blackmail essay

18 Ways to Handle Emotional Blackmail (+ Examples & Quotes)

The undertone of emotional blackmail is if you don’t do what I want when I want it, you will suffer.

The term was introduced by Susan Forward, Ph.D., in her book Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You (Forward & Frazier, 1998).

She describes how emotional blackmail tactics are used by abusers to threaten in order to get what they want. In placing demands and threats, they create feelings of fear, guilt, and anger to solicit compliance from their victims. In doing so, they divert blame and responsibility to the victim for their own negative actions. Typically, this dysfunctional type of manipulation occurs in close relationships.

Emotional blackmail is a concept recently developed and one receiving increased attention. The #MeToo movement is bringing education and awareness around the dynamics of emotional abuse and its powerful negative impact. In this article, we explore the meaning behind emotional blackmail, examples of this manipulation, the damage that occurs from this emotional abuse, and ways to handle it.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Relationships Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients build healthy, life-enriching relationships.

This Article Contains

The meaning of emotional blackmail, 15+ examples of emotional blackmail, how to best handle emotional blackmail, how to stop emotional blackmail in relationships, eb after a break-up, is it a crime, advice for parents, where to purchase susan forward’s book (+ ebook), 9 quotes on the topic, a take-home message, frequently asked questions.

Emotional blackmail is the process in which an individual makes demands and threats to manipulative another person to get what they want. It is a form of psychological abuse, causing damage to the victims. Their demands are often intended to control a victim’s behavior through unhealthy ways.

Emotional blackmail is a way of being manipulated by your partner. However, in these situations, it can be difficult to gauge and clearly point to whether the victim is being manipulated.

Leaders in the field, Susan Forward and Donna Frazier identify the power dynamic that occurs in such manipulation. They suggest that emotional blackmailers employ a fear – emotion – guilt tactic to get what they want.

FOG is a term named by Forward, suggesting that fear, obligation, and guilt are the dynamics in emotional blackmail between the manipulator and the victim. The acronym FOG also accurately describes the confusion and lack of clarity and thinking that can occur in these interpersonal dynamics. Emotional blackmail can create a fog and contribute to feelings of fear, obligation, guilt, and anxiety.

According to Forward, emotional blackmail occurs in close relationships. The manipulator leverages knowledge gained about the victim’s fears. Blackmailers will use the information they learn about what the victim fears to manipulate them.

Forward suggests that one of the most painful elements of emotional blackmail is that they use personal information about the victim’s vulnerabilities against them. Another trigger blackmailers will use is putting the victim’s sense of obligation to the test. They will commonly create undeserved guilt and blame to attribute their problems to the victim.

They make threats related to the victim’s emotional triggers to force compliance. For example, “ If you don’t do what I want I will…leave you, tell your secrets, not love you… ” They can also take advantage of the victim’s sense of responsibility and obligation. “ All I do is work for this family, the least you could do is… ” Blackmailers exploit the victim’s sense of guilt to create confusion and get the victim to give in to their demand.

Because the tactics can be covert, emotional blackmail may be difficult to spot, especially for those who may experience more vulnerabilities to it. According to Forward,

“Blackmailers make it nearly impossible to see how they’re manipulating us, because they lay down a thick fog that obscures their actions. All the while, if we attempt to fight back, they ensure that we literally can’t see what is happening to us.”

They can use covert techniques that create confusion by:

• Making their demands seem reasonable
• Make the victim feel selfish
• Pathologizing or making the victim seem as though they are crazy
• Ally with someone of influence to intimidate the victim

There are warning signs of emotional blackmail in a relationship:

• If one person frequently apologizes for things that are not their doing, such as the manipulator’s outburst, bad day, or negative behaviors.
• If one person insists on only their way or nothing, even if it is at the expense of the partner.
• It seems to be a one-way street of sacrifice and compliance.
• One person feels intimidated or threatened to obey or comply.

When in a dysfunctional cycle of emotional blackmail, the victim may be inclined to: apologize, plead, change plans to meet the others’ needs, cry, use logic, give in, or challenge. Typically, they will find it difficult to stand up for themselves, directly address the issue, set boundaries, and communicate with the blackmailer that the behavior is inappropriate.

They do not consistently set clear boundaries indicating what is acceptable for them.

Forward and Frazier recognize four types of blackmailing, each with varying manipulation tactics.

• Punishers – Punishers operate with a need to get their way, regardless of the feelings or needs of the other person. Their motto is “my way or the highway.” Punishers will insist upon pushing for control and getting what they want with threats to inflict damage or harm.
• Self-punishers – Individuals can make threats of self-harm if the partner does not comply with what they want.
• Sufferers – this is the voice of a victim conveying guilt on the partner if they do not do what is demanded. If they don’t comply, there is a suggestion that their suffering will be the others’ fault. “After all that I’ve done for you, you are going to let me suffer…?”
• Tantalizers – This can be the most subtle and confusing form of manipulation. There is a promise of what will be better if they comply. It sparks hope yet is still connecting a threat to the demand.

Common in any abuse cycles, it is important to understand the progression of emotional blackmail. It usually starts as subtle or implicit comments and behaviors. The progression can be insidious, so one does not realize its impact until it has gotten severe.

A metaphor would be of the frog in boiling water. If you place a frog immediately into boiling water, its instincts will cause it to jump out because of the instant pain. However, if you place a frog in lukewarm water and slowly increase the heat, it does not recognize the pain as a danger signal at the same level of heat. The frog becomes desensitized as the water is heating up slowly.

The behaviors and impact of emotional blackmail can be similar.

There are six progressive steps identified in emotional blackmail:

• A demand made from the manipulator. The manipulator will make a clear demand of what they want, tied with a threat. You need to pay my rent or I’ll leave you. You need to let me move in or I’ll tell your sister what you said about her.
• Resistance from the victim. After the demand is identified, the victim may resist or feel the need to avoid the person because they are unsure how to handle the demand. The concerning part of this process is it is often an unsavory, unfavorable, or unreasonable demand placed on the victim.
• Pressure from the manipulator. Manipulators of emotional blackmail are not concerned about pushing too hard. They will persist to get what they want no matter what it takes. They disregard hurt feelings or fear being created. Creating fear can even be the driving force behind the demand made. The manipulator may put pressure suggesting that the victim is being irrational, silly, or unreasonable themselves. This part of the process can cause the victim to begin to question their sense of reality and if they are wrong in feeling concerned about the demand being placed upon them. They begin to lose their healthy sense of perspective and what their gut is telling them. The manipulator may even turn the situation around to blame the victim or question their motives if they do not initially agree to the placed demand. Confusion is a big part of this process.
• Threatening the victim. This is the part of the process where the manipulator is threatening to do or not do something to cause unhappiness, discomfort, or pain for the victim. If you don’t do this…then I will do this… They create a situation where the victim can be responsible for the promised negative outcome if they do not comply.
• Victim compliance. The victim gives in, either quickly, or slow through a process of increasing self-doubt. They comply with the demand of the manipulator, often causing feelings of anxiety, guilt, fear, anger, or resentment.
• The manipulator gets their way and subsides temporarily until the next demand of what they want comes up. The frequency of these behaviors and tendencies vary in all relationships involving emotional blackmail. Regardless of the consistency of these behaviors, it has a negative and toxic effect on the relationship and on the victim. Now the cycle is in place and the foundation is set for this pattern to continue.

In some situations, there may seem to be a fine line between indirect communication and manipulation. Emotional blackmail and indirect communication can both have passive aggressive undertones. The communication becomes manipulation and blackmail when it is used consistently to control another individual or coerce them into doing what the requestor demands.

The victim will typically feel resistance to comply, yet does it even at the cost of their own wellbeing.

There is also a distinction between setting healthy boundaries and emotional blackmail. In setting boundaries, the individual is asserting themselves and communicating what their needs are. Emotional blackmail involves conveying threats that will result in a punishment of the victim does not meet the request.

Someone engaging in emotional blackmail will demonstrate any or all of the following:

• Telling you that you are crazy for questioning them
• Controlling what you do
• Ignoring your concerns and pushback
• Avoiding taking accountability
• Constantly placing blame on others for their behaviors
• Providing empty apologies
• Using fear, obligation, threats, and guilt to get their way
• Unwilling to compromise
• Seemingly unconcerned about your needs
• Rationalizing their unreasonable behaviors and requests
• Intimidate you until you do what they want
• Blame you for something that you didn’t do so that you feel you have to earn their affection
• Accuse you of doing something you didn’t do
• Threaten to harm either you or themselves

Victims of emotional blackmail typically feel insecure, unvalued, and unworthy. They often struggle with low self-esteem and doubt their own needs. Victims can demonstrate the following characteristics:

• Approval seeking, people pleasing
• Extreme compassion and empathy
• Tendency to take blame
• Tendency to feel pity for others
• Try to avoid conflict
• Peacekeeping habits
• Strong sense of responsibility and doing the “right thing”
• Fear of abandonment
• Sensitivity, inclination to personalize things
• Fear of anger
• Self-doubt, low self-esteem

The stress of being in a relationship involving emotional blackmail can take a toll emotionally and physically on the victim. It compromises the victim’s sense of integrity and self-esteem . It causes victims to question their own sense of reality. It leads to negative and distorted thinking about themselves and their relationship. Victims of emotional blackmail often end up being isolated, experiencing extreme loneliness.

It impacts an overall sense of wellbeing and contributes to anxiety and depression.

The Blackmailer

Forward notes in the book that an important takeaway for the victim is that the behavior of an emotional blackmailer feels like it is about you but for the most part it is not. It often comes from deep insecurities inside of the blackmailer. Fear and anxiety can come out as rage and blame toward the victim. These tendencies often have to do with what has happened in the past rather than the reality of the current situation.

There is no exact prototype of emotional blackmailers, yet they can demonstrate the following characteristics:

• Narcissistic tendencies
• Self-centered
• Intense anger
• Deep panic, fear, depression, or rage
• Emotionally immature
• Not in touch with feelings
• Lack of accountability
• Hate to lose

Some of these traits may be close to the surface and observable, such as anger. However, much of the insecurities, emotional pain and fears lie deep within the psychological makeup of the blackmailer.

The scientific research on emotional blackmail, in particular, is limited. In one public health study, researchers explored personality correlates of emotional blackmail in relationships (Mazur et. al).

They utilized the five-factor personality model to assess risk factors for potential victims and individuals at risk for engaging in emotional blackmail. They discovered that neuroticism and agreeableness were risk factors for taking on the role of the victim. The factors protecting against the use of emotional blackmail in close relationships were agreeableness and conscientiousness.

Neuroticism is a key risk factor for taking on the perpetrator of emotional blackmail. Social adaptation and assertiveness can act as protective factors against being a victim of emotional blackmail. Data was gathered to inform preventive programs developed to support people in building healthy relationships. There is room for additional research to be gathered and leveraged to help with prevention of emotional abuse and blackmail.

The emotional blackmailer typically does not have any other coping or go-to methods for how to communicate and interact in a healthy manner. They fall back to stonewalling, slamming doors, threatening, and engaging in other damaging behaviors to get what they want. They typically do not have the tools available to understand how to convey their needs.

Many examples of emotional blackmail occur in romantic relationships. Any gender can engage in emotional blackmail. However, a male-female partnership is a prototypical example.

One scenario is if a man in a committed relationship is caught cheating on his partner. Rather than taking ownership and apologizing for his actions, he may twist the story. He may blame his partner for not meeting his needs or being there when he needed her, therefore, seemingly rationalizing or justifying his behavior. This can be confusing for the victim, as she may be inclined to question herself or start believing his claims.

She may wonder if she is good enough or if she could have done more in the relationship.

Other examples of demands and threats in emotional blackmail:

• If I ever see another man look at you I will kill him.
• If you ever stop loving me I will kill myself.
• I’ve already discussed this with our pastor/therapist/friends/family and they agree that you are being unreasonable.
• I’m taking this vacation – with or without you.
• How can you say you love me and still be friends with them?
• You’ve ruined my life and now you are trying to stop me from spending money to take care of myself.

Emotional blackmailers commonly attempt to make the victim feel responsible for their (negative) actions.

• It was your fault that I was late for work.
• If you wouldn’t cook in an unhealthy way, I wouldn’t be overweight.
• I would have gotten ahead in my career if you had done more at home.

Emotional blackmail may also occur in situations where one person is an addict. They may threaten to take the car if the victim does not pick them up from the bar.

Emotional blackmail can take place in family relationships as well. A needy mother may attempt to give her child a guilt trip for not spending enough time with her. She may make comments referencing what “good daughters” do.

Emotional blackmail can occur in friendships. A friend may ask for money and threaten to end the friendship if they do not comply.

