe transport, secure parking and discrete HR referral options.
• Ensuring confidentiality and safety planning with input from specialists.
• Recognising that coercive control is an occupational safety hazard even when abuse occurs outside working hours. 

From a business perspective, the costs of not responding are large: productivity loss, recruitment costs, reputational damage and potential liability. From a human perspective, a compassionate, well-resourced workplace can be lifesaving.

Cases that changed the conversation: Australia and overseas

There are many stories that pushed policy and public awareness — some catalytic, some instructive.

• Hannah Clarke and her children (Brisbane, 2020): In February 2020 Rowan Baxter murdered his estranged wife Hannah Clarke and their three children in a horrific attack. The case exposed the hidden nature of coercive control and propelled reform campaigns that culminated in Queensland’s criminalisation reforms. Hannah’s parents and advocates have been central to public pressure for legal change.
• Early prosecutions in NSW: NSW’s new laws (from July 2024) saw early charges and the first guilty pleas and sentences. These early cases illustrate practical issues — how to translate patterns into admissible evidence, and the role of specialist training for police and courts. Monitoring reports are already informing how the law is applied in practice. 
• International experience: Scotland and some jurisdictions in the UK have been early adopters of criminalisation and provide comparative evidence about drafting challenges, evidentiary thresholds and support mechanisms. These international examples are valuable for designing victim-centred procedures and training.

These cases show that law reform matters — but legislation alone is not enough. Implementation, survivor-centred services and workplace systems must all be strengthened.

Responding well: guidance for leaders, HR and managers

Robust Leaders recommends a trauma-informed, practical approach for organisations:

1. Educate and normalise conversations. Run regular training for managers on coercive control as a workplace risk — use lived experience carefully to bridge theory and practice.
2. Create clear, accessible policies and pathways. Include confidentiality rules, referral pathways (1800RESPECT and local services), and a nominated internal contact. Make sure employees understand their entitlements (e.g., family and domestic violence leave). 
3. Document observations and consult specialists. Managers should record red flags (dates, behaviours) and consult DFV specialists rather than interrogating victims. Encourage use of employee assistance programs and external referrals.
4. Prioritise safety planning and practical adjustments. Consider changes to rosters, work locations, digital privacy measures, and secure parking. Offer temporary IT protections (change passwords, remove personal data from shared devices) if requested.
5. Do not confront the alleged perpetrator in ways that escalate risk. Safety planning should involve specialists and, where necessary, police or restraining orders.
6. Audit work systems for risk. Check whether flexible work, contact permissions or shared calendars could be leveraged by perpetrators; reduce those exposures.

A well-prepared workplace protects people and reduces risk to the organisation.

Recovery, rehabilitation and responsibilities

Survivors of coercive control often need long-term, trauma-informed care. Neurobiological changes take time to heal; therapeutic approaches that combine psychological therapy, brain-aware rehabilitation, social supports and practical safety work are most effective. At the same time, perpetrators require tailored interventions — but these must prioritise victim safety and be informed by risk assessment.At a systems level, coordination between police, courts, health services and employers is critical. Criminalisation, training for frontline workers, accessible refuge services and workplace policy all play a role in prevention and recovery.

Conclusion: why employers, communities and leaders must act

Coercive control is a pattern of domination that hides in everyday interactions and in plain sight. It rewires brains, destroys livelihoods and can escalate to lethal violence. Recent legal reforms in NSW, Queensland and South Australia show political will to treat coercive control as a serious criminal offence — and those reforms should be matched with practical, evidence-based responses across society.For workplaces, this is not a peripheral HR problem; it is a core health and safety issue. Employers must recognise coercive control as a workplace hazard and adopt practical policies that prioritise safety, confidentiality and survivor-centred support. Training, policy, and specialist partnerships are not optional — they are the difference between preventing harm and repeating tragedy.If you or someone at work is currently at risk, contact 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732) for confidential national support. If you are in immediate danger, call emergency services.

How Robust Leaders Can Help

Robust Leaders delivers Coercive Control Awareness Packages designed for schools, businesses, and community organisations. These sessions equip leaders and staff with the skills to recognise red flags, respond safely, and build trauma-informed workplaces. If you would like to know more about how we can help educate your staff and strengthen your organisational response, please Robust Leaders for details on our training packages.

Selected references and guidance (key sources cited in this article)

• Safe Work Australia — Family and domestic violence at work: information and guidance for employers. Safe Work Australia
• NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics & Research — Coercive Control Monitoring Report (March 2025). BOCSAR
• Queensland Government — Coercive control laws information. (Hannah’s Law — coercive control offence in force 26 May 2025). Queensland Government+1
• South Australian Government / Department for Human Services — Announcement of passage of coercive control laws (September 2025). DHS+1
• Coronial records and reporting — Hannah Clarke inquest and Coronial report (Queensland Courts). courts.qld.gov.au+1
• Reviews on stress and brain changes: Nature / Neuropsychopharmacology review on stress effects on hippocampus, amygdala and PFC; MDPI review on chronic stress and HPA axis dysfunction (2025). Nature+1
• Research on narcissism, psychopathy and IPV: systematic reviews and comprehensive reviews linking trait narcissism and psychopathic traits with intimate partner violence perpetration. SAGE Journals+1
• Robust Leaders — Recognising & Responding to Coercive Control (Program brochure).