追踪、骚扰、重复：调查使基于技术的强制控制正常化的态度

Attitudes that normalisetech-based coercive control Acknowledgements We would like to thank the people who participated in this research and gave their time tocontribute to a greater understanding of tech-based coercive control. About the authors eSafety commissioned the Social Research Centre to conduct this research and to prepare adraft report. This is an edited version of that report. Suggested citation eSafety Commissioner (2025) Track, harass, repeat: Attitudes that normalise tech-basedcoercive control, Canberra: Australian Government. Acknowledgement of Country eSafety acknowledges all First Nations peoples for their continuing care ofeverything Country encompasses – land, waters and community. We pay ourrespects to First Nations peoples, and to Elders past and present. Contents List of abbreviations and terms5About this report6Methodology8Recognising early signs of tech-based control in an intimate relationship10Minimising tech-based coercive control in an intimate relationship14Expectations of corporate Australia in tackling gendered online abuse18References20Appendix: Profile of survey responses21 Overall, we found that men, younger participants and linguistically diverse participantsshowed a higher likelihood of agreeing with behaviours that could foster an unhealthydependency or controlling dynamic within intimate relationships – such as constantlymessaging, location tracking and controlling what is posted on social media. About this report Coercive control is a pattern of abusive behaviour used tocontrol someone within a relationship through manipulation,pressure and fear (eSafety Commissioner, 2024). It is not onebehaviour or incident, but a pattern of controlling behaviour.Coercive control is almost always a factor in family, domesticand sexual violence, but it can also happen between people whodon’t have an intimate relationship with each other. We also found that men and linguistically diverse participants were most likely to agreethat insisting on checking how an intimate partner looks in a photo, wanting them to beconstantly available to respond to the partner’s texts and calls, and constantly textingthem wereallusually a sign of care from a partner within an intimate relationship. Furthermore, men, linguistically diverse participants and married participants weremost likely to agree that, within an intimate relationship, it was reasonable for a partnerto expect to have their partner’s personal passwordsandto track them wheneverthey wanted. People who use coercive control in a relationship are more likely to use physicalviolence against their partner and any children involved, and there is a higherrisk of physical harm, including intimate partner homicide (Australian Institute ofHealth and Welfare, 2024; NSW Government, n.d.). Another crucial finding was participants’ mixed expectations around digital privacy inintimate relationships, with significant acceptance of expected password sharing amongyounger participants and those in intimate relationships. This finding may reflect thenormalisation of digital sharing in relationships, which may enhance connection but alsopotentially compromise individual privacy. When someone uses digital technology as part of that abusive behaviour, itis known as ‘technology-facilitated coercive control’ or ‘tech-based coercivecontrol’ (Attorney-General’s Department, 2024; eSafety Commissioner, 2024). Thiscan include behaviours such as monitoring and surveillance, cyberstalking withtracking, impersonation, hacking, harassment and abuse. Additionally, there was clear agreement from participants that employers should supporteducation initiatives that address tech-based coercive control. Over half of the Australianadults surveyed believe that companies should provide resources on how to handle digitalabuse, suggesting a valuable role for corporate advocacy. This summary report explores attitudes and expectations that could normalise theuse of tech-based coercive control in intimate partner relationships. We measuredthese attitudes by presenting a series of statements to survey participantscovering a range of positive and negative scenarios involving the use of digitaltechnology within an intimate relationship. Overall, our findings highlight the need for nuanced and targeted marketing andcommunication activities to: yincrease awareness of tech-based coercive controlyreshape norms around digital privacy and respect in intimate relationshipsyeducate that consent is an active and ongoing process. This report is based on final weighted data for 2,046 adults. A comparison of the finalsample and Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) benchmarks is provided (see Appendix,Tables A1 and A2). Analysis has been conducted of sub-groups based on gender, age,linguistic diversity, family composition, education, marital status, employment status andregionality. Only significant findings are reported. Specific findings for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Is