A punishing type of blackmail can occur. For example, if a couple is going through a difficult divorce, the emotional blackmailer may threaten that if their partner files for divorce, they will keep the money or never let them see the kids. Such behavior can leave the victim feeling rage at the attempt of being controlled and not knowing how to properly respond.

Another type of emotional blackmail that is even more insidious is when we use fear, obligation, and guilt to hold ourselves hostage. We can inflict our own FOG which can control our behavior, even if it is not coming from external sources. “If I were a good son, I would visit my mother more frequently.”

There can be different levels of emotional blackmail, ranging from threats with little consequence to threats that can impact major life decisions or can be dangerous.

Here are some additional brief and damaging examples of threats associated with emotional blackmail:

• If you don’t take care of me, I’ll wind up in the hospital/on the street/unable to work.
• You’ll never see your kids again.
• I’ll make you suffer.
• You’ll destroy this family.
• You’re not my child anymore.
• You’ll be sorry.
• I’m cutting you out of my will.
• I’ll get sick.
• I can’t make it without you.

Download 3 Free Positive Relationships Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients to build healthy, life-enriching relationships.

Download 3 Positive Relationships Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

If you or someone you know is experiencing emotional blackmail in a relationship, it is difficult to know where to start. In her book , Invisible Chains: Overcoming Coercive Control in Your Intimate Relationship , Lisa Aronson Fontes provides a “Controlling Relationship Assessment.”

Taking an assessment may be a useful way to start reflecting and identifying the abusive behaviors that are occurring. Her book also provides ways to help:

• Recognize the controlling behaviors of all kinds.
• Understand why this destructive pattern occurs.
• Determine whether you are in danger and if your partner can change.
• Protect yourself and your kids.
• Find the support and resources you need.
• Take action to improve or end your relationship.
• Regain your freedom and independence.

In Forward’s book, there is a chapter called “It Takes Two.” She encourages the victims of emotional blackmail to take responsibility for their behavior and their previous compliance with the blackmail process.

The blackmail process does not work effectively without both parties actively participating. Forward offers this perspective not as a way for victims to beat themselves up or to place blame. Rather, she provides this point of view as an empowering approach for victims to recognize what they can change and can control. In the introduction, she states:

“Change is the scariest word in the English language. No one likes it, almost everyone is terrified of it, and most people, including me, will become exquisitely creative to avoid it. Our actions may be making us miserable, but the idea of doing anything differently is worse. Yet if there’s one thing I know with absolute certainty, both personally and professionally, it is this: Nothing will change in our lives until we change our own behavior.”

In order to best handle emotional blackmail, the victim must bring a new mindset and approach the situation in a different way. This will require gaining insight into what is going on in the blackmail dynamics and learning to detach from their intense emotions.

It can be useful for victims to explore what demands are making them feel uncomfortable. In doing so, they can recognize what boundaries need to be put in place. They must decide what is ok and not ok with them in a relationship. Understanding the abusive impact of emotional blackmail is also important.

Appreciating how emotional abuse wears victims down can validate their experience of feeling hopeless and lacking in confidence.

Change is scary, but doing something different is the only way to get a different result. Otherwise, victims are at risk of letting their fears run and potentially ruin their lives. Awareness, insight, and educating ourselves is important, but change only comes from taking a course of different actions over a prolonged period of time. Susan Forward asserts that we all have choices about how to engage in a relationship:

• We can accept things as they are.
• We can negotiate for a healthier relationship.
• Or, we can end the relationship.

No relationship is worth the cost of emotional and mental wellbeing.

Victims can learn to set boundaries and may become surprised what can happen when new limits are set. The messaging needs to become that the behavior is no longer acceptable. While victims do not feel courageous or confident after having been emotionally abused, they can take a different action. Victims must take action to change the course, rather than waiting for the other person to change.

Victims can self assess throughout the process. When you do not back down and comply with demands attached with threats, how do you feel? Strong, empowered, confident, hopeful, proud, excited, courageous, assertive, effective, capable? Breaking any behavioral pattern is challenging. Develop a clear vision of what you hope to achieve. Any change will require work, effort, and discomfort, yet this is where growth occurs.

The only way to know if the limit and boundary setting will work is to try it. Forward suggests confronting the manipulator about the behaviors. What could that sound like?

• You are pushing our relationship to the edge.
• You are not taking me seriously when I tell you how unhappy I am.
• We need to find ways to deal with conflicts that do not leave me feeling emotionally abused, worn out, and depleted.
• I always comply – not willing to live like that anymore.
• I need to be treated with respect.
• Let’s talk about it, don’t threaten and punish me.
• I’m not going to tolerate those behaviors anymore.

In her book, Forward suggests three exercises : a contract, a power statement, and a set of self-affirming phrases.

A contract lists a number of promises you would make to yourself. The contract identifies the basic ground rules for you to follow. Take time every day to read the contract out loud.

Example of a Contract with Myself:

I, ____________, recognize myself as an adult with options and choices, and I commit myself to the process of actively getting emotional blackmail out of my relationships and out of my life. In order to reach that goal, I make the following promises:

• I promise myself that I am no longer willing to let fear, obligation, and guilt control my decisions.
• I promise myself that I will learn the strategies in this book and that I will put them into practice in my life.
• I promise myself that if I regress, fail, or fall into old patterns, I will not use slips as an excuse to stop trying. I recognize that failure is not failure if you use it as a way to learn.
• I promise to take good care of myself during this process.
• I promise that I will acknowledge myself for taking positive steps, no matter how small they are.

____________________ Signature

____________________ Date

Power Statement

Another way to deal with emotional blackmail is to create your own power statement. Repeating a power statement can ground you when the pressure is turned up by the manipulator. For example, “I’m not doing this.” “I won’t do this.” This power statement is succinct and impactful. It works because it directly counters the belief that moves us into compliance – that we can’t stand the pressure.

Short, impactful sentences like this are intended to challenge doubts and limiting beliefs.

If you begin to think “I can’t stand it”…that you can’t stand to hurt his feelings, hurt him, deal with your guilt or anxiety, etc. Change the mantra from “I can’t stand it” to “it’s hard but I can do it.” This involves a subtle shift to getting comfortable with being uncomfortable. Changing to “I can stand it” will build your emotional strength so that you do not need to immediately back down.

Self-affirming Phrases

By backing down and giving in, you may feel: guilt, hurt, shameful, embarrassed, anxious, angry, weak, resentful, powerless, helpless, fearful, scared, trapped, disappointed, stuck. In order to change these emotions, it is important to start with changing your thoughts. Develop some self-affirming thought patterns to retrieve and repeat, especially when your negative thinking kicks in.

Consider asking yourself if a demand is making you uncomfortable. Why? What part of the demand is ok and what is not? Is the other person threatening me? Is the other person considering my feelings? If I comply, what is in it for me?

There are several levels of demands:

• Not a big deal, minimal impact
• Important issues including your integrity is at stake
• A major issue involving important life decisions and/or could be damaging

Request that the blackmailer get psychological help to learn new strategies. Blackmailers can learn skills to learn how to negotiate, communicate , and own their own behavior. First, they must take responsibility for their action for any change to occur. An unwillingness to own and put it on the other person is a sign of immaturity and lack of wellbeing and health.

Once blackmailers own the behavior, they can take the next steps to learn the techniques.

If they are truly taking responsibility, they will demonstrate the courage to sit down with the victim and have a conversation about it. In doing so, this will create a safer environment in the relationship. Safety is the primary element of defining a healthy or not healthy relationship. Manipulators who take accountability and are willing to be vulnerable show hope for learning and change.

What can that sound like in the blackmailer?

• Can you help me?
• Tell me how I can express this to you in a way that doesn’t make you feel bad.
• I am willing to get help.
• I don’t want my behaviors to make you feel so bad
• What is another way I can say this to you?
• What can I do that will help you feel safe?
• Where can I learn to better deal with conflict?
• I want to improve how I communicate with you.

In a healthy functioning relationship, while tension and disagreements occur, people learn to work toward a resolution. Emotional blackmailers are generally not interested in negotiating. They tend to be black and white about their demands and unwilling to compromise.

Typically, they do not consider alternatives or other viewpoints. They want what they demand and nothing else. Most people who have been in a relationship with an emotional blackmailer appreciate that there is no reasoning when someone is in this state. The behaviors are irrational and the demands unreasonable.

How to stop emotional blackmail in relationships may start with the victim fostering the belief that they do not deserve such treatment. Victims have as many rights as they do. As mentioned previously, gaining insight into their own patterns of behaviors, pleasing, and approval seeking tendencies can help understand where to make changes.

The victim may have developed these tendencies early in life to self-sacrifice, overcompensate for others, and put themselves last.

Practical suggestions on what actions to take during an exchange with a blackmailer can be useful.

• Consider taking a long pause before you comply with the request.
• Take a break and think about how you are feeling about the demand.
• Create some distance from the emotion so you can make a healthy decision based on logic, rather than the emotional default.
• Put it on your timetable. It will create off balance and it can be scary. There will be pressure to get back into the old patterns, so there is likely to be discomfort.
• Forward suggests tips such as repeating a neutral statement to the demand placed, such as “no thank you.” This stops the back and forth and capitulation of the emotional exchange.

Don’t need to wait until you feel strong to show strength. Do it, then the feelings will catch up. People often wait until they feel the courage, and that time doesn’t come. Do it, then you will feel better. You can’t wait until you feel better.

Forward suggests additional techniques to help stop emotional blackmail.

Establish an SOS before responding to a demand:

• STOP – I need time to think about it.
• OBSERVE – one’s own reactions, thoughts, emotions, triggers.
• STRATEGIZE- analyze the demands and the potential impact of complying. Consider what you need and explore alternative options.

Develop “ powerful non-defensive communication. ” Sharon Ellison (2002) provides helpful guidance on non-defensive communication. Suggestions are to not take the bait from the blackmailer, yet stay on point with what your key message is. Do not allow yourself to be derailed by their comments, demands, and behaviors. Stick with “This is who I am and what I want.”

Blackmailers are highly defensive and their comments often escalate conflicts. Attempt to stay away from escalating statements and stick with non-defensive communication such as:

• I can see that you are upset.
• I understand you are frustrated.
• I’m sorry you’re angry.
• I can understand how you might see it that way.
• Let’s talk about it when you feel calmer.

It is essential to reinforce that victims cannot change their partner only their reaction. The emotional blackmailer has a foundation in deep layers of their insecurities. The victim’s job is to put their welfare and health first. Their energy is best utilized to change themselves and their approach. In addition to changing the behavior patterns during these exchanges, victims can do their own psychological healing outside the relationship.

For example, developing skills to self-regulate, build confidence, and increase assertiveness can be beneficial. Victims can explore the following ideas:

Learn to become a detached observer. Healthy detachment is a good coping mechanism when dealing with conflict or highly charged emotional situations. It involves taking a step back and becoming an observer of what is going on the current situation, without being taken away by the emotions at hand. This will allow some self-refraction and questioning in order to make sensible connections between your beliefs, behaviors, and actions.

Creating some space between you and the situation can allow you to make healthier decisions.

Forward identifies the need to let go of pleasing behaviors. People who have a tendency to comply, may give in because they do not want the other person to be mad at them. They need to rid themselves of the undeserved guilt, which is what occurs in emotional blackmail.

Expand strategies to deal with your own emotional discomfort. Find ways to deal with your fear, guilt, and sense of obligation. Embrace the discomfort of the guilt, fear, or anxiety that can come with saying no or establishing a new boundary.

Continue to develop the thought stopping techniques in order to disconnect from fear and obligation. Challenge your assumptions of what obligations and expectations are real and what proof is provided for these claims.

Review what part you play in the dysfunctional cycle of emotional blackmail. In order to be fully empowered and able to make a change, it is important to look at your own responsibility in the situation. This is not suggesting that you are to blame for the behavior of the other person; rather, to find areas and behaviors that you can control to help yourself navigate through such circumstances.

Take inventory. Self-reflect on how you may justify your compliance. Here are some examples of negative self-talk that can reinforce the pattern of giving in.

• It’s not worth it to deal with his/her anger
• His/her needs matter more than mine
• It’s no big deal to give in
• What I want isn’t important enough
• I’ll just do it to get him/her to calm down
• I would rather give in than hurt his/her feelings
• I’m afraid if I say no

Practice pausing before giving into demands in lower stakes situations. Practice saying no even when the threats are not evident. Be firm and stand your ground on limits set. Do not immediately give in to what the blackmailer wants, especially if you are being threatened.

Seek professional help through counseling, therapy, coaching, or a support group to help navigate through recovery from emotional abuse. In the end, it is critical for victims to remember that abuse is not their fault. All people deserve to be treated with respect.

A break-up or relationship separation can fuel the fire for emotional blackmailers. The potential for them to act out, even more, rises during crisis situations, especially involving a break-up. During this time, victims could be at risk or in danger, as blackmailers can escalate their behaviors. Since they are focused on what they want when they want it, they show limited concern or empathy for the pain of others.

