Abstract
Victims of abuse, exploitation, trafficking, and coercive control do not always behave in ways that resemble open resistance. They may continue communicating with the perpetrator, perform work, express affection, accept money, return voluntarily, defend the perpetrator, or appear cooperative during abusive acts. When legal action is later taken, these behaviours may be presented as evidence that the victim consented or participated willingly. Such interpretations frequently misunderstand how predatory relationships operate. Compliance is often not obtained through continuous physical force. It is gradually engineered through grooming, dependency, intimidation, intermittent kindness, isolation, boundary erosion, and the victim’s adaptation to anticipated punishment. This article examines how perpetrators produce conformity, why victims may appear cooperative, and how legal systems can distinguish genuine consent from behaviour formed under coercive conditions. It argues that the decisive question is not simply whether the victim performed an action, but whether the victim possessed a realistic, safe, and psychologically available alternative to compliance.
Introduction
Popular understandings of victimisation are often organised around a simple opposition: a willing participant agrees, while an unwilling victim resists. In reality, human behaviour under coercion rarely conforms to this binary. A person may verbally agree while internally experiencing fear. They may comply with instructions to reduce danger, preserve housing, protect another person, avoid humiliation, or maintain access to essential resources. They may also continue a relationship after an abusive event because the conditions that enabled the abuse remain in place.
Predatory offenders benefit from this ambiguity. Rather than relying exclusively on visible violence, they often create circumstances in which the victim begins to regulate their own behaviour. The perpetrator may no longer need to issue an explicit threat before every act. Previous punishment, observed aggression, economic dependency, immigration insecurity, emotional attachment, or the credible possibility of retaliation may be enough to produce conformity. Coercive control therefore operates through the victim’s anticipation of consequences, not merely through force applied at the precise moment of compliance.
Research increasingly describes coercive control as a pattern of domination that restricts a victim’s autonomy and available “space for action.” Its effects are cumulative: isolation, surveillance, degradation, intimidation, economic restriction, and microregulation interact to make resistance progressively more costly (Stark, 2007; Tolmie et al., 2024). (GOV.UK)
Grooming as the Construction of Apparent Willingness
Grooming is often misunderstood as simple kindness preceding abuse. More accurately, it is a process through which access, trust, compliance, and secrecy are developed. Although much grooming research concerns child sexual abuse, its general mechanisms can also illuminate exploitation involving adults, particularly where the perpetrator controls housing, work, money, professional opportunities, immigration assistance, drugs, social inclusion, or emotional security.
Grooming commonly begins with legitimate or apparently generous behaviour. The perpetrator may provide accommodation, employment, gifts, affection, advice, protection, transportation, introductions, or practical assistance. These actions establish the offender as useful, trustworthy, or indispensable. The victim may genuinely appreciate the initial help. This does not mean that the later exploitation was agreed to; it means that the perpetrator created a relationship in which exploitation could be introduced without immediately causing withdrawal.
Elliott’s model of grooming describes processes including rapport-building, incentivisation, disinhibition, security management, gradual disclosure, and desensitisation. The offender does not necessarily present the ultimate abusive demand at the beginning. Instead, boundaries are altered incrementally, allowing each new violation to appear only slightly more extreme than what has already been normalised (Elliott, 2017). Grooming may also create secrecy and perceived complicity, making victims fear that disclosure will expose their own previous participation or damage their credibility (Bennett & O’Donohue, 2014). (PubMed)
For example, an exploitative employer may initially ask for occasional unpaid assistance, later extend working hours, then impose excessive labour while presenting each demand as a temporary favour. A sexually abusive person may begin with affectionate contact, introduce sexualised jokes, test minor physical boundaries, and escalate after discovering that the victim feels unable to object. A trafficker may provide housing and emotional reassurance before introducing debt, threats, sexual exploitation, or forced work. Because the victim accepted the early, legitimate elements of the relationship, the perpetrator may later claim that the entire arrangement was voluntary.
This is one of grooming’s most legally consequential effects: it creates fragments of authentic agreement around a fundamentally coercive situation. A victim may have voluntarily entered the house, accepted the job, begun the relationship, or agreed to one form of intimacy. The offender then treats that initial choice as permanent authorisation for everything that follows.
Dependency, Entrapment, and the Cost of Refusal
Compliance becomes more predictable when the perpetrator controls something the victim cannot safely lose. The relevant dependency may be financial, emotional, residential, medical, professional, social, or immigration-related. A victim who depends on the perpetrator for shelter may calculate resistance differently from someone with immediate access to safe accommodation. A person whose social network has been weakened may fear isolation more intensely. Someone with insecure legal status may believe that reporting abuse will result in detention, removal, unemployment, or official disbelief.
