High-Conflict vs. Abusive Relationships: How Can You Tell the Difference?

One of the most common questions we hear in couples work, and one of the hardest to answer well, is whether a relationship is high-conflict or abusive. The two sometimes get talked about as if they're the same thing, and other times as if they're obviously different. From the inside they can feel remarkably alike: the same exhaustion, the same walking on eggshells, the same wondering whether you're the problem and not being sure how to "fix it." Getting the distinction right isn't just a matter of labelling. It's important because it changes what kind of help actually works, and in some cases, it changes what keeps a person safe.

A note before we go further: if you're reading this because you're worried about your own safety, please know that support is available right now. You don't need to finish this article first. You can find resources to help through this link.

In Canada, this is not a small or rare issue. In 2024 alone, police services recorded 128,175 victims of intimate partner violence, a rate of 356 per 100,000 people aged 12 and older (Statistics Canada, 2025). Most people who experience relationship abuse never call the police at all. So the question of how to tell high conflict from abuse touches far more households than the statistics alone suggest.

Two Different Things That Can Look Alike

Sociologist Michael Johnson proposed a distinction thirty years ago that researchers still lean on today: not how "bad" a fight looks from the outside, but what's actually driving it (Johnson, 1995). He later gave the two main patterns names that have become the standard clinical shorthand in this field, and it's worth knowing them, since you may come across either term in a clinical or legal setting. He called the first pattern situational couple violence, and the second intimate terrorism, a term more recent research often refers to as coercive controlling violence (Johnson, 2008; Hardesty et al., 2015).

The clearest way to tell these apart isn't the behaviour itself. It's the shape of who it involves. In situational couple violence, both partners are typically distressed, both are capable of becoming dysregulated, and either one may act out, verbally or physically, when emotion runs high. It's rooted in the moment and in a shared, escalating dynamic between two people, not in one partner's deliberate bid for control. In intimate terrorism, or coercive controlling violence, the distress and the aggression tend to run in one direction. One partner holds clearly more power in the relationship, whether through fear, financial control, isolation, or the threat of consequences, and uses that power to dominate the other on an ongoing basis, not just in moments of conflict. Johnson also named a third, less common pattern, violent resistance, which describes a partner using violence to defend against or resist an intimate terrorist; we won't focus on it here, but it's part of why "someone hit back" doesn't automatically mean a relationship is mutually high-conflict.

Researchers, including Johnson himself, have since worked to sharpen how this distinction gets identified in practice (Hardesty et al., 2015), and a thirty-year retrospective on the research concluded that the underlying distinction has held up well and continues to shape how the field understands intimate partner violence (Cares et al., 2024).

Here's the part that surprises people most: this is not a distinction between mild and severe. A fight born out of stress and overwhelmed emotions can still get loud, frightening, even physical in the moment. It can definitely have elements that we would consider "abusive." What sets it apart from ongoing abuse isn't how bad any single blow-up looks. It's whether that behaviour is one part of a broader pattern in which one partner is working to control the other, day in and day out, not just during arguments.

What High Conflict Actually Looks Like

High conflict, or what researchers call situational couple violence, can look far more intense than people expect, and this is usually where the confusion with ongoing abuse begins. In the heat of an argument, a high-conflict relationship can include yelling, name-calling, a slammed door, even an object thrown across the room. These moments are not mild, and they can be genuinely frightening to live through. What makes them different from ongoing abuse isn't how they look on the outside. It's what's driving them, and crucially, it's that both partners are typically part of the pattern rather than one partner acting on the other.

A growing body of research points to emotional dysregulation as the driving force behind most of this. A 2024 laboratory study of couples found that when negative emotion builds during conflict, especially when it builds in both partners at once, aggression becomes far more likely, but it shows up as retaliation in the moment rather than an escalating campaign, and it's driven by impulsivity rather than strategy (McCurry et al., 2024). A recent meta-analysis reached a similar conclusion from a different angle: across dozens of studies, difficulties regulating emotion were consistently linked to a person's likelihood of engaging in aggressive behaviours towards a partner, for either partner, not just one (Maloney et al., 2023).

This matters because it changes how we read a frightening moment. Someone who throws a plate during a fight, feels sick about it afterward, and can't fully explain what came over them is having a very different experience than someone who is using fear deliberately, methodically, to keep a partner in line. This isn't to excuse any harmful behaviour by one partner towards the other, but rather to establish what type of treatment is appropriate and what is not (see more below).