They can become so absorbed in their own rage, that they could show signs of panic in their desperation.

If emotional blackmail was used during the relationship and there is a break-up, there is no longer a direct method for such manipulation tactics. This can cause an emotionally unstable person to act out even more if their means for control are taken away. Manipulator’s behaviors may increase in intensity and in a frequency. More severe threats of self-harm and inducing guilt would be common in a breakup situation.

They also may resort to stalking or other types of unwanted behaviors in pursuit in an attempt to reconnect the relationship. While uncommon, taken to an extreme, the ex may show obsessive tendencies and could be at risk for bringing the violence to another level.

It is important for the victim to remember that they are not responsible for their ex’s needs and feelings. It is important to seek protection if the victim is feeling unsafe. This may require getting professional help to understand how to establish these healthy boundaries. It may involve setting clear physical boundaries to ensure there is no contact with the ex-partner.

Finding a support system can be helpful for individuals who have been in relationships involving emotional blackmail and abuse. The focus post-break-up is best placed on victims learning how to engage in self-care and identify their own personal needs.

In the legal system, domestic violence has been identified as an incident or series of incidents involving physical violence conducted by a partner or ex-partner.

However, the laws addressing emotional abuse are less clear and less consistent. In the legal system, the term used to describe emotional abuse and blackmail is “coercive control.”

The term ‘coercive control’ was developed by Evan Stark to help understand the impact and damage that occurs from emotional abuse. He identifies coercive control as a pattern of behavior which seeks to take away the victim’s liberty or freedom, to strip away their sense of self and is a violation of human rights. Emotional blackmail is a type of coercive control used most often in intimate relationships.

Laws about coercive control (i.e. emotional blackmail) and abuse vary around the world. Currently, the United States does not have clear criminal laws in place to protect victims from emotional or psychological abuse by a partner. There are criminal statutes that only protect partners from physical violence. Some states have attempted to house emotional abuse under statutes prohibiting domestic violence, child abuse, and elder abuse.

There are several countries who are addressing psychological abuse in the court systems. The first country to ban “psychological violence within marriage” was France in 2010.

Coercive control has been recognized as a crime in the UK since 2015. The Serious Crime Act 2015 recognizes that “controlling or coercive” behavior towards another person in an intimate or family relationship is punishable for a prison term. Since the law has been in place, an estimated 100 men have been convicted and sentenced for such crimes.

The UK law states:

Coercive control is defined by a pattern of behavior that gradually is purposeful in exerting power and control over another intimate partner. The law sees the perpetrator as the one who carries out these coercive behaviors as solely responsible. Coercive behaviors can include:

• Making a person dependent by isolating them
• Exploiting their strengths and resources
• Humiliating and putting them down
• Using intimidation, or abuses that cause harm, are punitive and intended to frighten

The British law defines controlling behavior as “making a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance, and escape, and regulating their everyday lives.”

The law requires charges to be based on a pattern of behaviors rather than one occurence. Irish legislation have also created the Domestic Violence Bill 2017, which includes “coercive control” as an offense. In these countries mentioned, establishing criminal laws addressing psychological abuse sends a strong cultural message that it will not be tolerated. It conveys a level of support and safety for victims of such abuse.

Domestic violence victims often state that the physical abuse was not the worst part of their abuse. The control, intimidation, and emotional blackmail often caused the most suffering; yet the impact is more challenging to measure. Author of Coercive Control: How Men Trap Women in Personal Life , Evan Stark discusses the damage of emotional abuse and coercive control on victims.

He states, “ Not only is coercive control the most common context in which [women] are abused, it is also the most dangerous. ”

Identifying physical abuse is more straightforward, so the topic of how to prove coercive control or emotional abuse has been a topic of discussion. Those opposed to criminalizing coercive control suggest the area is ambiguous and difficult to prove. Opposers claim that separating jealousy, control, and emotional abuse is complex to sort out and difficult to prove by jury or judge.

Attention had not been drawn to the issue until the impact of the abuser’s behavior on the mental and physical health on the victims was studied and evaluated more seriously. More awareness is contributing to more support and movement in the criminal courts. For example, Monckton-Smith has developed a diagnostic tool (Domestic Abuse Reference Tool) to help identify and clarify if victims are in danger.

Laws addressing domestic violence in the US were initially created for a different reason. They were initially put in place to deal with single violent assaults conducted by strangers. However, much of physical and emotional abuse occurs in intimate relationships. Therefore, this law does not sufficiently address the cycle and pattern of abuse that happens with spouses.

Critics show concern for the lack of support the US legal system is showing for victims of such abuse. Without laws in place criminalizing emotional and coercive patterns of abuse, the culture may be reinforcing it. In his book, Stark suggests that despite its progress, the domestic revolution is stalled.

He discusses how the narrow focus on physical violence against women, distracts from the more insidious form of psychological abuse which more closely resembles kidnapping or slavery than assault.

Stark considers the lack of laws addressing coercive control represents a human rights violation and a “liberty crime” against the victim.

The Center for Disease Control conducted a study in 2010, reporting that nearly half of all women in the U.S. (48.4 percent) have experienced at least one form of psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lives. They experienced coercive control, verbal aggression and angry gestures in their partners that were degrading, insulting, dangerous, or humiliating.

There are organizations and groups advocating for policy change in the US. Their objectives are for the US legal system to recognize the damage of coercive control and put criminal controls in place to address it.

There are alternative paths to take in the legal system beyond criminal statutes. In some cases of emotional abuse, civil lawsuits can be filed. Victims or families of victims can file these emotional abuse claims based on an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to the legal system, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress involves the following :

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is an intentional tort based on conduct so awful that it causes the victim extreme emotional trauma. Emotional distress claims are difficult to prove and win, and don’t apply to simple rudeness or generally offensive behavior. Instead, these cases arise when conduct is so reprehensible that the emotional effects are real, lasting, and damaging.

In order to have a successful claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a person must prove three elements:

• Extreme or Outrageous Conduct: Again, this is behavior that is more than merely malicious, harmful, or offensive — the conduct must exceed all possible bounds of decency;
• The Conduct Was Intentional or Reckless: Careless or negligent behavior won’t suffice — the actor must intend to cause emotional distress or know that emotional distress is likely to occur; and
• The Conduct Caused Severe Emotional Distress: This can be the hardest to prove, but severe and lasting emotional effects like persistent anxiety and paranoia, or possible bodily harm like ulcers or headaches could show a person suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of the conduct.

More information can be found on this site .

Emotional blackmail can also be used in families, even with children or teens blackmailing their parents. However, it would be easy to assume that all temper tantrums by children sound like emotional blackmail.

In his article Emotional Blackmail: Fear, Obligation, and Guilt (FOG) , Skip Johnson differentiates the difference between immature actions taken by children to manipulate their parents and emotional blackmail. He highlights how the use of the term “blackmail” brings such a negative connotation. He clarifies that in using such a term, it is implied that there is forethought or premeditation involved.

A child having a crying fit at the grocery store because they want candy is clearly a different dynamic than emotional blackmail used in an adult relationship. Children may naively demonstrate such behaviors, without the understanding of the manipulation element. That being said, a teenager making a demand for parents to give them the car or they will hurt themselves does qualify as emotional blackmail.

All parents are invested in wanting their kids to be happy. This potentially makes them more vulnerable to being emotionally blackmailed by their children and adolescents. Mental health experts claim that this type of manipulation tactics can be very difficult to identify and address. If they give in to such manipulation tactics, parents can often end up feeling hijacked by their own family.

Kids and teens can exploit your wish of wanting them to be happy in order to get what they want. This hijack can be addressed if parents are clear and understanding that the primary role is not to make sure their kids are happy, but to keep them safe and teach them about the world.

Parents that are dealing with a child who engages in emotional blackmail can feel as though they are being held hostage. Addressing these behaviors as a parent is complicated and challenging. There is a range of severity in terms of the level of emotional blackmail kids can use with their parents. A common example may be a tantrum in the grocery store, where the parent, in an effort to avoid a scene and to escape the store will give in.

Once parents give in to this behavior, the cycle becomes reinforced. The child then learns what buttons to push in order to get what they want. They now know what to do in order to get the parent to give in. As kids get older, the behavior may shift into disrespectful attitudes and remarks as a teenager to try and control the parents.

Adolescents can learn techniques to manipulate their parents by expressing strong emotions. In his book Declare Yourself , John Narciso identifies these behavior patterns as “get my way techniques.” Adolescents, like adults, can identify triggers for their parents and use this knowledge to get what they want. An example of a button to push, is if the parent is sensitive to rejection.

Teenagers can pick up on that and act in ways that spark fear in the parent that the teen does not like them. This can create guilt and fear in the parent, who then ends up complying to the adolescents’ demands.

Another example is if a parent is sensitive to inadequacy, the adolescent can criticize the parent by attacking their competence. A parent sensitive to this may give in because of the discomfort they experience feeling judged. If parents are sensitive to guilt, teens can highlight their emotional suffering to get what they want.

To re-direct emotional blackmail, parents need to stand firm and consistent with their boundaries, regardless of the emotional outbursts or threats from the teen. It is important to clarify that acting upset or aggressively will not change the parents’ mind. The key is to not be sensitive to these behaviors to the point that it changes your parental decisions.

Some families, especially those dealing with mental illness in the family, will experience more severe forms of emotional blackmail. It creates a conundrum, because for children who engage in extreme emotional blackmail, common forms of influence, discipline, punishment, or reinforcements are not effective in changing the behaviors. A severe form of manipulation may involve children threatening their parents that if they do not get what they want, they will tell people that they are being abused.

Here are some additional examples of children blackmailing parents. They can blame their parents for behaviors such as stealing, suggesting that it was not their fault that they had to take the money. The may say that if the parents gave them a bigger allowance, they would not have needed to steal the money for what they wanted at the time.

Another example is that they make threats to physically harm another sibling if the parents do not let them go out or do what they want. They may threaten to run away if they do not get their way. Making a threat to harm themselves is another severe example of emotional blackmail. In these situations, parents need psychological support and guidance on how to best navigate in a way that will keep everyone safe.

As you would have noticed by reading this far, Susan’s book is referenced throughout this article. Below are links on where to purchase a copy.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

“Yet if there’s one thing I know with absolute certainty, both personally and professionally, it is this: Nothing will change in our lives until we change our own behavior. Insight won’t do it. Understanding why we do the self-defeating things we do won’t make us stop doing them. Nagging and pleading with the other person to change won’t do it. We have to act. We have to take the first step down a new road.”

Susan Forward

“Emotional blackmail is a powerful form of manipulation. It leaves you in a FOG when there is haze of Fear, Obligation, and Guilt. Often the emotional blackmailer is not a deliberate tactic on the others’ part – it’s just the method that gets them what they want! And have found that it works!”

Counselor and psychotherapist Carey West

“The emotional blackmailer may go out of their way to do things for you, even if it goes against their self-interest…they’ll bring it up over-and-over again, frequently reminding you what they’ve sacrificed to make you happy.”

Relationship expert Amica Graber

“Emotional blackmail is a powerful form of manipulation in which people close to us threaten to punish us for not doing what they want. Emotional blackmailers know how much we value our relationships with them. They know our vulnerabilities and our deepest secrets. They can be our parents or partners, bosses or coworkers, friends or lovers. And no matter how much they care about us, they use this intimate knowledge to win the pay-off they want: our compliance.”

“In order for a blackmailer to be successful, they must know what the target fears. This fear is often deep-rooted such as fear of abandonment, loneliness, humiliation, and failure.”

Licensed Mental Health Counselor Christine Hammond

“If after an argument, your partner goes out for hours without telling you where they are, this indicates that they are punishing you for the disagreement by intentionally causing you to worry or feel anxious”

Relationship expert, Kryss Shane, MS, MSW, LSW, LMSW

“Emotional blackmail is the use of fear, obligation, and guilt to control another person.”

“Emotional blackmail is one of the primary ways that one partner controls another partner. It’s done in such a way that the controlling partner manipulates the other person‘s emotions in an attempt to get their way.”

Dr. Connie Omari, clinician and owner of Tech Talk Therapy

“It should be taken very seriously and you should immediately tell the person how you feel if that is safe to do and/or to get others involved if you feel a sense of danger.”

Kelsey M. Latimer, Ph.D., founder of Hello Goodlife

“Although they may do this in ways which seem harmless, it’s a common tactic to trigger fear and doubt.”

Samantha Morrison, wellness expert

We hope you have found this article to be informative and insight-provoking. Emotional blackmail is a painful and dysfunctional pattern of abuse in which the manipulator is attempting to control the victim. We hope that continued education and awareness on this topic will help people understand, prevent, and address emotional blackmail in relationships.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Relationships Exercises for free .