Coercive control is therefore better understood as entrapment than as a series of isolated aggressive incidents. Entrapment occurs when the perpetrator’s conduct combines with broader social and institutional conditions to restrict realistic escape routes. Poverty, discrimination, disability, previous trauma, inadequate services, family rejection, language barriers, and fear of authorities may magnify the perpetrator’s power. Tolmie et al. (2024) argue that focusing only on the offender’s individual acts can obscure the social and systemic conditions that make those acts effective. (PMC)
Within such conditions, compliance may be rational. If refusal is expected to produce homelessness, violence, exposure of private information, withdrawal of medication, loss of employment, harm to relatives, or police involvement, the victim may choose the action that appears least dangerous. This remains a choice in the minimal behavioural sense, but it is not necessarily a free choice. Agency does not disappear under coercion; rather, it becomes constrained and directed toward survival.
A realistic analysis therefore asks not only, “Did the victim say yes?” but also, “What did the victim believe would happen if they said no?” The second question exposes the structure surrounding the apparent agreement.
Punishment, Reward, and Self-Regulation
Predatory control is often maintained through alternating punishment and reward. Following aggression, the perpetrator may apologise, offer affection, provide money, restore privileges, or temporarily behave with unusual kindness. These periods of relief can reinforce continued engagement because the victim experiences the perpetrator as both the source of danger and the person capable of stopping it.
The term trauma bonding is sometimes used to describe powerful attachments formed under conditions of fear, dependency, isolation, and intermittent reinforcement. Research involving trafficking survivors indicates that such attachments may contribute to victims protecting exploiters, returning to them, minimising the abuse, or struggling to separate emotionally from the person harming them (Casassa et al., 2022). The concept should not be applied automatically to every abusive relationship, but it helps explain why attachment and victimisation can coexist. Love, gratitude, fear, dependency, and anger are not mutually exclusive psychological states. (PubMed)
Over time, the victim may learn the perpetrator’s moods, preferences, and warning signs. They may alter clothing, speech, movements, friendships, spending, work, sexual behaviour, or facial expressions to prevent escalation. This anticipatory conformity can eventually become automatic. The victim appears obedient without being visibly forced because earlier reactions have taught them the consequences of non-compliance.
This pattern should not be simplistically described as passivity. The victim is actively assessing risk. Agreeing, smiling, reassuring the perpetrator, expressing affection, or performing normality may function as protective strategies. The apparent cooperation is real as behaviour, but its meaning is determined by the threat environment in which it occurs.
Survival Responses During Immediate Abuse
During threatening events, human responses are not limited to fighting or escaping. People may freeze, become immobile, dissociate, submit, negotiate, or appease. Tonic immobility is an involuntary response characterised by temporary inability to move or resist despite conscious awareness. In a study of sexual-assault patients, tonic immobility was common and was associated with later post-traumatic stress and severe depression (Möller et al., 2017). (PubMed)
Submission can also occur without complete immobility. A victim may actively perform the requested behaviour because resistance appears likely to increase injury. The Crown Prosecution Service’s psychological evidence guidance recognises that victims may stop resisting, comply with sexual activity, or behave normally after an assault because they are continually evaluating danger. It explicitly distinguishes submission from consent and notes that victims may continue appeasing an attacker after the immediate event because they perceive the threat as ongoing (Crown Prosecution Service, 2019). (Crown Prosecution Service)
Dissociation can further complicate behaviour and memory. A person may feel detached from their body, experience events as unreal, lose track of time, or perform actions without experiencing them as deliberate decisions. Later, the victim may struggle to provide a perfectly ordered account. These effects can be misinterpreted as inconsistency even though trauma memories are often retrieved unevenly.
The absence of physical resistance therefore proves very little by itself. Resistance may have been impossible, judged too dangerous, or abandoned after an earlier attempt failed. Compliance may indicate that the victim recognised the offender’s control more clearly than an outside observer does.
How Coercion Produces Evidence of “Consent”
When legal proceedings begin, the perpetrator may possess messages, photographs, payments, recordings, or witness accounts showing the victim behaving cooperatively. The victim may have sent affectionate messages, thanked the offender, accepted gifts, returned to the property, attended social events, performed work, initiated ordinary conversation, or denied abuse when questioned by others. Each item can appear damaging when removed from the coercive context.
Continued contact is especially vulnerable to misinterpretation. A victim may maintain communication to monitor the perpetrator, obtain possessions, recover money, preserve housing, prevent retaliation, protect another person, collect evidence, or avoid signalling an intention to report. They may also remain emotionally attached or not yet understand the conduct as abuse. None of these explanations automatically proves coercion, but neither does continued contact automatically prove willingness.
