International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 9 2026 46
sub-theme was termed Systemic Coercive Control
(SCC) and appeared in every interview, every theme
in Story, and predominated participants’ most
passionate recommendations for change. The sub-
theme SCC includes abuser-initiated coercive violence
as well as coercive control not initiated by the coercive
controller and aligns with Katz’s (2022) and Stark’s
(2023) research findings that abusers often choose to
weaponize third parties and/or their own children as
part of their strategy to control and punish their female
partners.
SCC also relates to coercive control’s invisibility and our
system’s complicity in victim entrapment (Stark, 2007
Hill, 2020). The following quote from P2 illustrates the
SCC subtheme.
This example from P12 highlights how victims’ trauma
can be exploited to re-traumatize them, also from the
SCC subtheme, and, as Monterrosa and Hattery (2022)
suggest, hold them hostage in perpetuity.
P4, a professional, is similarly outraged, in the SCC
subtheme: “Survivors who speak...about how they were
treated (by police)...It’s maddening! It’s infuriating
to listen to. One section where the police detective is
talking it’s just so backwards.”
P12, whose ex-partner had raped and video-taped her
while unconscious, was threatened by the family court,
a common context of SCC. She stated, “It was family
court. I tried to flee. ...They told me I had two days to
come back, or they’d take my son.”
Interviewees most referenced the legal system as the
I worked there for eleven years...and had been in
an abusive relationship while in that job...then
I got a new manager who was a manipulator...
and...he convinced people that I was mentally
unstable and was projecting my trauma, due to
my past experience.
My ex and the school filed charges against
my father for harassment. That’s why I had to
drop my restraining order...So, in my trusty
paperwork...there’s like,...“You’re voluntarily
dropping this, right?” And I’m like, “Yes”
(weakly). If you read it, “Oh, she must not
have been that scared, right? She voluntarily
dropped the restraining order.”
primary context for their experiences of SCC. For
example, P3 stated, “You know that case in Connecticut
where a woman was killed in front of her children?...
She’d run away...And...told she had to come back to
attend the family court, and he killed her when she
came back.”
P3, an IPV survivor, references how coercive
controllers use DARVO in court cases, re-traumatizing
victims. The case of Depp v Heard resulted in a win
for the perpetrator, Johnny Depp, and a jury finding
of defamation against Amber Heard, despite an earlier
UK case finding of domestic violence by Depp against
Heard. Depp’s use of DARVO (deny, attack, reverse
victim and offender), combined with social-media-
fueled misogynistic backlash, proved effective for the
perpetrator, and devastating for the victim (Depp
v Heard, 2020). Had Heard’s adaptive responses to
Depp’s abuse been accurately assessed, this case may
have turned out completely differently. P3 stated, also
from the SCC subtheme: “They look at the Depp/
Heard case and they say ‘Oh, see, it’s men too’, and
you’re like, ‘Oh my God, how could you? They were
delighted, weren’t they?...That was horrifying!’”
Sub-themes within the Victim theme appeared
frequently. P7 spoke to the sub-theme Trapped, “I
don’t think I could have just gotten out of the group on
my own. It helped that she was, you know, pulling me
out (of the quicksand). But then, you know, I had to
get out of that too.” Inspired by the PSQM videos, P9
stated, illustrating the Strength subtheme: “I’m getting
better. Yes!...because it gives me a sense of like, ‘Oh,
well I could refer someone to those videos and be like,
this is why [I responded like that].’” P4, a professional,
expressed hope upon learning that a perpetrator of
coercive control had been sentenced for his crime, an
illustration of the Empowerment &Solutions Needed
subtheme: “Like, how powerful is it if we’re actually
able to take the guy away? And for an extended period
of time?”
P2 discusses all four Coercive Controller sub-themes
below: Strategy &Tactics (S&T), Intervention &
Accountability (I&A), Intentional &Conscious (I&C),
and Abuser Characteristics &Personality (C&P): “It’s
understanding manipulation. The whole world needs
to know how to look for it. How to understand it so that
people, so they’re not further victimizing people by

47
Kate Amber and Roderick Dubrow-Marshall |An Investigation into the Efficacy of the PsychoSocial Quicksand Model™
joining in, by colluding...and then...people are further
victimized and abused, because these people have
believed the perpetrator in the first place.”