Studies have shown that people who use emotional blackmail are often narcissistic, and manipulative, and have a tendency to engage in aggressive behavior. They may also struggle with communication and have difficulty expressing their emotions in a healthy way (Briki, et al., 2019).

Another word for emotional blackmail is “psychological manipulation”. This refers to the use of emotional or mental tactics to control or influence someone’s behavior, thoughts, or feelings (Braiker, 2004).

The signs of emotional abuse may include (American Psychological Association, 2019);

• frequent criticism or humiliation,
• controlling or manipulative behavior,
• isolation from friends and family,
• constant monitoring or surveillance, and
• unpredictable mood swings or outbursts.
• American Psychological Association. (2019). Recognizing and escaping emotional abuse . Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/topics/emotional-abuse
• Braiker, H. B. (2004). Who’s pulling your strings? How to break the cycle of manipulation . McGraw-Hill Education.
• Briki, C., Ferrand, C., & Girandola, F. (2019). Emotional blackmail: A relationship between narcissism and emotional regulation. Current Psychology, 38(1) , 94-100.
• Burkett & Narciso, J. (1975). Declare Yourself: Discovering the Me in Relationships . MacMillon Publishing.
• Ellis, S. Taking the War out of our Words . Deadwood, Oregon: Wyatt-MacKenzie Publishing.
• Ellison, S. (2002). Taking the War Out of Our Words: The Art of Powerful Non-Defensive Communication . Berkeley, CA: Bay Tree Publishing.
• Fontes, L.A. (2015). Invisible Chains: Overcoming Coercive Control in Your Intimate Relationship . New York: Guilford Press.
• Forward, S. & Frazier, D. (1998). Emotional Blackmail When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You . New York: Harper Collins.
• Johnson, R. Skip. (2015). Emotional Blackmail: Fear, Obligation and Guilt (FOG). Borderline Personality Disorder , BPDFamily.
• Mazur, A., Saran, T., Krzysztof Turowski, K., & Elżbieta Bartoń, E. Personality correlates of emotional blackmail in close relationships . Public Health as a Wellness Standard Chapter VII 1. Department of General and Neurorehabilitation.
• Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Zwolinski , Richard. (2013) “Are Other People’s Feelings Holding You Hostage?” PsychCentral.com , Psych Central, 15. blogs.psychcentral.com/therapy-soup/2013/09/are-other-peoples-feelings-holding-you-hostage/. Retrieved February 18, 2019.
• Zwolinski, Richard. (2013). “Standing Up For YOU With An Emotional Hostage Taker.” PsychCentral.com , PsychCentral, 15. blogs.psychcentral.com/therapy-soup/2013/09/standing-up-for-you-with-an-emotional-hostage-taker/. Retrieved February 18, 2019.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Very informative article. EB destroys one’s mental health, do whatever it takes to get own selfish desires Always put ME first

An incredibly clear and concise article. I have been in many relationships and know that while I have problems maintaining relationships, and accept a large part of the responsibility in these instances, my most recent relationship only lasted three months, eleven weeks remotely, yet I knew something was wrong. I could not put my finger on it. I loved being with her, found her funny, admired many things about her, but I could not put my finger on the problem.

I ended the relationship and while I felt ‘better’ I also felt guilt and grief, as would be expected. As she texted and vacillated between anger and pleading, I saw a pattern that I had seen in my very first relationship, many decades ago.

I went online and read this article and saw not one, or two, but ALL of the traits described in her. I made it super clear that it was over. I blocked her texts. She sent a series of emails, the last one pleading that I look after her son – and she then attempted suicide.

I don’t know if she will survive.

Fortunately, because of this article, I can look at it objectively and not feel guilt. I am willing to help her son finish high school and get through university if he accepts it, but chances are he hates me above everything else.

Honestly, your article made me see there was only one way out for me, and I took it. Thank you for helping me manage it.

My partner fits the description as an emotional blackmailer. She gets repetitively demanding and aggressive when she wants me to give her what she wants-mainly money. She says she doesn’t force me, but if I say I feel she manipulates and threatens me, she has a tantrum and threatens to blackmail me. She will insert an arsenal of texts and messages she has collected and shows me she will execute these off to my family and friends. I had no idea that my sensitive information was being collected. She has spent months in the psychiatric hospital blaming her Islamic culture for all her pain, and habitually distorts well-meaning sharings as a comparison against her. She’s totally self centered. I don’t see any friends and she keeps her family segregated from me. How is it possible none of the doctors don’t see at least borderline disorder and explosive disorder? She broke a table in the hospital. She told me the doctors say she has panic anxiety disorder and depressive disorder. I would describe those two as symptoms for much bigger emotional turmoil. Is it possible she rejects what doctors have told her and thus refuses to apply any sound techniques? I do know her mother was extremely irrational and violent and my partner experienced severe violence and molestations by other relatives as a child. Her mother did fully recover and chose to get help. Is it possible she knows her anger is abnormal as she rarely admits and that she is “insane” but refuses to actively get help and staying in a hospital is a way to avoid herself? Is this common? I just never know what may trigger her and avoid saying or writing anything that remotely can be misconstrued. She’s full of anger, cannot seem to trust others, and is lonely. I’m surprised her parents have not recommended her go work with the very same therapist her mother had great success with. Or maybe she angrily refuses. Yet, she’s very instable emotionally. I do use the “I feel” phrases and “it is frustrating when you feel that way.” Other times, she begins to go off the handle swearing. I don’t swear. I mention many times, that swearing is abusive. What do the doctors in such cases actually say? Just “panic anxiety disorder” I doubt it. She contradicts herself and cannot regulate her emotions. Any advice? Any thoughts on why all the doctors don’t diagnose her truthfully or does she reject the diagnoses and select just mentioning the victim-sounding disorders? I just want to notarize an agreement with her to keep things strictly business, and urge her to get proper psychiatric help.

I’m sorry to read that you are struggling with with your partner. In situations of abuse, the most important thing is to prioritize your own safety and wellbeing (and those of any dependents you may have). This means the best thing you can usually do is reach out for outside support. A therapist is usually a good first point of call, as they can also connect you to additional services.

You can find a directory of licensed therapists here (and note that you can change the country setting in the top-right corner). You’ll also find that there are a range of filters to help you drill down to the type of support you need (e.g., family/marital): https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists

I hope you find the help you need.

– Nicole | Community Manager

Hi my name is bella and am going through an emotional blackmail currently my ex has a sex video of me and was threatening to upload it buh then I told everyone myself about it,now he’s threatening to end my life and such and to be honest am really feeling suicidal

If you are in immediate danger or fearful for your safety, call the emergency number in your respective country immediately. They will be able to provide support.

Further, if you are struggling with severe symptoms of depression or suicidal thoughts, please call the following number in your respective country:

USA: National Suicide Prevention Hotline at 1-800-273-8255; UK: Samaritans hotline at 116 123; The Netherlands: Netherlands Suicide Hotline at 09000767; France: Suicide écoute at 01 45 39 40 00; Australia: Lifeline at 13 11 14 Germany: Telefonseelsorge at 0800 111 0 111 for Protestants, 0800 111 0 222 for Catholics, and 0800 111 0 333 for children and youth.

For a list of other suicide prevention websites, phone numbers, and resources, see this website .

Please know that there are people out there who care and that there are treatments that can help.

trying to find answers myself at present. my 32 year old son, who is a drug addict, got heavily into crack, mixing with the traveller community. came to my home with a gun and a knife and informed me if i did not find him a substantial ammount of money which was supposedly his debt to the travellers, that i wold get my house burnt down. in panic i gave him the money and once he had left i informed the police who subsequently arrested him and he is now on remand pending trial in the new year. my problem is at present my emotional state, as i have to give evidence against him which i am really struggling with due to my deep emotional connection, knowing that if i cannot find the strength to testify he will be freed in the new year, i dread the thought. i am at present recieving letters from him trying to justify what he has done and in fact have him saying that no way was he blackmailing me, i know i need to find the strength to testify its just that i cannot seperate my love for him as a mum to the ones of doing what needs to be done and i am really struggling emotionallly and feel so alone. the problem i have is my feeling guilty that it will be down to my testifying that will put him away for a long period of time even though i tell myself he did the crime and should do the time im so anxious i cannot even think straight do you have any advice please

I’m sorry to hear that you’re struggling and my thoughts go out to you and your son.

I think the best thing you can do would be to find someone to help you work through this difficult time emotionally, such as a therapist. Psychology Today has a great directory you can use to find therapists in your local area. Usually, the therapists provide a summary in their profile with their areas of expertise and types of issues they are used to working with.

I hope this helps and I wish you the best of luck.

What a depressing article! By no means I am denying such diabolical activity doesn’t exist but really? Devoting a frikkin 40 page thesis on this topic? No doubt some of you deserve this kind of people in your life as you are FIXATED on this topic. Jezuss…. get out. Get some fresh air. Go to a park. Get some sea breeze instead of focusing on the nefarious tome Volume XXII of human evil. Sheesh. Sure knowledge is weapon but you don’t have to be inundated with it. And you call this website “positive psychology”. Smeesh.

Also newsflash. ALL of us possess these type of behavior to an extent except narcs are the extreme example. Tell me.. name me.. name ONE single person in your life with whom you can spend 45 years and STILL not complaint about him or her.

Exactly. What you see in others… and four finger analogy or what not.

Came here for empowerment, left with bitter taste of doom and gloom. No doubt modern day psychiatry contributes to so much modern day misery!

My son is married to a woman who meets all the criteria outlined in your article. She has isolated him from his family and forced him to go no contact with me (his mother) and everyone in my family when she became physically abusive at 7 months pregnant. HE filed a police report at that time. She goes to extremes to ensure that no one in his family can even see a picture of the baby. Her identical twin is bi-polar as is her mother and grandmother. She is well educated and manipulative. I’ve now not spoken to my son for 2.5 years and a second child is born. I’m very concerned that he feels trapped in an abusive relationship. Her mother abused her dad and now lives 3 doors down from them. He told me before the cut-off that they move as a unit have no other friends and they are too strong for him to go against. Do I continue to keep my distance, send nice cards and emails here and there or is it time for me to try and have a face-to-face with my son and try and discern if he is really ok? I don’t want to fuss at him, I just want to be in their lives and be sure that he is ok. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Hi Melissa,

I’m sorry to read about your concerns for your son — that sounds like an awful situation. If it is safe to do so, I think it would be good to gently reach out to check in (ideally face-to-face) to let him know that you care and want to help. You’ll find some good advice on how to have this conversation here . Likewise, you might suggest that he have a chat with a counselor or therapist to get some advice, or you might want to ensure your son is aware of the domestic abuse hotlines available in your country . All of these are ways you can help convey that you and others care and that there are people who can help him safely leave the abusive situation.

I wish the best of luck for you and your son.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Secure Attachment Style: Why It Matters & How to Nurture It

Imagine a relationship where trust flows effortlessly, communication is a breeze, and both partners feel equally cherished, respected, and free. Welcome to the world of [...]

Managing Chronic Loneliness When Aging: 23 Strategies

Chronic loneliness can affect us all at any point in our lifetimes, but it can be a significant challenge for many older adults as they [...]

Enmeshment: Breaking Free From Overbearing Relationships

When boundaries are unclear, particularly in families, relationships can become overbearing, with individuals experiencing a diminished sense of self (Bacon & Conway, 2023). In such [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (53)
• Coaching & Application (58)
• Compassion (25)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (23)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (44)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (30)
• Positive Communication (22)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (19)
• Positive Parenting (16)
• Positive Psychology (34)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (18)
• Relationships (45)
• Resilience & Coping (39)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (32)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3 Positive Relationships Exercises Pack

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Recognize Emotional Blackmail and Protect Yourself

It's important to protect yourself and your emotions

Sanjana is a health writer and editor. Her work spans various health-related topics, including mental health, fitness, nutrition, and wellness.

Dr. Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD, is a licensed clinical psychologist and a professor at Yeshiva University’s clinical psychology doctoral program.

PeopleImages/iStock/Getty Images PLus

• Spot the Signs

The Impact of Emotional Blackmail

• How to Address It

Establishing Boundaries

We all have that one person in our lives who pushes all our buttons. You know the one—they’re an expert at guilt trips , and instead of supporting our choices, they make us feel bad for putting our own needs first.

It could be a parent, partner, friend, or colleague—anyone who uses our emotions against us to get us to do what they want, even if it’s not the best thing for us.

This type of behavior is known as emotional blackmail. A form of emotional abuse , emotional blackmail is a manipulation technique people use to assert power and control in relationships, says Ashley Peña, LCSW, Executive Director at Mission Connection .

