Abuser Typology Test

This Abuser Typology Test is an informal, educational self-report tool designed to help individuals recognize common patterns of controlling, entitled, emotionally reactive, or dependency-based dynamics that can emerge in intimate relationships. It is intended for reflection and discussion rather than classification or diagnosis. The instrument is not a clinically validated psychological assessment and should not be used to label individuals or determine mental health status. Instead, it translates recurring relational patterns into accessible language to support awareness of how power, responsibility, and emotional regulation can become imbalanced over time.

The framework is loosely informed by several strands of psychological and relational research. It draws on Lundy Bancroft’s Why Does He Do That? (2002), which identified recurring patterns among individuals who engage in coercive or controlling behavior in intimate relationships, particularly emphasizing entitlement, minimization of harm, and responsibility avoidance. It also incorporates Evan Stark’s concept of coercive control, which frames abuse as an ongoing pattern of domination and restriction rather than isolated incidents. Michael P. Johnson’s typology of intimate partner violence further informs the distinction between coercive, controlling dynamics and situational conflict escalation. Additional conceptual influence comes from clinical and research literature on attachment styles, emotion regulation difficulties, dependency patterns, and personality trait models such as narcissistic traits and neuroticism.

The seven archetypes—The Entitled, The Victim, The Martyr, The Monarch, The Explosive, The Helpless, and The Sensitive—represent recurring relational orientations that may contribute to imbalance or distress in close relationships. These categories are not mutually exclusive and may overlap within the same individual. For example, a person may simultaneously endorse entitlement and victim-like beliefs, using perceived hardship to justify increased accommodation from others. Likewise, emotional sensitivity and explosive reactivity may co-occur, particularly under stress or perceived threat. The inclusion of reversed items is intended to reduce response bias and encourage more accurate self-reflection across both adaptive and maladaptive tendencies.

It is important to emphasize that these archetypes are not diagnoses and do not correspond to any formal classification system in psychology or psychiatry. Elevated scores do not indicate that an individual is abusive or disordered. Instead, they highlight tendencies that may, in certain relational contexts, contribute to conflict, imbalance, or emotional strain. Many individuals will recognize mild versions of these patterns in themselves or others, particularly during periods of stress, conflict, or unmet needs. Clinical concern arises only when such patterns are persistent, inflexible, and associated with harm, coercion, or sustained relational fear or erosion of autonomy.

The purpose of this tool is to increase clarity around often-confusing relational dynamics. In coercive or highly imbalanced relationships, both partners may struggle to accurately interpret behavior: one may minimize or normalize problematic patterns, while the other may lack language to describe their experience. By naming these patterns in accessible archetypal form, the framework aims to support reflection without reducing individuals to fixed identities or pathologizing ordinary relationship conflict.

Research on coercive control suggests that chronic patterns of dominance, emotional manipulation, and restriction of autonomy can have more enduring psychological effects than isolated incidents of aggression. These dynamics have been described in tools such as the Duluth Power and Control Wheel, which highlights how everyday behaviors can accumulate into systems of control over time. This typology adapts that insight into personality-adjacent styles to make such patterns easier to recognize in lived experience.

Ultimately, this instrument is intended as a starting point for insight rather than a definitive judgment. The goal is to support greater self-awareness, clearer boundaries, and healthier relational functioning. For individuals who recognize distressing or concerning patterns in their results, consultation with a qualified mental health professional—particularly one trained in trauma-informed care, coercive control, or relationship violence—is recommended. This remains an evolving, informal framework subject to refinement as understanding of interpersonal dynamics continues to develop.

References

• Stark, E. (2023). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197639986.001.0001
• Tolmie, J. R., 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
• Kelly, L., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x
• Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Northeastern University Press.
• Hamberger, L. K., & Larsen, S. E. (2015). Men’s and women’s experience of partner violence: Implications for prevention and treatment. Partner Abuse, 6(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.6.2.127
• Dutton, D. G., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52(11–12), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6
• Hamberger, L. K., & Phelan, M. B. (2006). Domestic violence screening in medical and mental health care settings. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 19(6), 611–615. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.yco.0000245759.69833.7c