How High Conflict Perpetuates Itself

Most high-conflict relationships aren't defined by any single blow-up. They're defined by a cycle that repeats, often around the same handful of topics, in a shape researchers can map almost exactly. The most studied of these is the demand-withdraw pattern: one partner pushes for change, raises the issue, presses for a response, while the other pulls back, deflects, or goes quiet. The demander's pursuit intensifies because the silence feels like being shut out. The withdrawer's retreat intensifies because the pursuit feels like being cornered. Each partner's way of coping becomes the very thing that provokes more of the behaviour they're trying to escape, and both people end up dysregulated by the end of it, just via different routes. This is one of the most extensively studied patterns in couples research, and it's consistently linked to lower relationship satisfaction and more entrenched, harder-to-resolve conflict.

A study of 253 couples found that a person's tendency to withdraw during conflict, particularly when paired with depression, was fully explained by difficulties regulating emotion, not by a lack of care for the relationship (Holley et al., 2018). Withdrawal, in other words, is very often a nervous system trying to protect itself from being overwhelmed, not a partner checking out.

A 2023 study following 275 couples starting therapy looked even more closely at which specific dimensions of emotion dysregulation actually predict relationship distress. Impulse control difficulties, a limited awareness of one's own emotions in the moment, and a narrow toolkit of regulation strategies were all linked to lower relationship satisfaction for both partners (Xu et al., 2023). Interestingly, simply having negative emotions wasn't itself the problem; what mattered was the capacity to notice a rising emotion, name it, and respond to it with more than one option. This is useful, because it points directly at what treatment actually needs to build: not a personality overhaul, but a set of specific, learnable skills, for both people in the relationship.

One important caution belongs here too: looking dysregulated in the moment, or being caught in a demand-withdraw cycle, doesn't by itself rule out coercive control. Research following partner-violent men over 15 years found real differences between them, some genuinely more impulsive and reactive, others far more calculated, and both patterns were still associated with serious harm (Redondo et al., 2025). A person can be truly flooded in an argument, or genuinely withdrawing to self-protect, and still be part of a relationship built on ongoing control. The mechanism explains a great deal. It doesn't answer the question on its own.

What Coercive Control Actually Looks Like

Ongoing abuse with coercive control, what Johnson termed intimate terrorism, looks different, and it's often more subtle than people expect. A comprehensive review of the coercive control research describes how relationships marked by abuse tend to involve less about isolated incidents and more about an ongoing effort to restrict a partner's freedom: controlling the money, monitoring where they go and who they talk to, dictating what they wear or how they spend their day, and using threats, guilt, or fear of consequences to keep them compliant (Stark & Hester, 2019). This can, and often does, include yelling, name-calling, or physical violence too. What separates it from a high-conflict blow-up is that it doesn't stay contained to moments of conflict, and it doesn't run both ways. It shows up as a running undercurrent that shapes even the most ordinary days, not just the days when conflict happens, with one partner consistently holding the power and the other consistently absorbing it.

It's also worth knowing that people who use coercive control don't fit one mould. Some are only ever controlling within the home and look entirely unremarkable to the outside world, while others carry the same volatility into every part of their lives (Redondo et al., 2025). This matters clinically, because we often hear people talk themselves out of naming their own experience with some version of "but he's not like that with anyone else," or "he always feels terrible afterward, so it can't really be that." Neither of those, understandably, holds up against what the research actually shows.

How To Tell Them Apart

Which way the fear runs

In high conflict, both people can get flooded, defensive, even frightened in the heat of an argument, and that fear tends to pass once the moment does. In coercive control, fear tends to organize daily life on one side only, long after any argument has ended. It's less about whether you were ever afraid in a given moment, and more about whether you find yourself editing what you say, checking someone's mood before you can relax, or adjusting your plans in advance to avoid a reaction.

Whether power stays put

This is the thread that most directly separates situational couple violence from intimate terrorism. In high conflict, influence moves back and forth. Both partners can push an agenda, hold their ground, give in or engage in aggressive behaviours, and neither one holds a lasting upper hand. In coercive control, one partner consistently makes the decisions, controls the resources, or has the final say, regardless of how any particular conflict unfolds. The power imbalance is the pattern, not a side effect of it.

What happens after the blow-up

Couples in high-conflict relationships often do genuinely repair: an apology lands, accountability is taken (even if not perfectly), the relationship resets on more equal footing. In coercive control, what looks like reconciliation is often a period of calm that functions to keep the relationship intact, followed by a return to the same pattern of control.