At a Glance

Whether it’s a controlling parent, a demanding boss , a manipulative partner, or a difficult friend, dealing with emotional blackmail can be nerve-wracking. Someone who is emotionally blackmailing you may try to stonewall, manipulate, guilt, shame, or threaten you into doing what they want you to do.

However, it’s important to recognize this toxic behavior and take steps to address it. Setting healthy boundaries and sticking to them is key to protecting yourself and maintaining health relationships.

Recognizing Emotional Blackmail

Emotional blackmail can take many forms. Here are some of the different emotional blackmail tactics to watch out for.

Silent Treatment

The person might stonewall you and give you the silent treatment when you don’t do what they want. This is a passive-aggressive communication tactic that people use to gain the upper-hand.

For example, the person may stop talking to you or responding to your calls and texts. Although it doesn’t sound like such a big deal, it can be incredibly frustrating when it’s someone important to you.

Guilt Trips

The person may lay on a big, fat guilt trip, making you feel bad about prioritizing your own wants or needs above theirs. They may make you feel indebted to them, like you owe them something, even if that’s not necessarily the case.

For example, a parent or family member who doesn’t approve of your life choices may say something along the lines of: “After everything we’ve done for you, this is how you repay us?"

This tactic plays on our desire to please others. Those of us who are empaths may be particularly susceptible to guilt trips.

Manipulation

Emotional blackmail can be pretty toxic, especially when it enters the realm of manipulation . The person may, for example, play the victim card in a given situation, making it seem like they’re suffering because of something you did, even when that is clearly not the case.

For example, a co-worker might say, "I can't believe you won't cover my shift. Now I'll have to work late, and it's all your fault."

Exaggeration

The person might magnify their problems and try to make you feel responsible for their troubles, in order to get you to do what they want.

For example, Peña explains that a parent might say something like: “If you do that again, you’re going to be the reason why I lose my job and then we will have nothing.”

The person might call you out about something in front of others to pressure you into doing what they want.

For example, if you made a small mistake in a memo, a colleague might make a big deal about it in a team meeting and use it to discredit your ideas.

Threat and Ultimatums

The person may threaten you or issue ultimatums if you don’t do what they want. You might feel like you have no choice but to do as they ask.

According to Peña, these are some threatening behaviors to watch out for:

• Threatening punishment in effort to control you
• Threatening to hurt themselves or claiming they will be unable to function without you
• Threatening to make you face the consequences of their misfortunes

For instance, if you want to leave your marriage, your spouse may emotionally blackmail you into staying by saying: “If you leave me, I’ll make sure I get the kids, then you’ll be all alone.” Or, they might even say something like “You can’t leave me, I won’t survive a day without you.”

Effective emotional blackmail often plays on some of our biggest fears—the blackmailer often knows where we are most vulnerable.

Research shows us that emotional blackmail can be just as harmful as physical abuse because it can be mentally and emotionally scarring.

In relationships, emotional blackmail is a form of abuse that can cause us to live in a constant state of guilt and fear, leading to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, lack of identity and integrity, and difficulty connecting with other people, Peña explains.

In the workplace, emotional blackmail can cause us to give in to unreasonable demands and severely compromise our mental and physical well-being.

Emotionally blackmailing children can affect the development of their core beliefs in a way that negatively impacts their relationships and careers in adulthood, Peña adds.

Addressing Emotional Blackmail

These are some strategies that can help you address emotional blackmail:

• Spot the red flags: The first step is to recognize problematic behavior and red flags . If it doesn’t seem like something is in your best interests, it probably isn’t.
• Stay cool: Although it can be difficult when you’re facing down an emotional blackmailer, keeping your cool can help you stay in control of the situation. Reacting emotionally just gives them what they want.
• Remember that you’re in control of your choices: Remind yourself that you're not responsible for someone else's problems. You have the right to make the choices that are best for you, without feeling guilty about it. Don’t let guilt or fear drive your decisions.
• Share your perspective neutrally: Use “I feel” statements to share your feelings and needs without pointing fingers. For example, instead of saying "You're making me feel guilty," try "I feel uncomfortable when you use guilt to get your way."
• Know when to walk away: Ask yourself whether the relationship is healthy. If it’s taking a toll on your mental and emotional well-being, it may not be. It’s important to recognize when it’s time to walk away from a toxic relationship .
• Limit your exposure to the person: Sometimes, creating physical or emotional distance is the best way to protect yourself. You can also block them on social media, if they’re using digital platforms to manipulate you.
• Find a shoulder to lean on: Talk to a trusted friend or family member about what's going on. They can provide advice and emotional support, which can be incredibly helpful when you’re dealing with emotional manipulation.
• Seek support: Navigating emotional abuse can be extremely challenging, so it can be helpful to seek the support of a mental healthcare professional, says Peña.
• Prioritize self-care: Self-care is key. Whether it’s hitting the gym, taking some downtime, spending time with the fam, or cooking your favorite meal, do what you need to do to take care of yourself.

Emotional abuse can lead to physical abuse, therefore, maintaining your physical safety is critical, says Peña.

If you or a loved one are a victim of domestic abuse, contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 for confidential assistance from trained advocates. If you are in immediate danger, call 911 .

For more mental health resources, see our National Helpline Database .

These are some tips that can help you set boundaries to protect yourself against someone who uses emotional blackmail:

• Identify your boundaries: First things first, you need to know what your boundaries are. Take some time to reflect on what you're comfortable with and what crosses the line for you.
• Assert yourself: Use clear, concise, and assertive language to express your limits. For example, you can say, "I don't appreciate when you guilt-trip me and I won't give in to it."
• Lay out the consequences: Let the person know the consequences of crossing your boundaries. For instance, you could say "If you continue to try to manipulate me, I will walk away from this conversation."
• Stick to your guns: Once you've set your boundaries, it’s important to show the person you mean business by sticking to them. Don't waver or compromise when they test you.

We know that emotional blackmail can be stressful and overwhelming. However, it’s important to stand up for yourself and set boundaries so that the person can’t manipulate you anymore. 

Remember that you’re in charge of your life and your decisions, and no one can scare you or guilt you into doing something you don’t want to do. Although it can be difficult to walk away from a toxic situation, loved ones and mental health professionals can be a source of support and strength to rely on during this process.

Ding C, Zhang J, Yang D. A pathway to psychological difficulty: perceived chronic social adversity and its symptomatic reactions . Front Psychol . 2018;9:615. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00615

Mukhtar S. Public health aspects of domestic/intimate partner violence abuse and trauma (DIVAT) during COVID-19 quarantine: imbalanced power dynamic and sexual, emotional, and psychological abuse . Asia Pac J Public Health . 2023;35(4):301-303. doi:10.1177/10105395231164439

Al-Kreimeen RA, Alghafary NA, Samawi FS. The association of emotional blackmail and adjustment to college life among warned female students at Al-Balqa University . Health Psychol Res . 2022;10(3):34109. doi:10.52965/001c.34109

Lo WY, Lin YK, Lin CY, Lee HM. Invisible erosion of human capital: the impact of emotional blackmail and emotional intelligence on nurses' job satisfaction and turnover intention . Behav Sci (Basel) . 2022;13(1):37. doi:10.3390/bs13010037

By Sanjana Gupta Sanjana is a health writer and editor. Her work spans various health-related topics, including mental health, fitness, nutrition, and wellness.

Definition of Blackmail

What is blackmail, is blackmail a crime, difference between blackmail and extortion, what to do if someone is blackmailing you, cyber blackmail, emotional blackmail, blackmail example involving a celebrity, related legal terms and issues.

• < Previous

Home > Faculty Works > FACULTY_SCHOLARSHIP > 281

All Faculty Scholarship

Competing theories of blackmail: an empirical research critique of criminal law theory.

Paul H. Robinson , University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow Michael T, Cahill , Brooklyn Law School Follow Daniel M. Bartels , Center for Decision Research, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago Follow

Document Type

Publication date.

Blackmail, a wonderfully curious offense, is the favorite of clever criminal law theorists. It criminalizes the threat to do something that would not be criminal if one did it. There exists a rich literature on the issue, with many prominent legal scholars offering their accounts. Each theorist has his own explanation as to why the blackmail offense exists. Most theories seek to justify the position that blackmail is a moral wrong and claim to offer an account that reflects widely shared moral intuitions. But the theories make widely varying assertions about what those shared intuitions are, while also lacking any evidence to support the assertions. This Article summarizes the results of an empirical study designed to test the competing theories of blackmail to see which best accords with prevailing sentiment. Using a variety of scenarios designed to isolate and test the various criteria different theorists have put forth as “the” key to blackmail, this study reveals which (if any) of the various theories of blackmail proposed to date truly reflects laypeople’s moral judgment. Blackmail is not only a common subject of scholarly theorizing, but also a common object of criminal prohibition. Every American jurisdiction criminalizes blackmail, although there is considerable variation in its formulation. The Article reviews the American statutes and describes the three general approaches these provisions reflect. The empirical study of lay intuitions also allows an assessment of which of these statutory approaches (if any) captures the community’s views, thereby illuminating the extent to which existing law generates results that resonate with, or deviate from, popular moral sentiment. The analyses provide an opportunity to critique the existing theories of blackmail and to suggest a refined theory that best expresses lay intuitions. The present project also reveals the substantial conflict between community views and much existing legislation, indicating recommendations for legislative reform. Finally, the Article suggests lessons that such studies and their analyses offer for criminal law and theory.

blackmail, extortion, coercion, criminal law theory, social science research, wrongful intention, breach of duty, domination, usurping authority, efficient information allocation, state criminal codes, scenario research

Publication Title

Texas Law Review

Publication Citation

89 Tex. L. Rev. 291 (2010).

Repository Citation

Robinson, Paul H.; Cahill, Michael T,; and Bartels, Daniel M., "Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory" (2010). All Faculty Scholarship . 281. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/281

Link to SSRN

Since June 07, 2013

Included in

Criminal Law Commons , Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons , Law and Society Commons , Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons , Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Penn Carey Law

• Law School Homepage
• Biddle Law Library
• Faculty Profiles
• Collections
• Penn Carey Law Authors
• Penn Carey Law Journals

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

Emotional Blackmail: An Affair of Every Heart

By Joan Didion

I once knew an eight-year-old named Martha who wrote stories, unexceptional in every way except one: the heroine of each was a nightclub singer, Sandra, whose life was complicated by the constant threat of blackmail. In some stories Sandra was blackmailed by a shadowy Syndicate, in others by her estranged husband (“Mark,” a déclassé Fed); in still others, dating from Martha's costume period, the pressure was applied by the boys at the Land Office, who alone knew that Sandra, a long time before and in another country (Dodge City), had committed an indiscretion so unspeakable that Martha could only hint at it. All Martha's plots turned on blackmail; each of her dénouements was a study in blackmail foiled.

When I asked how Martha had hit upon this particular story line, her mother, a young woman of relentlessly laissez-faire principle, pointed out that blackmail was in fact the prevailing motif in all Martha's favorite bedtime stories, from “Cain's Hundred” to “Have Gun, Will Travel.”

“Every time the telephone rings,” she added, “Martha expects it to be anonymous.” Although we both smiled, more or less at Martha’s expense, there is a sense in which Martha is right: a sense in which blackmail, that fairly uncommon fact, emerges as a commonplace of life. What Martha watched, after all, were our generation’s miracle plays, the ritual dramas in which our deepest tensions work themselves out in symbolic terms. From Euripides to MCA-Revue, Shakespeare to Desilu, no storyteller has ever told us a tale we did not already know. We could scarcely understand the Medea did we not understand that a woman holds the tacit power of blackmail over the man who takes her, as Jason took Medea, from home. (I betrayed my father for you: almost no one says it, almost everyone has used it.) To read Joseph Conrad is to read about blackmail, part of the heart of all the darkness; Henry James would seem inexplicably tedious had we no feeling for the play of power, the startlingly literal blackmail, which operates among all of his characters, pervades every drawing room, shadows each well-rolled lawn.

We have all, in brief, known blackmail. Forget the symbolic trappings, the anonymous telephone calls, the clumsily printed scare notes; forget what the boys at the Land Office know or do not know. What is blackmail, after all, but what lawyers sometimes call it: “the demanding of money or other advantage on the threat of exposure of information, true or false, about the victim.”

Or other advantage: in those terms, to have neither blackmailed nor been blackmailed reveals an absence of involvement, a rather dismal abdication of the game. Demanding an advantage is something we are all born doing, and many of us pay ransom, willingly or unwillingly, as easily as we breathe. Ransom is the telephone call one does not want to make, the letter written only to appease, the presents—from such tangibles as Christmas bourbon to such ephemera as Of course I love you—one gives compulsively. Emotional blackmail is rarely so overt as an on-the-line demand, seldom so extreme as the threat of illness or suicide—although most of us, if we have lived long enough (say twenty years), have heard that one. Most often, we begin paying ransom on cues as barely perceptible as a set of the mouth apparent only to the victim, as subtle as a few words—wasn't the day nice—which translate, in the alchemy of blackmail, and now you've gone and ruined it. There is, and each of us knows it, as much vicious extortion in the lyric “Sometimes I’m happy, sometimes I’m blue/My disposition depends on you” as in thirteen weeks of the Dick Powell Show.

