PONE-D-23-29096Reproductive coercion and abuse in intimate relationships: Understanding perpetrator motivations and overlaps with coercive controlPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tarzia,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Although the reviewers noted significant strengths in your manuscript, they also requested attention to several issues before its publication. My own review of the manuscript leads me to agree with the thrust of their comments.  Therefore, I invite you to prepare a revised version of the paper.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 17 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michal Mahat-Shamir, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the Oak Foundation to support this work. We are also indebted to the women to gave up their time to participate in this research and share their experiences. Without their voices, this work would not have been possible.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work was funded by the Oak Foundation (https://oakfnd.org/) through the Safer Families Centre. The funding body played no role in study design, data collection, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article "Reproductive coercion and abuse in intimate relationships: Understanding perpetrator motivations and overlaps with coercive control" provides an exceptionally enjoyable read, skillfully combining clarity and depth in its exploration of the delicate subject of reproductive coercion within intimate relationships. The author demonstrates an outstanding mastery of the topic, captivating the reader from the opening paragraphs through clear presentation and compelling argumentation. The study's focus on understanding the motivations of perpetrators and their connections to coercive control holds significant interest in the context of domestic violence. Furthermore, the methodology employed in this research stands out for its rigor, offering a systematic approach that enhances the credibility of the presented conclusions. This combination of smooth writing, a compelling subject, and high-quality methodology makes this article a noteworthy contribution to the understanding and awareness of reproductive coercion and its intersections with coercive control in intimate relationships.

Notwithstanding the overall positive evaluation, I have a few comments and reservations regarding this study.

The introduction is intriguing but revolves solely around the subject of study, overlooking the concept of motivation. However, numerous criminological theories address the issue of criminal motivation. It is important to note that several studies indicate that perpetrators of intimate partner violence are generalists rather than a distinct criminal category. A recent synthesis by Koegl & Farrington (2022) highlights 17 motivations. In his situational action theory, Wikström (2014) suggests that a crime is the chosen action of an individual in response to a specific situational motivation. Motivation is conceptualized as the result of the interaction between the individual (preferences, sensitivities, and commitments) and the situation (opportunities, constraints).

Deci & Ryan (2002) identify different motivational orientations associated with varying levels of self-determination, offering a useful conceptual framework for understanding the studied phenomenon. Intrinsic motivation refers to engagement in an activity for the inherent pleasure and satisfaction derived from it, resulting in high self-determination. Extrinsic motivation occurs when engagement in a behavior depends on instrumental reasons, indicating lower self-determination. Finally, the construct of amotivation refers to the absence of motivation and represents the lowest level of self-determination.

In my opinion, it would be crucial to review the conceptualization of the motivation concept.

The theoretical framework (ecological feminist framework) should be presented in greater detail (proposals, principles).

I'm curious to know if there's any information available regarding the victimization trajectories of these women within the context of intimate relationships, especially prior to the incidents of (RCA). This includes details on the forms of violence, duration, and any relevant information. Specifically, I'm interested in understanding whether the dynamics of violence have undergone any changes during pregnancy.

Examining the motivation of a perpetrator of domestic violence solely based on his partner's perception may introduce several potential challenges and limitations to the research. Here are some considerations:

1. Subjectivity and Bias: Relying solely on the victim's perspective can introduce subjectivity and potential bias into the analysis. The victim may have a subjective interpretation of the perpetrator's motivations, influenced by emotional distress, fear, or personal experiences.

2. Incomplete Picture: The victim may not have access to the complete range of the perpetrator's motivations. Certain factors or aspects of the perpetrator's psychology, background, or external stressors might not be fully known or understood by the victim.

3. Lack of Cross-Verification: Relying solely on one perspective limits the ability to cross-verify information. Including multiple perspectives, such as the perpetrator's own account or insights from other sources, can enhance the reliability and validity of the findings.