What happens if someone tries to leave

This is one of the clearest and most serious markers. A multisite study of intimate partner violence found that the period around separation carried a meaningfully elevated risk of serious harm, and that this risk was specifically tied to estrangement from a partner who had been controlling (Campbell et al., 2003), a finding that continues to inform how risk is assessed today (Williams et al., 2022). In high-conflict relationships, a breakup is painful but rarely dangerous. In relationships marked by coercive control, leaving can be the most dangerous moment of all, which is exactly why professional support and a safety plan matter so much before taking that step.

Why This Distinction Changes the Treatment

This is where the distinction stops being theoretical. It determines what kind of help is appropriate, and getting it right matters for outcome as much as for safety. So, is couples therapy appropriate?

For high conflict, or situational couple violence, the answer is yes. Couples therapy is genuinely one of the most effective tools available, and it's one of the core things we do. A large meta-analysis pooling 58 studies and over 2,000 couples found that couples therapy produces a large improvement in relationship satisfaction, with gains generally holding at follow-up, and with different approaches (behavioural, emotionally focused, cognitive-behavioural) showing similarly strong results (Roddy et al., 2020). What that therapy actually does, in practice, is target the cycle described above: helping each partner recognize the demand-withdraw pattern while it's happening, building the capacity to notice and regulate rising emotion before it hijacks the conversation, and rebuilding the skill of genuine repair after things go sideways. None of this requires either partner to have done anything wrong. It requires two people to learn a different way of running an old loop.

For coercive control, or intimate terrorism, the answer is no. A careful review of the literature on couples therapy in cases of intimate partner violence concludes that conjoint work is not advisable once coercive control is identified, and that clinicians should screen every couple for this, not just the couples who may appear more high conflict on the surface (Hurless & Cottone, 2018). Sitting a controlled partner across from the person controlling them, and asking them to speak openly about the relationship, can put them at real risk and can even be used against them afterward. Joint couples therapy is strictly contraindicated in these scenarios because it can compromise the victim's safety, leave them vulnerable to retaliation after sessions, and allow the abusive partner to weaponize the therapeutic process. Individual safety planning and specialized trauma advocacy are the gold standard of care. This is exactly why many practices, ours included, build individual sessions with each partner into the couples process before any joint work begins: it's how we find out which situation we're actually looking at before recommending a path forward.

A Legal Update Worth Knowing

For Ontario and Canadian readers, this distinction recently became more than a clinical one. On June 18, 2026, Canada's Protecting Victims Act (Bill C-16) received Royal Assent, creating the country's first Criminal Code offence for coercive control within intimate relationships (CBC News, 2026). The new offence won't come into force until June 2028, giving time to train police and courts in recognizing a pattern of control rather than a single violent act. But the law itself marks a real shift: for the first time, Canadian law is catching up to what researchers have argued for years, that the pattern of control, not just the presence of violence, is the heart of the harm.

This Isn't a Checklist

We want to be honest about the limits of an article like this one. No blog post, however well-researched, can tell you with certainty what's happening in your own relationship, especially now that we've added the nuance that intense, even frightening moments can belong to either pattern. Many relationships live somewhere in the messy middle, or shift over time, or involve both partners' histories in ways that are genuinely hard to untangle from the inside. Naming a pattern accurately, especially when you're the one inside it, usually takes an outside, trained eye. It's often hard to see what type of dynamic you're in while you're still part of the relationship. Even in the most abusive relationships, people still hold empathy for their partner and may minimize how much their partner's behaviour is affecting them. If anything here feels familiar, that's worth taking seriously, and it's exactly the kind of thing a proper assessment with a clinician is for, since a trained clinician is equipped to assess for safety in a way a self-assessment can't.

A Moment to Reflect

Take a pause and consider: when things get intense between you, does it feel mutual, however painful, and does it genuinely blow over once it's passed? Or does it feel like something that's done to you, with an undercurrent that never fully lifts? After a difficult moment, does the calm feel like real repair, or more like waiting for the other shoe to drop? And is there any part of your life, money, friendships, your own schedule, where you no longer feel like the one deciding?

There are no scores to add up here. Noticing the shape of the pattern is the point.

