Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This paper conceptualises induced complicity as an advanced tactic of coercive control. Drawing on a scoping review of interdisciplinary literature and qualitative evidence from NGO reports, it identifies how perpetrators weaponize shame, fear of exposure, and legal vulnerability to entrap victims

Paper long abstract

Abstract

Contemporary understandings of intimate partner violence (IPV) increasingly recognize coercive control as a patterned strategy of domination extending beyond physical abuse. However, one critical dimension remains under-theorised: the deliberate induction of victims into criminal, unethical, or highly stigmatised acts, which perpetrators later exploit to silence, threaten, or entrap them. This paper conceptualises this phenomenon as induced complicity and examines it as an advanced tactic of coercive control. Drawing on a scoping review of interdisciplinary literature from criminology, psychology, gender studies, and digital sociology, alongside qualitative evidence from NGO reports and verified online survivor narratives, the paper synthesises global patterns of manipulative entrapment within intimate relationships. It identifies key domains where induced complicity operates, including coerced involvement in financial fraud, substance-related offences, technology-facilitated sexual exploitation and digitally mediated evidence traps. Across contexts, perpetrators weaponize shame, emotional dependency, fear of exposure, and legal vulnerability to blur victim boundaries and restrict avenues for exit or disclosure. The analysis situates induced complicity within coercive control theory, trauma bonding, and feminist criminology, demonstrating how gendered power relations, digital technologies, and cultural stigma intensify victims’ legal and moral captivity. The paper argues that failure to recognise induced complicity risks the misidentification and criminalisation of coerced victims within justice systems. By reframing induced complicity as a distinct mechanism of coercive control, this study contributes to emerging debates on IPV in the digital age and highlights implications for law reform, trauma-informed practice, and survivor-centred policy responses.