Blackmail is, then, an affair of every heart, as common and as various as the very ways of human involvement: there could be no liaison so idyllic that someone, some time, did not demand an advantage; no commitment so unambiguous that the committed could not wonder, some bleak three o'clock in the morning, who was using whom. Blackmail can operate between parent and child, man and wife, employer and employee; can operate even among chance acquaintances, where it usually travels disguised as good manners. If it is, clearly, good manners for me to try to charm the stranger with whom I am dancing, it is just as clearly—if I am vulnerable (say I feel unattractive, or say my husband is behaving outrageously over by the piano)—blackmail.

I once had a friend who practiced blackmail: perhaps we have all had one. Mine would sometimes ask me to cancel an engagement in order to type a manuscript for him, then arrive toward midnight, the piece still unwritten, and explain that I could type it between four and six A.M., and why was I pulling that long face; not only upon me but upon anyone who would play along, he made demand after absurd demand. “Just this once,” he would say, hinting darkly at “emergencies,” “deadlines,” “saving my life.” Our occasional protests would draw forth no retractions but only impassioned apologies, colored with vivid intimations of his undiagnosed ulcers. (Other times it was angina, and on his most imaginative days it was cirrhosis.)

By Emma Specter

By Christian Allaire

Some of us loved him and some of us did not, but whether we did or not we all acquiesced, helpless before the undertone his every plea carried: I need you. We acquiesced neither because he was charming (most of the time he was notably not) nor because he was a good and generous man (I think he probably was), but simply because he was bold enough or amoral enough or scared enough to make use of what exists in almost every heart: the potentially disabling fear of failure—in some cases neurotic, in others well-founded. I can't count on you , he would complain if thwarted, salting what was for some of us an ugly raw wound. We would see in his reproachful eyes, suddenly, the sister we had failed, the friend we had hurt—all the opportunities for goodness or glory or marks in heaven we had ever muffed, miserably. In brief, he could expose us to ourselves, and we quite flatly bought him off.

Self-exposure: the word self is the heart of the matter, the essential distinction between the blackmail practiced in the flickering land of prime time and the blackmail we all know. In either case, of course, the key is vulnerability; one who has no secrets can scarcely be threatened with exposure, a premise so obvious that it has provided several years’ worth of scripts for “The Untouchables.” Because few of us have anything much to hide from others, few of us can be reached by the obvious extortionist. Put to it, we can live with our indiscretions. What we can not live with, all too often, are the secrets we keep from ourselves. We may call it irrational, but we know it to be true: it is easier to stare down any scandal than to be forced to recall the unkind word screamed, twenty years ago, at one’s grandmother.

There is, of course, nothing irrational about it. We remain, most of us, vulnerable: one thinks of few who have made the peace that frees them from their own Eumenides. Instead, we play games with ourselves. Afraid that we might be, if the truth were known, neither what we would like to be nor what we appear to be, we blackmail ourselves, count ransom in with the rent, one of the costs of living. If we are less than certain that we are as loving as we pretend to be, we can deceive ourselves with excessive proofs of devotion: consider those cliches in literature and life, the children who resign their own lives to care for ailing parents. (Although the parents are conventionally portrayed as the blackmailers of the piece, think, for a moment, not only of the impeccable self-images those children gain for themselves but of, as well, the telling way in which they are relieved of obligations they could not, perhaps, face, decisions they could not, perhaps, make.)

We can do the favors we do not care about doing until our every moment is made dull and aching with resentment we are afraid to admit; we can commit ourselves to interests which are not our own until we no longer remember, really, who or what we wanted to be. We can ignore our own needs in order to meet the needs of others, and then blackmail back with the knowledge that we have done exactly that; we can give over our lives to impossible people, live with alcoholism, chronic infidelity, emotional criminals of the most blatant variety—and in so doing we can gain the right, and rather inexpensively, to place the blame for our thinness, our pallor, our crippling shortcomings, upon those for whom we have given up so much. All the world need do is look at the record: are we not loving, are we not good.

Unhappily, we do not quite convince ourselves. The harder we try, the more exorbitant the ransom becomes: a certain ineradicable honesty lingers on, afflicting us with total recall for every item on the debt we are piling up against ourselves. As Rudyard Kipling once wrote, “If once you have paid him the Danegeld/You are never rid of the Dane.”

Getting rid of the Dane in each of our hearts is, of course, no easy task. It involves admitting that the favors we do for others are done, quite often, not for others but for ourselves, admitting that no one holds us in thrall but ourselves, that we are our own favorite victims. It involves, really, nothing more or less than admitting to ourselves who and what we are, a feat of such epic proportions that those attempting it sometimes seem in the grip of advanced autonarcosis.

And if you find it easier to live with the Dane, then do not weep to me about the Danegeld.

Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Legal Theory
• > Volume 22 Issue 1
• > COERCION, FRAUD, AND WHAT IS WRONG WITH BLACKMAIL

Article contents

Coercion, fraud, and what is wrong with blackmail.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2017

Several theorists argue that blackmail is morally wrong because the blackmail proposal is coercive. These coercion-based views are promising but incomplete. A full explanation of blackmail's immorality must address both the blackmail proposal and the blackmail agreement. I defend what I call the complex account , on which blackmail is morally wrong because blackmail proposals are coercive and blackmail agreements are fraudulent. The complex account avoids difficulties that beset other coercion-based views and provides a stronger case for why blackmail should be criminalized.

Access options

1. Shaw , James R. , The Morality of Blackmail , 40 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 165 ( 2012 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; Berman , Mitchell , The Evidentiary Theory of Blackmail: Taking Motives Seriously , 65 U. Chi. L. Rev. 795 ( 1998 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; Berman , Mitchell , Blackmail , in The Oxford Handbook on the Philosophy of the Criminal Law 37 – 106 ( Deigh , John & Dolinko , David eds., 2011 ) Google Scholar ; Fitzpatrick , Dan , The Philosophy of Blackmail: Indecent Offers or Coercive Proposals , 29 J. Soc. Phil. 37 ( 1998 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; Gorr , Michael , Liberalism and the Paradox of Blackmail , 21 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 43 ( 1992 ) Google Scholar ; Lamond , Grant , Coercion, Threats, and the Puzzle of Blackmail , in Harm and Culpability 215 – 238 ( Simester , A.P. & Smith , A.T.H. eds., 1996 ) CrossRef Google Scholar .

2. Angus McLaren , Sexual Blackmail: A Modern History (2002), at 22.

3. Richard Ellmann , The Trial of Oscar Wilde (1996), at 419.

4. The antecedent permissibility of doing X is sometimes said to differentiate blackmail from extortion, where the action referenced in the proposal is antecedently impermissible. See Katz , Leo , Blackmail and Other Forms of Arm-Twisting , 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1567 ( 1993 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 1599.

5. Some might dispute this assumption on the grounds that since sodomy was a crime in Britain at the time of Allen's proposal, Allen's failure to disclose would have violated a moral or legal duty to disclose information of criminal wrongdoing to authorities. Joel Feinberg , Harmless Wrongdoing (1988), at 241–245.

6. The term blackmail exchange is more prominent in the literature, but the term blackmail agreement seems more accurate. I use these terms synonymously.

7. Sheinman , Hanoch , Agreement as Joint Promise , in Promises and Agreements: Philosophical Essays 365 ( Sheinman , Hanoch ed., 2011 ), at 369 – 370 CrossRef Google Scholar . I refine this preliminary definition in Section II.A.

8. Shaw, supra note 1 , at 166.

9. Id . at 167.

11. Id . at 168.

12. Id . at 175.

13. Id . at 177.

14. Arthur Ripstein , Force and Freedom : Kant's Legal and Political Philosophy (2009), at 54. On Ripstein's Kantian view, “you are independent only if you are the one who decides what ends you will use your powers to pursue, as opposed to having someone else decide for you.” Id . at 33. Someone else can interfere with your independence by either usurping or destroying your powers to set and pursue purposes. Id . at 43. When someone usurps your powers, he “deprives you of the ability to be able to decline to pursue purposes unless you have set them.” Id . at 44. For Ripstein, usurping your powers amounts to “using” you, insofar as the usurpation renders your choice subject to someone else's will and deprives you of the “ability to decide what to do” for yourself. Id . Japa Pallikkathayil defends a similar notion of coercion as usurpation. See Pallikkathayil , Japa , The Possibility of Choice: Three Accounts of the Problem with Coercion , 11 Phil. Imprint 18 ( 2011 ) Google Scholar .

“Usurpation” is not the only or even the most common way to construe the wrongfulness of coercion. Alternative accounts focus on different features, such as the ways that coercion negates reciprocity and therefore violates the target's moral equality; see, e.g. , Stephen Darwall , The Second-Person Standpoint (2006), at 22; or puts the target in a position “where her goals become self-undermining”; Bazargan , Saba , Moral Coercion , 14 Phil. Imprint 1 ( 2014 ) Google Scholar , at 6; or constitutes an irresponsible act of reason-creation by the coercer; Julius , A.J. , The Possibility of Exchange , 12 Pol. Phil. & Econ. 361 ( 2013 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 362–363; or brings about a relationship in which the target is dominated by the coercer; Anderson , Scott , The Enforcement Approach to Coercion , 5 J. Ethics & Soc. Phil. ( 2010 ) Google Scholar ; Kolodny , Niko , What Makes Threats Wrong , 58 Analytic Phil. (forthcoming 2017 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; or wrongfully puts pressure on the target's will or liberty to do otherwise; Alan Wertheimer, Coercion (1987); Berman , Mitchell , The Normative Functions of Coercion Claims , 8 Legal Theory 45 ( 2002 ) CrossRef Google Scholar .

Coercion-based accounts of blackmail differ, inter alia, based on the notions of wrongful coercion that they utilize. For example, Lamond explains the wrongfulness of coercion in terms of domination: in coercing the target, the blackmailer attempts to obtain (over the target's objections or invalid consent) “whatever [he] demand[s]” of the target.” Lamond, supra note 1 , at 233–234. By contrast, Berman's evidentiary theory incorporates the “wrongful pressure” notion of coercion. See Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 66–67. For Berman, blackmail proposals are coercive when the action referenced in the proposal would, if carried out, wrongfully set back certain of the target's interests, and the prospect of this wrongful harming exerts pressure on the target's liberty or will.

15. Ripstein , supra note 14 , at 43. See also Lamond, supra note 1 , at 219.

16. Shaw, supra note 1 , at 171.

17. Id . at 170–171; see also Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 69–70.

18. Shaw, supra note 1 , at 169.

19. Id . at 170.

20. Id . at 172. Thus it is perhaps more accurate to characterize Shaw as offering a “usurpation and disregard” account of wrongful coercion—usurping someone's deliberative authority is what makes a proposal coercive, and the disregard animating the proposal is (at least part of) what makes the proposal wrongful. My contention that Shaw offers a “usurpation” account of wrongful coercion should be read to include this proviso.

21. One might also contend, somewhat anachronistically, that Wilde had authority to decide whether to reveal information about his sexual behavior to the world. However, whether Allen's proposal is coercive does not depend on whether Wilde has the right to control the disclosure of this information. As noted above, Shaw sees the infringement of the target's default discretionary authority as sufficient to make the blackmail proposal wrong. Id . at 193. In other words, Allen's blackmail proposal would have been objectionably coercive even if Wilde had no entitlement regarding the disclosure of information about his sexual behavior.

22. Id . at 177.

23. Christopher , Russell , A Political Theory of Blackmail: A Reply to Professor Dripps , 3 Crim. L. & Phil. 261 ( 2009 ) Google Scholar , 265. Most extant criminal laws construe blackmail as an inchoate crime, in that liability attaches on the making of the proposal (rather than when a blackmail agreement is reached). See Lindgren , James , Unraveling the Paradox of Blackmail , 84 Colum. L. Rev. 670 ( 1984 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 676 n. 31.

24. Lindgren, supra note 23 ; Williams , Glanville , Blackmail , 1954 Crim. L. Rev. 79 ( 1954 ) Google Scholar , at 79–92, 162–172, 240–246. Others have contended that the legal version of the paradox is not strictly paradoxical, since many criminal offenses consist of components that are each morally and legally permitted. Clark , Michael , There Is No Paradox of Blackmail , 54 Analysis 54 ( 1994 ) CrossRef Google Scholar . The simple account provides an additional way to resolve the first paradox: there is no paradox because the blackmail proposal changes the status of doing X for the blackmailer. In making the proposal, the blackmailer both infringes the target's deliberative authority and makes it the case that future X-ing would manifest disregard for the target.

