‘We can create boredom. We can create a sense of frustration. We can create fear in them (...) They’ll have no privacy at all, there will be constant surveillance—nothing they do will go unobserved. They will have no freedom of action. They will be able to do nothing and say nothing that we do not permit (...) In general, what all this should create in them is a sense of powerlessness. We have total power in the situation. They have none.’

— Stanford Prison Experiment, (Zimbardo, 2007b)

In the Stanford Prison Experiment, 24 college students—pre-screened for mental stability—were randomly assigned to the roles of guards or prisoners. Although physical violence was explicitly prohibited, the guards exerted control through psychological means, systematically erasing the prisoners' identities, imposing degrading conditions and manipulating their emotional states.

Before the experiment was terminated, one participant expressed a desire to leave the study, but upon hearing his fellow prisoners label him a "bad prisoner," he began crying and repeatedly stated, "I can’t leave, I don't want them to think that I'm a bad prisoner". This response shows the impact of psychological coercion, even without physical force. It raises a critical question: If brainwashing can turn a promising Stanford student into a "bad prisoner" in just three days, what are the long-term effects on individuals subjected to coercive control for years, or those born into environments of such manipulation?

Similar dynamics operate in domestic violence. Perpetrators of coercive control don’t just dominate through rules or threats; they reshape how victims see themselves, their relationships, and their options. Over time, autonomy is eroded, identity is reconstructed, and submission becomes structurally embedded. It’s not about failing to leave; it’s about being conditioned to believe there is nothing to leave to.

Coercive control restructures attachment itself, turning a basic human need into a tool of entrapment. As Bowlby (1969; 1980) argued, we form emotional bonds to seek safety—especially in times of distress. Perpetrators of coercive control exploit this need by using intermittent reinforcement—alternating affection with punishment—to create confusion, dependency, and emotional instability (Dutton & Painter, 1993; Stark, 2007). This isn't a one-off act of harm, but a cumulative process that gradually erodes autonomy and reshapes perception. Victims often develop what researchers call trauma bonding (Freyd, 1996), a paradoxical attachment in which the threat of harm and occasional moments of relief reinforce emotional loyalty to the........

© Psychology Today