Particularly interesting research findings included
controversy in two areas: coercive controller’s
intentionality and treatability. In feminist literature,
IPV is framed primarily as male violence against
females, is intentional, and exists within inequitable
systems that prioritize male power (Bancroft, 2002
Dobash &Dobash, 2004 Hill, 2020 Meier &Dickson,
2017 Stark, 2007). However, P2 is not convinced.
Although P2 agrees that her father operates from
patriarchal beliefs, she sees his use of coercive control
as self-denial, rather than a conscious abuse of male
privilege. She said, “I think there are some coercive
controllers who know...they’re cultivating this persona.
My dad 100% believes his.”
Some participants believe that “hurt people hurt people.”
This trauma-focused lens tends to prioritize healing
abusers, rather than holding them accountable, and is
reflected by the proliferation of batterer intervention
programs (BIPPS), which consider coercive
controllers in need of mental health services. Recent
studies “indicate that PDs [personality disorders] were
significantly and positively related to IPV perpetration”
(Collison &Lynam, 2021). Clinicians like Brown
and Young (2018) and Simon (1996) define coercive
controllers based on PD traits. Some professionals do
claim to effectively treat PDs (Amen Clinics, 2021
Dingfelder, 2004 Lester, 2022). However, if we view
coercive control as employed by people with PDs,
which are, by definition, “permanent and pervasive,”
using BIPPS to “heal” these people is a fool’s errand
(Brown &Young, 2018). Indeed, BIPPS’s success rates
are low (Silverman &Ritchie, 2012 Goldstein, 2014),
and genuine change is rare (Bancroft, 2002).
Effective coercive control models, like the PSQM,
take a nuanced approach that incorporates seemingly
contradictory viewpoints and promotes coercive
controller accountability, regardless of intent. P2 agreed
with this statement, in all four Coercive Controllers
subthemes: “I wouldn’t want to take any blame away
from him. He is totally responsible for his behavior.
Don’t get me wrong.”
P9 quotes Rachel Denhollander (Cohen &Shenk,
2020), revealing the important sub-theme (appropriate)
Blame, exemplified by the PSQM, and backed by
research (Karakurt, Smith &Whiting, 2014 Langone,
1993 Meyers, 2015 Peck, 2020): “Truly sorry abusers
do not use their apologies as an excuse to escape human
justice or make demands of their victims. Truly sorry
people acknowledge the harm thEy have done and the
rightness of punishment.”
DARVO, the strategy of reversing blame from coercive
controller to victim, is a favorite aspect of the PSQM
for many participants (Freyd, 1997). P2 discusses how
easily the organization was manipulated by the coercive
controller, resulting in an attack on her credibility:
“People are just like,...‘Yeah, but all of the words against
you are really damaging.’” The research calls this type
of DARVO a “pernicious form” of institutional betrayal
(Smith &Freyd, 2014).
Victims commonly blame themselves when targeted
by DARVO (Harsey, Zurbriggen &Freyd, 2017
Karakurt, Smith &Whiting, 2014). P8 exemplifies this
in the subtheme of Blame: “So, I was clueless. For most
of these thirty years, I was clueless...‘Oh, it’s all me. I’m
terrible. I’m a terrible wife. I’m a horrible mother.’”
DARVO is a frequent accountability-avoidance strategy
(Freyd, 1997) and is easily employed against children
with undeveloped or underdeveloped critical thinking
skills (Katz, 2022), as P9 states, also in the subtheme
Blame, “And one time I spoke out as a child, that adult
went back to my dad and said ‘P9 is complaining about
you’...and I got punished.”
Weaponize and Failed by System are two significant
sub-themes of Children uncovered by research
interviews. P10 discusses these sub-themes, which also
indicate SCC, “Addressing the system, how the system
fails, and turns their back on the victim. Yeah! And
children involved, you know, when children get used.”
Research shows bias against mothers is widespread,
and perpetrators of coercive control often raise
parental alienation claims to DARVO family courts
into punishing mothers for alleging abuse (Bancroft,
2002 Bancroft, Silverman &Ritchie, 2012 Goldstein,
2014 Meier &Dickson, 2017). “Unproven constructs
and instruments not meeting the criteria of reliability
and validity” (Berman &Weisinger, 2022, p.1) in
family court worldwide often lead to dangerous custody