25. DeLong , Sidney W. , Blackmailers, Bribe Takers, and the Second Paradox , 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1663 ( 1993 ) CrossRef Google Scholar . On the simple account, the blackmailer's announcement attempts to usurp the target's deliberative authority. If (as in the case of target-initiated proposals) there is no announcement by the blackmailer, then there is no attempt by the blackmailer to usurp this authority. A target-initiated proposal is an exercise of deliberative authority by the target rather than an attempted usurpation of that authority by the blackmailer. Shaw, supra note 1 , at 178–179.

26. The notion that a party's actions can ratify (and therefore validate) an otherwise invalid agreement is a staple of contract law. See Joseph M. Perillo & John E. Murray, Jr., 1 Corbin on Contracts §1.6 (2015) (in cases of voidable contracts, “the agreement may be made fully operative as against both of the parties, by the exercise of a power of ratification” by the “injured party with the power of avoidance”).

A. John Simmons's discussion of loyalty oaths and refugees is based on a version of the ratification objection. A state's demand that people obey its laws is, for Simmons, a paradigmatic example of coercion, since it involves taking control over subjects’ individual authority to decide which obligations will apply to them. Thus a state that conditions the provision of citizenship to a victim of foreign repression only if the refugee takes such an oath makes a coercive proposal. Yet, Simmons argues, the validity of such an oath is an open question, one whose answer depends on whether the refugee had reasonable options other than taking the naturalization oath. Simmons , A. John , Voluntarism and Political Associations , 67 Va. L. Rev. 19 ( 1981 ), at 35 – 36 CrossRef Google Scholar . To be sure, many versions of voluntarism would dispute Simmons's logic. However, the implication of Simmons's argument is that the significance of any coercive features of the citizenship proposal can be obviated when the refugee takes the oath. Thus the ratification objection is viable on Simmons's version of voluntarism, albeit perhaps not on other versions.

27. See David Owens , Shaping the Normative Landscape (2012), ch. 11.

28. In correspondence, Shaw suggests a different way to deny the ratification objection from the one proposed here. Rather than disputing whether any blackmail agreement does ratify the usurpation implicit in the blackmail proposal, Shaw might deny that any agreement could change the usurpation implicit in the proposal. The argument, drawing from Pallikkathayil's notion of “impaired normative authority,” is that a coercive proposal by a blackmailer necessarily invalidates the target's default discretionary authority, including his authority to enter into agreements. See Pallikkathayil, supra note 14 , at 17, 19; see also Owens , David , Duress, Deception, and the Validity of a Promise , 116 Mind 293 ( 2007 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 304–305; Rivlin , Ram , Blackmail, Subjectivity and Culpability , 28 Can. J.L. & Jurisprudence 399 ( 2015 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 419–421; Lamond, supra note 1 , at 234.

However, this “impaired normative authority” strategy seems to get the wrong answer in a variety of blackmail scenarios. In Wilde's actual case, it would imply that Wilde could not have made a valid promise to Allen in the wake of Allen's proposal. Yet Wilde's actual transfer of a half-sovereign to Allen seems valid. If Wilde had filched the coin from Allen's purse after having handed it over, then Wilde would have been stealing. Since Wilde had the power to give a sovereign to Allen, it seems to follow that Wilde also had the power to promise to give Allen a half-sovereign.

29. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 68 (1986) (“The gravamen of any sexual harassment claim is that the alleged sexual advances were ‘unwelcome.’”).

31. I relax this assumption infra at note 89 .

32. Darwall , Stephen , Demystifying Promises , in Promises and Agreements: Philosophical Essays 255 ( Sheinman , Hanoch ed., 2011 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 259.

33. Shaw, supra note 1 , at 166 n. 3.

34. The compounding effect is also appreciable on alternative notions of wrongful coercion, as discussed in the appendix in connection with the “wrongful pressure” notion of coercion that undergirds Berman's evidentiary theory.

35. Experimental work by Paul Robinson and colleagues supports this conjecture. Robinson , Paul H. , Cahill , Michael T. & Bartels , Daniel M. , Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory , 89 Tex. L. Rev. 291 ( 2011 ) Google Scholar .

36. E.g ., Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 67 and 71–73.

37. See, e.g ., Mack , Eric , In Defense of Blackmail , 41 Phil. Stud. 273 ( 1982 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; Block , Walter , The Crime of Blackmail: A Libertarian Critique , 18 Crim. Just. Ethics 3 ( 1999 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 8–9.

38. Shaw, supra note 1 , at 195.

40. Id . at 195–196; see also Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 72–73.

41. See Feinberg , Joel , Some Unswept Debris from the Hart-Devlin Debate , 72 Synthese 249 ( 1987 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 259–260.

42. Smilansky , Saul , May We Stop Worrying about Blackmail? , 55 Analysis 116 ( 1995 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 120.

43. Murphy , Jeffrie G. , Blackmail: A Preliminary Inquiry , 63 Monist 156 ( 1980 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; Christopher , Russell , Meta-Blackmail , 94 Geo. L.J. 739 ( 2006 ) Google Scholar , at 768–769.

44. In Shaw's example, Fred is a landlord, and Lucy his tenant on a monthly lease. Fred has previously warned Lucy that he may terminate their arrangement on short notice, although he realizes that doing so would make things very difficult for Lucy. Shaw supposes that Fred decides to terminate the lease for the not-very-good reason that “he has grown a little tired of having Lucy in the building.” Shaw, supra note 1 , at 169–170.

45. For example, Fred could tell Lucy, “I will kick you out unless you start looking for a new job,” even though Fred could not care less about what job Lucy has.

46. Shaw, supra note 1 , at 170.

47. Space constraints prevent a full defense of this claim. However, I demonstrate in the appendix why the difficulties facing the simple account also apply to Berman's evidentiary theory (which utilizes a different notion of coercion).

48. See, e.g ., Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 72; Clark, supra note 24 , at 59–60; Fitzpatrick, supra note 1 , at 45; Gorr, supra note 1 , at 44; Lamond, supra note 1 , at 223–225.

49. See, e.g. , Christopher, Meta-Blackmail , supra note 43 , at 769; Smith , Henry E. , Harm in Blackmail , 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 861 ( 1998 ) Google Scholar , at 889.

50. See Buell , Samuel , Novel Criminal Fraud , 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1971 ( 2006 ) Google Scholar , at 1973–1975.

51. See, e.g ., Stuart P. Green , Lying, Cheating, and Stealing: A Moral Theory of White-Collar Crime (2006), at 153–160.

52. For example, the Model Penal Code defines check fraud as the issuing or passing a check for the payment of money that one knows will not be honored by the drawee. If the issuer has no account with the drawee at the time the check is issued, then there is a presumption that that issuer knows that the check will not be paid. Model Penal Code §224.5 (1985).

53. Restatement (Second) of Torts , §530 cmt. c (1977); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 171 cmt. b (1981). Some deny that obligations and commitments necessarily run together in agreements. These theorists contend that agreements in which only obligations are exchanged can be (and are) valuable in a many circumstances, including when performing is roughly equivalent to paying damages. See Ian Ayres & Gregory Klass , Insincere Promises: The Law of Misrepresented Intent (2005), at 93–095. However, even if commitment-less agreements might be valuable in some circumstances, these circumstances are not applicable to blackmail agreements for the reasons discussed below.

54. Sheinman, supra note 7 , at 367.

55. Ayres , Ian & Klass , Gregory , Promissory Fraud without Breach , 2004 Wis. L. Rev. 507 ( 2004 ), at 511 – 514 Google Scholar .

56. Ayres and Klass allow that mutually valuable agreements need not always be accompanied by intentions to perform one's obligations, but note that agreements based on “blank promises” (in which one party intends at the time of agreement not to act in the way that the she promises) lack mutual value. Ayres & Klass, Insincere Promises , supra note 53 , at 96–97.

57. Fletcher , George , Blackmail: The Paradigmatic Crime , 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1617 ( 1993 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 1626–1627.

58. Coase , Ronald , Blackmail , 74 Va. L. Rev. 655 , 675 ( 1988 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; Murphy, supra note 43 , at 166. Ironically, the more rational the target is in appreciating the irrelevance of sunk costs, the more vulnerable he is to this form of predation. See Shavell , Steven , An Economic Analysis of Threats and Their Illegality: Blackmail, Extortion, and Robbery , 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1877 ( 1993 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 1885–1886.

59. Because, as discussed below, Allen acts coercively and commits fraud in both Wilde1 and Wilde2, the difference in wrongfulness between these cases is only one of degree.

60. Owens , David , A Simple Theory of Promising , 115 Phil. Rev. 51 ( 2006 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 54–61.

61. E.g. , Darwall , Second-Person , supra note 14 , at 1 98–199 ; Sheinman, supra note 7 , at 368. These mutual accountability mechanisms are generic features of agreements. Although these mechanisms can be fashioned out of disconnected promises, they are not generic to promises in the way that they are to agreements. Id. at 378–379 and 383–385.

62. Legal examples of these accountability mechanisms include injunctive and declaratory relief and the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation.

63. The most notable example here is the panoply of legal remedies that are available for breaches of contract but not for promises.

64. See, e.g ., Berman , Mitchell , Meta-Blackmail and the Evidentiary Theory: Still Taking Motives Seriously , 94 Geo. L.J. 787 , 795 ( 2006 ) Google Scholar ; Gardner , John & Shute , Stephen , The Wrongness of Rape , in Offences and Defences: Selected Essays in the Philosophy of Criminal Law 1 (John Gardner ed., 2007 ), at 29 – 32 Google Scholar .

65. Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 42; see also Shaw , supra note 1 , at 168.

66. See Block , Walter , Berman on Blackmail: Taking Motives Fervently , 3 Fla. St. U. Bus. Rev. 57 ( 2003 ), at 69–71, 107 Google Scholar ; Epstein , Richard A. , Blackmail, Inc. , 50 U. Chi. L. Rev. 553 ( 1983 ) CrossRef Google Scholar .

67. E.g ., McLaren , supra note 2 ; Mike Hepworth , Blackmail: Publicity and Secrecy in Everyday Life 42 (1975).

68. Shavell, supra note 58 , at 1885–1887.

69. A.C. Doyle , “The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton,” in The Complete Sherlock Holmes 572–573 (1960) (emphasis added).

70. See, e.g ., Douglas Husak , Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law (2008), at 159–176; Duff , R.A. & Marshall , Sandra , Remote Harms and the Two Harm Principles , in Liberal Criminal Theory: Essays for Andreas von Hirsch 205 ( Simester , A.P. , Neumann , Ulfrid & du Bois-Pedain , Antje eds., 2014 ) Google Scholar , at 207. To alleviate legality concerns related to overbreadth, a state might legitimately criminalize a type of behavior that tends to be objectionable and provide an affirmative defense against liability for those who perform unobjectionable tokens of that behavior. Thanks to Grant Lamond for suggesting this point.

71. See Restatement (Second) of Torts , §530 cmt. c; Sheinman, supra note 7 , at 367; Ayres & Klass, Insincere Promises , supra note 53 , at 96–97.

72. Further, although the target's reliance is typically an element of the common-law tort of fraud, reliance is not an essential element of criminal prohibitions of fraud or in statutory schemes that punish fraud (such as consumer protection statutes or securities law). Goldberg , John C.P. , Sebok , Anthony J. & Zipursky , Benjamin C. , The Place of Reliance in Fraud , 48 Ariz. L. Rev. 1001 ( 2006 ) Google Scholar .

73. For example, on Fitzpatrick and Lamond's views, the proposal in Wilde3 would not be coercive because Wilde welcomes it. Fitzpatrick, supra note 1 , at 39; Lamond, supra note 1 , at 226. On Berman's view, the proposal would (probably) not be coercive because it does not exert pressure on Wilde. Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 66.

74. On Shaw's logic, even if Allen's proposal in Wilde3 were an attempt to usurp Wilde's deliberative authority, it might not be wrongfully coercive if it did not manifest impermissible disregard concerning Wilde. Shaw, supra note 1 , at 179.

75. David Owens also concludes that the blackmail agreement necessarily lacks value for the target, although he identifies different features to explain this lack of value. Owens , David , Should Blackmail Be Banned? , 63 Philosophy 501 ( 1988 ) CrossRef Google Scholar .

76. Darwall, Second-Person , supra note 14 , at 196.

77. Less formally, valuable agreements implicate third parties by generating agreement-based reasons for the parties. These agreement-based reasons can be seen as “by nature public,” in that their “normative force” necessarily “extends across different agents.” See Wallace , R. Jay , The Publicity of Reasons , 23 Phil. Persp. 471 ( 2009 ) CrossRef Google Scholar .