If You Recognize the Pattern

If what you've read here sounds like your relationship, please know that reaching out is not an overreaction, and you don't have to have all the language for what's happening before you ask for help. If you're planning to leave a relationship involving coercive control, a safety plan matters, given how much the risk can rise around separation specifically. A trained counsellor or advocate can help you think through that step safely, whether or not you're ready to take it yet. Here are some helpful resources:

National services and resources related to family violence

• Shelters (Sheltersafe.ca): Information and a clickable map to help connect women and their children across Canada with the nearest shelter for safety and support.
• For women (iHEAL app): A free, private, and secure app to help Canadian women who have experienced abuse from a current or past partner find ways to stay safe and be well.
• For men (Intimate Partner Violence Against Men and Boys): Information and resources for support, validation, advice, and referrals.
• For youth and young adults (Kids Help Phone): 24/7 mental health support across Canada for kids, teens, and young adults. Call 1-800-668-6868 or text CONNECT to 686868.
• For Indigenous Peoples (Hope for Wellness Helpline): 24/7 support for Indigenous Peoples across Canada. Call 1-855-242-3310 (free) or connect online to reach experienced and culturally competent counsellors. Services available in English and French and, on request, in Cree, Ojibway, and Inuktitut.
• For older adults (Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, CNPEA): Information and links to resources for you or someone you know who is experiencing abuse or neglect as an older adult.
• For trans people (Trans Lifeline): Confidential and anonymous trans peer support and crisis hotline, run by and for the transgender community. Call 1-877-330-6366.
• Legal help (Get Help With Family Violence): Information from the Department of Justice on the laws relating to family violence and the kind of help that is available.
• Mental health support (Get Mental Health Support): Services and helplines if you're in crisis and need emotional support.

Frequently Asked Questions

What do "situational couple violence" and "intimate terrorism" actually mean?

These are the clinical terms researchers use for the two patterns discussed in this article (Johnson, 2008). Situational couple violence describes high conflict: a shared, escalating dynamic where both partners are distressed and either may become aggressive when overwhelmed. Intimate terrorism, often called coercive controlling violence in more recent research, describes a pattern where one partner holds the power and uses it to control the other on an ongoing basis (Hardesty et al., 2015). The behaviour can look similar in a single moment; the pattern and the power dynamic are what set them apart.

Does yelling or throwing things automatically mean a relationship is abusive?

Yes and no. Research links this kind of intense, in-the-moment behaviour to emotional dysregulation far more often than to a deliberate strategy of control. That said, are these behaviours still harmful and worth addressing? Absolutely. Regardless of whether this is a high-conflict relationship or one marked by abuse and coercive control, behaviour like this causes real harm and needs to change. What matters for how we'd label the relationship is whether it's contained to moments of overwhelm that both people move past, whether both partners engage in these behaviours, or whether it's one piece of an ongoing power pattern that also includes monitoring, isolation, or fear that organizes daily life.

Does couples therapy actually work for high-conflict relationships?

Yes, and the evidence for this is strong. A large meta-analysis of 58 studies and over 2,000 couples found a large improvement in relationship satisfaction following couples therapy, with several different approaches showing similarly strong results and gains generally holding over follow-up (Roddy et al., 2020). This applies specifically to situational couple violence, or high conflict. When coercive control is present instead, individual, safety-focused support is the appropriate path.

Can a relationship be both high-conflict and abusive?

It's possible, and the two aren't always neatly separable in real life. A relationship can involve genuine mutual conflict alongside one partner's efforts to control the other. This is part of why self-assessment alone has real limits, and why a thorough clinical assessment looks at the whole pattern rather than any single incident.

If there's never been any physical violence, can it still be abuse?

Yes. Coercive control is defined by the pattern of restriction and fear, not by whether a hand was ever raised (Stark & Hester, 2019). Canada's new Criminal Code offence for coercive control was written specifically to capture this, since existing laws were built around discrete violent acts rather than sustained patterns of control (CBC News, 2026).

Is couples therapy ever appropriate if there's been some intense conflict in the relationship?

Sometimes, yes. The research doesn't support a blanket rule that any intensity or any violence rules out joint therapy. What it supports is careful, individual screening of each partner before deciding, specifically to check whether the behaviour is embedded in a pattern of control (Hurless & Cottone, 2018). That screening is exactly what determines whether joint work is safe and likely to help.