Predators may deliberately generate favourable evidence. They may request affectionate reassurance after an abusive incident, encourage the victim to send apparently voluntary messages, make small payments that can later be described as wages, take cheerful photographs, or communicate politely in writing while making threats in person. They may also provoke emotional reactions privately and preserve only the victim’s angry response. Grooming and coercive control are therefore partly forms of narrative management: the offender shapes not only the victim’s conduct, but the future appearance of that conduct.
The legal system’s preference for discrete incidents can intensify this problem. An individual message may look voluntary, while a six-month pattern reveals that the victim was isolated, dependent, threatened, and punished for resistance. Research on legal-system abuse indicates that victim-survivors may face serious credibility barriers when coercive conduct is fragmented or when perpetrators use legal processes and records to portray them as irrational, dishonest, or mutually abusive (Reeves et al., 2025). (PMC)
Distinguishing Consent From Forced Compliance
A trauma-informed approach should not assume that every cooperative act is coerced. That would replace one unrealistic stereotype with another. Victims retain agency, and relationships can contain both voluntary and involuntary behaviour. The proper task is contextual evaluation.
Investigators should examine the complete pattern: the distribution of power, prior threats, dependency, boundary escalation, surveillance, punishment for refusal, control of resources, isolation, deceptive recruitment, and the victim’s realistic alternatives. Communications should be interpreted chronologically rather than selected individually. Apparent affection should be compared with evidence of fear. Payments should be examined against hours worked, promised conditions, control of finances, and the ability to stop working. Sexual agreement should be assessed for each specific act rather than inferred from the existence of a relationship or previous intimacy.
The United Nations’ trafficking framework recognises that apparent consent may be legally ineffective where exploitation is produced through force, deception, coercion, abuse of power, or abuse of vulnerability. Its analysis of consent emphasises that investigators must examine the means through which agreement was obtained and maintained, not merely the victim’s outward participation (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2014). (UNODC)
Evidence of what happened after the victim attempted to refuse can be particularly informative. Did the perpetrator threaten, humiliate, abandon, assault, expose, or economically punish them? Did the victim’s behaviour change after punishment? Were escape attempts followed by intensified monitoring? Did the perpetrator repeatedly remind the victim of their dependency? Such evidence demonstrates the practical meaning of refusal within the relationship.
Conclusion
Forced compliance does not always resemble force. Predatory offenders frequently obtain conformity by shaping the victim’s environment until obedience appears safer than resistance. Grooming creates trust and complicity; dependency raises the cost of leaving; coercive control narrows available choices; punishment teaches anticipatory obedience; intermittent kindness preserves attachment; and trauma responses may produce submission during immediate danger.
When the victim later takes legal action, these same adaptations can be used against them. Their survival behaviour is reframed as consent, their continued contact as loyalty, their work as voluntary participation, and their appeasement as affection. The central error is to interpret behaviour without examining the conditions that produced it.
A realistic legal and psychological assessment must distinguish participation from freedom. The fact that a victim performed an action, remained present, communicated warmly, or returned to the perpetrator does not independently establish voluntary consent. The decisive issue is whether the person had a safe, practical, and psychologically available opportunity to refuse. Where apparent cooperation was produced by fear, dependency, deception, exploitation, or anticipated punishment, willingness may exist only in appearance.
References
Bennett, N., & O’Donohue, W. (2014). The construct of grooming in child sexual abuse: Conceptual and measurement issues. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 23(8), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2014.960632
Casassa, K., Knight, L., & Mengo, C. (2022). Trauma bonding perspectives from service providers and survivors of sex trafficking: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(3), 969–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020985542
Crown Prosecution Service. (2019). Psychological evidence toolkit: A guide for Crown prosecutors.
Elliott, I. A. (2017). A self-regulation model of sexual grooming. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015591573
Home Office. (2023). Controlling or coercive behaviour: Statutory guidance framework. UK Government.
Lohmann, S., Cowlishaw, S., Ney, L., O’Donnell, M., & Felmingham, K. (2024). The trauma and mental health impacts of coercive control: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 630–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231162972
Möller, A., Söndergaard, H. P., & Helström, L. (2017). Tonic immobility during sexual assault: A common reaction predicting post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 96(8), 932–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13174
Reeves, E., Fitz-Gibbon, K., Meyer, S., & Walklate, S. (2025). Incredible women: Legal systems abuse, coercive control, and the credibility of victim-survivors. Violence Against Women, 31(3–4), 767–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012231220370
Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.
Tolmie, J., Smith, R., & Wilson, D. (2024). Understanding intimate partner violence: Why coercive control requires a social and systemic entrapment framework. Violence Against Women, 30(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012231205585
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2014). The role of “consent” in the Trafficking in Persons Protocol. United Nations.