What differentiates intimate partner violence (IPV) from general interpersonal aggression in most practice frameworks?

• A. Frequency of violence alone differentiates IPV.
• B. Coercive control and ongoing domination.
• C. IPV is defined by physical harm only.
• D. IPV is always witnessed by others.

Answer: (B)

Coercive control and ongoing domination are the hallmark that differentiates intimate partner violence from other interpersonal aggression in most practice frameworks. It's not just about how often someone hits another person; it's about a consistent pattern of power being exercised to control nearly every aspect of a partner's life—physical violence paired with psychological abuse, threats, isolation, monitoring, and financial control. This pervasive control aims to subordinate the partner and maintain the abuser’s dominance over time, which is what sets IPV apart from more episodic or purely situational aggression.

Frequency alone misses the core dynamic: someone can be violent without maintaining this overarching control, and conversely, coercive control can exist even without frequent physical harm. The emphasis on control helps clinicians assess risk, safety planning, and intervention because it signals ongoing threat and the potential for escalation. IPV often occurs in private and isn’t always witnessed by others, so the defining feature isn’t whether someone is seen by others or how often violence occurs, but whether there is a sustained pattern of domination and control within the intimate relationship.