The Bottom Line

High conflict and abuse can look painfully similar in the moment, sometimes involving the very same behaviours, yelling, name-calling, even something thrown across a room. But they run on different engines. High conflict, or situational couple violence, is usually a cycle, often a demand-withdraw pattern, driven by two dysregulated nervous systems that never learned a better way to engage with each other, where both partners are distressed and either may become aggressive (McCurry et al., 2024; Maloney et al., 2023; Holley et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2023). Coercive control, or intimate terrorism, is one partner steering the relationship at the other's expense, with the power running clearly and consistently one way (Stark & Hester, 2019; Johnson, 2008). The clearest threads that tell them apart are which way the fear runs, whether power stays with one person, what genuine repair looks like afterward, and what happens if someone tries to leave (Campbell et al., 2003). And the treatment answer follows directly from which one it is: couples therapy for high conflict, with strong evidence behind it (Roddy et al., 2020), and individual, safety-focused support for coercive control (Hurless & Cottone, 2018).

At Trauma Care Psychology, we work with couples navigating genuine high conflict, and we screen carefully for coercive control before recommending joint work, in line with best practice. If you're trying to understand your own relationship more clearly, we invite you to book a consultation. You don't have to figure this out alone.

References

• Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, J., Sachs, C., Sharps, P., Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S. A., Manganello, J., Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V., & Laughon, K. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089
• Cares, A. C., Haselschwerdt, M. L., Hardesty, J. L., & Few-Demo, A. L. (2024). After all this time: Clarifying misconceptions and charting clear directions for the next 25 years of Johnson's typology. Journal of Family Violence, 39(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00669-6
• CBC News. (2026, June 30). Canadian Criminal Code reforms making coercive control, sharing sexual deepfakes crimes. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/criminal-code-coercive-control-9.7253326
• Hardesty, J. L., Crossman, K. A., Haselschwerdt, M. L., Raffaelli, M., Ogolsky, B. G., & Johnson, M. P. (2015). Toward a standard approach to operationalizing coercive control and classifying violence types. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(4), 833–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12201
• Holley, S. R., Haase, C. M., Chui, I., & Bloch, L. (2018). Depression, emotion regulation, and the demand/withdraw pattern during intimate relationship conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(3), 408–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517733334
• Hurless, N., & Cottone, R. R. (2018). Considerations of conjoint couples therapy in cases of intimate partner violence. The Family Journal, 26(3), 324–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480718795708
• Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.2307/353683
• Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Northeastern University Press.
• Maloney, M. A., Eckhardt, C. I., & Oesterle, D. W. (2023). Emotion regulation and intimate partner violence perpetration: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 100, Article 102238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102238
• McCurry, A. G., May, R. C., & Donaldson, D. I. (2024). Both partners' negative emotion drives aggression during couples' conflict. Communications Psychology, 2(1), Article 73. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00122-4
• Redondo, N., Ronzón-Tirado, R., Muñoz-Rivas, M. J., & Graña, J. L. (2025). Long-term treatment outcome and recidivism patterns among intimate partner violence perpetrator typology: A 15-year follow-up study. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 32, e70142. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.70142
• Roddy, M. K., Walsh, L. M., Rothman, K., Hatch, S. G., & Doss, B. D. (2020). Meta-analysis of couple therapy: Effects across outcomes, designs, timeframes, and other moderators. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 88(7), 583–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000514
• Stark, E., & Hester, M. (2019). Coercive control: Update and review. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218816191
• Statistics Canada. (2025, October 28). Trends in police-reported family violence and intimate partner violence in Canada, 2024. The Daily. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/251028/dq251028a-eng.htm
• Williams, K. R., Stansfield, R., & Campbell, J. (2022). Persistence and potential lethality in intimate partner violence: Evaluating the concurrent and predictive validity of a dual risk assessment protocol. Violence Against Women, 28(1), 298–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220988347
• Xu, M., Johnson, L. N., Anderson, S. R., Hunt, Q., Bradford, A. B., Banford Witting, A., Bean, R., & Miller, R. B. (2023). Emotion dysregulation and couple relationship satisfaction of clinical couples: An actor-partner interdependence model. Family Process, 62(4), 1555–1573. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12828

This blog post is for informational purposes and does not constitute clinical, legal, or safety advice. If you are in immediate danger, please call 911. If you are experiencing abuse or are unsure about the safety of your relationship, the Assaulted Women's Helpline (1-866-863-0511) is free, confidential, and available 24 hours a day. Trauma Care Psychology offers consultations in Ontario. Visit traumacarepsychology.ca to learn more.