4. Complexity of Motivation: Understanding human motivation is inherently complex. Motivations for abusive behavior can be multifaceted and influenced by a range of personal, psychological, social, and situational factors. A comprehensive analysis requires a nuanced and multifactorial approach.

To address these challenges, a more comprehensive research approach might involve triangulating information from multiple sources, such as interviews with both partners, observations, and perhaps external records or reports. This holistic approach can provide a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the motivations behind domestic violence. In my opinion, the part in the limits in the discussion (2nd limit) that deals with this should be improved.

Reviewer #2: Review: Reproductive coercion and abuse in intimate relationships: Understanding perpetrator motivations and overlaps with coercive control

I commend the authors on an excellent manuscript. Below please find my suggestions for minor revisions prior to publication.

1. I find the title overly long. I suggest removing “and overlaps with coercive control.” This phrase is confusing for the reader who is not an expert in IPV literature.

2. I think the themes should be included in the abstract.

3.

4. Pg. 3, line 54: RCA is “conceptually contested.” Please explain how and why.

5. Pg. 3, line 57: RCA rates of 8% and 30%. Percent of what? All adult women (where)? Mothers? Women who experience IPV?...

6. Pg. 3, line 60: How does national income level affect risk factors?

7. Pg. 5, line 102: There seems to be a contradiction here. The authors state that, “there is little data regarding motivations for RCA, particularly in high income countries.” They then point out that the “evidence base overall is strongly weighted in favor of U.S. and similar settings.” Isn’t the U.S. a high income country? Perhaps the order of the two sentences should be reversed. Also, what is a setting “similar to the U.S.”?

8. Pg. 7, line 147: I understand that the findings presented here are part of a larger study that also dealt with the perceived impact of RCA on mothers’ relationships with their children. Were all of the participants mothers? What about women whose partners pregnancy prevention practices left them without children?

9. Please state that none of the women was currently living with the partner who had been abusive.

10. Pg. 7, line 162: How many of the interviews were conducted in on-line video conferencing and how many in telephone calls? Why not do video conferencing for all interviews? The authors state that there were 30 participants and 33 interviews. Were three participants interviewed twice? If so, why? Where three interviews/participants excluded from the study? If so, why?

11. Pg. 9, line 202: “In the event of participant distress, a standard protocol was developed to guide responses.” Please provide details of this protocol and how it was developed.

12. Pg. 10, line 213 : What does “primarily educated” mean?

13. The themes are well articulated. The findings section presents an analysis that is well-balanced between description and interpretation, leading to conceptual categories that are further developed in the discussion.

14. I’m not sure that the title of the third theme captures its essence. How about, “A real man must create and illusion of the perfect father.” Also, at some point (either in the introduction, at the beginning of the findings section, or at the beginning of this theme) you should note that RCA comprises not only fathering a child, but also of the way one enacts fatherhood. This is apparent in the third and fourth themes.

15. I suggest adding a summarizing sentence at the end of the findings section.

16. There is a nice integration between the findings and the existing literature in the discussion.

17. Pg. 23, line 556: Not all of the readers are familiar with Evan Stark and his writings. If you wish to highlight him, situate him within the literature on IPV and cite his definition of coercive control (consider placing it in the introduction of the article) or make it clear that you are using his definition as a working definition for your research.

18. Pg. 25, line 584: “The situational couple violence in the study was not mutual.” Add “according to the participants.” Were the women aske about their use of coercion in the relationship?

19. Pg. 621, line 621: “IPV, SV” Abbreviations should not be used the first time a term is mention.

20. Pg. 29, line 684: Change “interrogating” (which is a criminal term) to “exploring” (which is a qualitative research term).

One final note: The manuscript was very well written. It was a pleasure to read.

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Chaya Possick

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Reproductive coercion and abuse in intimate relationships: Women's perceptions of perpetrator motivations

PONE-D-23-29096R1

Dear Dr. Tarzia,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michal Mahat-Shamir, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: