It is important to understand that many Neurodivergent people need to exert control over their environment to reduce anxiety and provide predictability in what can be (for them) an unpredictable, neurotypical and disabling world (for more on this, see Doherty et al, 202330. ). Many Neurodivergent people develop specific coping strategies to prepare for and manage unfamiliar situations, sensory bombardment, dysregulation, transitions and social interactions. For example, a Neurodivergent person may choose to wear noise cancelling headphones whilst out in busy shopping centres or restaurants to reduce sensory overload. They may also formulate strict routines to manage transitions from one environment to another (e.g., travelling, eating times). It is important to understand that coping strategies must be maintained so that Neurodivergent people can safely navigate the world. In this guide, we refer to this type of control as structural control. Structural control is not the same as coercive control. Structural control it is about gaining or keeping control of a person’s immediate environment, and a strategy that is engaged in regardless of gender (though those with gender privilege may inadvertently benefit from an unquestioned patriarchal divide in intimate relationships31. ). By contrast, Coercive control is a pattern of behaviours which are designed to induce fear and create a power imbalance within an intimate relationship with an expectation that their partner will take responsibility for meeting their needs.
Structural control can, however, become coercive where there are existing unequal power dynamics in an intimate relationship, and gender-based privilege and male entitlement is exploited and extended by the Neurodivergent male partner using violence to have their needs met. This is what we term Coercive Structural Control (see also Renehan, 2026).
Structural control in the context of domestic abuse may become abusive if a Neurodivergent person aims to control their partner’s behaviour or freedoms in order to keep their surroundings a particular way. This could involve dictating that the home is organised in a particular way, expecting a partner to take responsibility for regulating their distress, becoming threatening to a partner if they are perceived to be untidy, or throwing away a partner’s new jacket, because they don’t like how it rustles in the wind (see ‘Examples of coercive control, structural control and reciprocal or abusive response’ below).
Whilst the motivations for structural control and coercive control may be different, these can intersect significantly in the context of domestic abuse and will simultaneously overlap with other intentions behind coercive control. Even if the structural needs of the person using violence are met (e.g., by exploiting gender-based privileges), other forms of coercion and control would still exist. This can create a constellation of challenges for victim-survivor partners and/or children who may be forced or feel compelled to take responsibility for structuring the environment for the Neurodivergent partner through care and/or fear.
It is possible to show understanding and empathetically respond to some of the barriers that Neurodivergent men might face whilst also taking a victim-survivor-centred approach to work with Neurodivergent men who use violence and abuse. This includes building in inclusive support for men to participate in interventions, without minimising the impact of their behaviour on victim-survivors – regardless of their motivation. Practical suggestions about how to work in a neuro- affirming way when facilitating perpetrator interventions, from initial assessment through to intervention exit, are provided in part 5 of this guide. Practitioners will also need to consider the importance of Neurodiversity and shame-sensitive practice32.
Regardless of whether the control exerted is coercive or structural, it is key that those attending perpetrator interventions take responsibility for their behaviour and are accountable for their actions. There are no excuses for abusive behaviour, regardless of the motivation that lies behind it. Nevertheless, it is still important to explore structural control in relation to the person’s coping strategies and sense of entitlement, and how this manifests as demands and expectations placed upon the victim-survivor. Keeping the victim-survivor firmly at the centre of your work necessitates that the person who causes harm through their need for structural control must develop non-abusive coping strategies. The difference between abusive and non-abusive structural control must be emphasised when working with Neurodivergent clients.
It is unlikely that clients attending interventions will have reflected much on how a need for structural control can become abusive, particularly when gender-based privilege and male entitlement shape their expectations of their partner. It is important therefore that clients are educated on the differences between structural and coercive control and that examples of structural control that are not abusive are shared. It is also possible that the victim-survivor is perceived as ‘willingly accommodating’ their partner’s needs for structural control, as a means of preventing escalation. It is therefore key that the potential impacts of these ‘willing accommodations’ on the wellbeing of the victim-survivor are reiterated to the person using violence and how, if their partner is accommodating them to avoid escalation and repercussions, the need for structural control is therefore becoming coercive and/or intersecting with other coercive behaviours. This is a complex aspect of the interplay between structural and coercive control, and how it is experienced by victim/ survivors. It can be difficult therefore to consider what ‘negotiation’ and reciprocity looks like until abuse is acknowledged and addressed, which is a key aspect of interventions. In sections 5.3 and 5.5 (respectively) we outline ways in which practitioners can identify Coercive Structural Control in the home and the risk to partners and children, and how practitioners might address this within behavioural change work.
Below, some practical, everyday examples are shared to illustrate abusive behaviours relating to structural control. Healthy and equitable examples of structural control within a relationship are also shared and these behaviours can be modelled and practised with Neurodivergent clients who may be perpetrating abuse that is rooted in their need for structural control. You can also download and print a table format version of this information here.
Examples of coercive control, structural control and reciprocal or abusive response
COERCIVE CONTROL
Telling partner how to dress/look.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL (anxiety)
New hair cut confuses/causes dysregulation.
Fear that dressing differently may signify the partner is unhappy and going to leave (rejection sensitivity dysphoria).
RECIPRICOL RELATIONSHIPS
Both partners are involved in negotiating how change in appearance/reactions to this are managed.
COERCIVE STRUCTURAL CONTROL
Uses abusive tactics to coerce partner to change/maintain look (e.g., insults, threats, manipulation).
Victim-survivoreither complies or resists with consequences (e.g., feels fear, loss of autonomy)
COERCIVE CONTROL
Isolating partner from friends/family.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL (anxiety)
Unexpected visitors disrupt routine, predictability.
RECIPRICOL RELATIONSHIPS
Visits are negotiated and planned in advance. If visits are unplanned, Neurodivergent person is able to take time out, for instance by going for a walk or by committing to socialising for a set amount of time.
COERCIVE STRUCTURAL CONTROL
Becomes abusive and rude towards person who has visited.
Masks discomfort whilst the visitors are there and is then abusive to partner following the visit.
Victim-survivor does not invite friends/family members to the home, becomes isolated.
COERCIVE CONTROL
Night out together.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL (anxiety)
Sensory overload leads to emotional dysregulation/ meltdown.
RECIPRICOL RELATIONSHIPS
Effective communication between partners where conversations are practised in calm environments where a person can explain they are overwhelmed and what support they need.
COERCIVE STRUCTURAL CONTROL
Becomes physically and emotionally abusive towards partner, blaming them for feeling dysregulated and overwhelmed.
Victim-survivor stops accepting invites for social events to prevent partner becoming dysregulated. Loss of friendships and autonomy can ensue.
COERCIVE CONTROL
Change in routines/ challenges authority.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL (anxiety)
Creates anxiety/unpredictability.
RECIPRICOL RELATIONSHIPS
Alternative coping strategies for managing change that fit with personal preferences and interests, e.g., a walk in nature, holding hands under the cold tap, breathing exercises.
COERCIVE STRUCTURAL CONTROL
Attempts to exert authority over partner, physical or emotional aggression or blackmail.
Victim-survivor is led to believe that it is her responsibility as a good partner to organise home and family activities that only suit her partner’s needs. Both she and the children miss out on meeting their own social and emotional needs.
References
(30)
Autistic SPACE: a novel framework for meeting the needs of Autistic people in healthcare settings. British Journal of Hospital Medicine.
Back to text
(31)
Vlais, R. (2025). Resources for responding to adult users of domestic, family and sexual violence.
Back to text
(32)
For practical examples, see
Vlais, R. (2025). Resources for responding to adult users of domestic, family and sexual violence.
Back to text