78. DeLong, supra note 25 , at 1691.

79. See, e.g ., Block, Crime of Blackmail, supra note 37 .

80. Thanks to Alex Sarch for urging clarification of this point.

81. DeLong, supra note 25 , at 1690.

82. Doyle , supra note 69 , at 573 (emphasis added).

83. Id. at 581.

84. See, e.g ., Block, Crime of Blackmail , supra note 37 , at 26.

85. Shiffrin , Seana Valentine , Paternalism, Unconscionability Doctrine, and Accommodation , 29 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 205 ( 2000 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 224.

86. Id . at 235.

87. This subsumption strategy is largely an artifact of the notion of coercion utilized in Shaw's simple account. On the “usurpation” notion of coercion, fraud and coercion are not distinctive types of wrongs so much as different ways of instantiating the same wrong of impinging someone's default deliberative authority. Coercion-based accounts that utilize alternative notions of wrongful coercion (such as Berman's) do not allow for this strategy of explanation by subsumption. On such approaches, the coerciveness and fraudulence of blackmail are distinct ways of wronging the target. Thanks Grant Lamond for showing the need to clarify this point.

88. See supra , note 26 .

89. Supra , note 31 , To this point, I have assumed that the coerciveness of the blackmail proposal does not necessarily invalidate blackmail agreements. There is some merit to this assumption, since coercively imposed agreements (as well as other kinds of morally problematic agreements, such as unconscionable contracts and contracts with minors) are generally considered to be voidable by the party with the “power of avoidance,” rather than void ab initio. See Perillo & Murray, supra note 26 , §1.6; Stewart , Hamish , A Formal Approach to Contractual Duress , 47 U. Toronto L.J. 175 ( 1997 ) CrossRef Google Scholar . In other words, the offeror who acts wrongfully (e.g., the blackmailer) cannot enforce the agreement against the offeree, but the offeree (e.g., the target) can enforce the agreement against the offeror.

However, suppose that this assumption is incorrect and that, as some would argue ( see supra note 28 ), the coerciveness of the blackmail proposal is sufficient to render any resulting agreement invalid. Even so, there is still a stench of fraud that makes the blackmailer's proposal different from other kinds of coercive proposals. If blackmail agreements are void ab initio, then proposing a blackmail agreement amounts to what Scott Anderson calls a “bluff threat,” or an “issuance of a demand/threat by someone who lacks the power to execute that threat, and who knows that he lacks it.” Anderson , Scott , Of Theories of Coercion, Two Axes, and the Importance of the Coercer , 5 J. Moral. Phil. 394 ( 2008 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 418. Bluff threats seem to be both coercive and fraudulent—that is, they are wrong in exactly the same way that blackmail is wrong under the complex account. If blackmail agreements are invalid ab initio, then the blackmailer proposes to create a relationship that is (in virtue of his making the proposal) both legally and logically impossible. This proposal counts as fraud under the notion of valueless fraud articulated above. Therefore, even if the coerciveness of any blackmail proposal renders every resulting blackmail agreement void ab initio, the complex account can still capture wrong-making features of blackmail that other coercion-based views leave out. Thanks to Niko Cornell and Brian Berkey, among others, for prompting this discussion.

90. See Anderson, Enforcement Approach , supra note 14 , at 7–8 (articulating the “enforcement” notion of coercion, on which “coercive acts may affect indefinitely many of a coercee's activities some particular activity or activities, or none”).

91. Supra , notes 43 – 45 .

92. Shiffrin, supra note 85 , at 216.

93. For example, rape can involve both coercion (when the perpetrator “compel[s] the victim by threat of nonphysical harm sufficient to overwhelm the reasonable person”) and fraud (when a perpetrator “obtain[s] sex by fraud or deception”). Christopher , Russell & Christopher , Kathryn Hope , The Paradox of Statutory Rape , 87 Ind. L.J. 505 ( 2012 ) Google Scholar , at 532–535. In many jurisdictions only fraud related to the core nature of the sexual act is held to negate a target's consent to sex; other kinds of fraud (e.g., related to characteristics of the perpetrator) “are deemed as seller's puffery and thought too trivial to warrant rape liability.” Id . at 534–535. By contrast, the vast majority of U.S. states criminalize at least some sexual acts in which a target's consent is obtained in the wake of a coercive proposal by another. See Falk , Patricia , Rape by Fraud and Rape by Coercion , 64 Brook. L. Rev. 39 ( 1998 ) Google Scholar , at 102 n. 309 (contending that forty jurisdictions have “at least one criminal provision outlawing the abuse of a position of power to obtain sexual intercourse”). Moreover, in some jurisdictions that criminalize both rape by coercion and rape by fraud, the former is a more serious offense than the latter. Compare Cal. Penal Code §266 (2015) (“[E]very person who, by any false pretenses, false representation, or other fraudulent means, procures any female to have illicit carnal connection with any man” is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year) with Cal. Penal Code §261(a)(2) (2015) (rape is, inter alia, sexual intercourse accomplished “against a person's will by means of . . . duress,” defined as “a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted,” and is punishable by imprisonment up to eight years).

94. See, e.g. , Julius, supra note 14 , at 369–372.

95. See, e.g ., Zwolinski , Matt , The Ethics of Price Gouging , 18 Bus. Ethics Q. 347 ( 2008 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , at 354–356.

96. Similar reasoning distinguishes blackmail from other putatively coercive transactions such as unconscionable contracts and so-called “unconstitutional conditions” cases.

Unconscionable contracts are agreements whose “terms are seriously one-sided, overreaching, exploitative, or otherwise manifestly unfair.” Shiffrin, supra note 85 , at 205. Courts have latitude to decline to enforce unconscionable contracts. Id . Yet the party who is offered an unconscionable bargain (or, in the case of procedural unconscionability, unconscionably offered a bargain) is better off than the target of blackmail in at least one way: unlike the target of blackmail, the target of an unconscionable offer realizes some of the value characteristic of agreements. She can, for example, sue an offeror who fails to perform as bargained for.

Cases of “unconstitutional conditions” involve “government offers to provide a gratuitous benefit conditioned on the offeree's waiver of a constitutional right.” Berman , Mitchell , Coercion without Baselines: Unconstitutional Conditions in Three Dimensions , 90 Geo. L.J. 1 ( 2001 ), at 2 Google Scholar . Berman notes that despite broad scholarly agreement that at least some such conditional offers are legitimate and others are not, “there is no consensus regarding whether and why any particular proposition of this form should pass muster.” Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 88. These doctrinal debates aside, the complex account suggests that “unconstitutional conditions” cases differ from blackmail cases in at least one important respect. Unlike the target of blackmail, a state that accedes to a condition that is ex hypothesi coercively imposed by the federal government (e.g., expanding its Medicaid eligibility in order to receive federal funds) at least realizes the value characteristic of agreements. It can, for example, sue if the federal government does not actually provide the funds or services referenced in the proposal.

97. Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 71.

98. Id . at 68.

99. This notion is a combination of how Berman defines wrongfully coercive proposals (Berman, Normative , supra note 14 , at 55) and his contention that coercion operates by exerting pressure on the target's “freedom to choose otherwise” ( id . at 53; Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 66). It is unclear whether Berman sees the connection between the proposed X-ing and the pressure that operates on T as conceptual (i.e., where X-ing would wrongfully harm T, it exerts pressure on T by definition) or as contingent (i.e., that many prospective X-ings tend to exert pressure on Ts).

100. Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 68.

101. Id . at 38.

102. At times, Berman seems to have both advanced this position and rejected it. Compare Berman, Evidentiary Theory , supra note 1 , at 852 (“[V]ictims of blackmail, just as much as victims of holdups, are likely to view the threatener's proposal as a ‘threat,’ not an ‘offer,’ and to experience themselves as acting under duress,” such that their “acquiescence” is not “‘voluntary’ in a sense sufficiently robust to counsel against societal interference with his purported transactional autonomy”) with Berman, Normative , supra note 14 , at 70 (the notion that a promisor “simply has no obligation, even prima facie, to honor a promise” made in response to “wrongful coercion” is “not a convincing position”).

103. See, e.g. , Millum , Joseph , Consent under Pressure: The Puzzle of Third Party Coercion , 17 Ethical Theory & Moral Prac. 113 ( 2014 CrossRef Google Scholar ), at 114.

104. Berman, Normative , supra note 14 , at 68–69 (contending that the coerciveness of a proposal that leads to an agent's promising is insufficient to establish that the agent is excused from keeping her promise).

105. Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 72.

106. For example, the blackmail-as-theft argument for criminalization does not automatically explain why blackmail is an inchoate crime. Someone is guilty of theft only if he obtains possession or control over the victim's property. See Rivlin, supra note 28 , at 419. Yet blackmail is a crime regardless of whether the blackmailer ever takes possession or control over any of the target's property.

The blackmail-as-theft argument also begs the question about whether blackmail agreements are valid. If, under certain circumstances (such as those described in Wilde3) blackmail agreements are valid, then the blackmailer's acquiring money as part of the exchange is not theft by the blackmailer, so much as performance by the target. Characterizing blackmail as a form of theft therefore presupposes that blackmail agreements are invalid and thus renders blackmail agreements central to justifying blackmail's criminalization.

107. Moreover, unlike Shaw, who analyzes the moral wrongfulness of blackmail in isolation of whether blackmail should be criminalized, Berman sees the wrongfulness of blackmail as a premise in an argument for why blackmail should be criminalized. See Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 40. Therefore any tendency toward abolitionism counts as an internal criticism of the evidentiary theory.

108. See Shaw, supra note 1 , at 196.

109. See supra note 41 .

110. Berman posits that “there is no reason . . . that an explicit description of [the defendant's] motivation cannot be imported into a definition of the conduct to be criminalized” under blackmail statutes. Berman, Evidentiary Theory , supra note 1 , at 843–844. This statement concedes that no existing blackmail statute allows for liability to vary based solely on the motivations (rather than the actions and mental states) of the blackmailer. Berman uses the example of “good faith” defenses to charges of criminal libel to illustrate the possibility of liability that varies based solely on motivation. Id . at 844. However, this example is inapt, since the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that the legal status of information disclosures regarding public officials may vary solely based on the discloser's motivations. See Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 73–74 (1964); see also Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53 (1988). Moreover, although every U.S. state criminalizes blackmail, the majority of states either lack a criminal libel statute or have had their statutes declared unconstitutional—in many cases, precisely because they allow for the possibility that a defendant's liability could vary based solely on his motives. See Kohler , David , Forty Years after New York Times v. Sullivan: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly , 83 Or. L. Rev. 1203 ( 2004 ) Google Scholar , at 1232–1233.

Aside from criminal libel, Berman does not provide any other example of a crime for which liability for the same act and mental state combination could vary based solely on the motives of the defendant. S ee also Westen , Peter , Why the Paradox of Blackmail Is So Hard to Resolve , 9 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 585 ( 2012 ) Google Scholar , at 629 (concluding that published blackmail cases reflect the principle that “a bad motive, with which a person knowingly performs an otherwise [legal] act, can[not] render [the person's] conduct [illegal]”).

111. In earlier work, Berman contends that the X-ing implicated in informational blackmail would set back legally protectable interests of T (namely, her reputation and emotional well-being), whereas the X-ing implicated in “hard commercial transactions” implicates interests that are not legally protected. Berman, Evidentiary Theory , supra note 1 , at 856.

Although this discrepancy applies to the specific examples that Berman considers, it does not generalize to all cases of “hard commercial transactions.” For many “hard commercial transactions” involving legally protectable or protected interests (e.g., someone's health or reputation or freedom), hard bargaining is nevertheless licit. A surgeon can make a firm, take-it-or-leave-it proposal about her rate to perform a surgery without committing blackmail. So can a lawyer regarding her rate for representing a client. If so, then blackmail cannot be distinguished from “hard commercial transactions” based solely on which interests are affected by the X-ing referenced in the proposal.

112. In later work, Berman contends that hard commercial bargains and blackmail involve different kinds of wrongs, rather than different kinds of harms. Berman argues that blackmail proposals involve coercion, whereas hard commercial bargains involve the “less serious” wrong of exploitation and, as a result, provide a “less secure basis” for criminalization. See Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 74. Berman seems to misconstrue the evidentiary theory here. Contra Berman, “hard commercial transactions” are coercive under the evidentiary theory because they involve an action that if completed would both be wrongful and would harm someone. Exploitation is a wrong-making feature of an action. Therefore, “hard commercial transactions” propose an action that if carried out would commit a wrong (i.e., the wrong of exploitation) and harm the target. Therefore they should be classified as coercive under the evidentiary theory.

113. See, e.g. , Mitchell Berman, Meta-Blackmail , supra note 64 , at 798 n. 37 (noting that Murphy's “Baseball” case involves a morally coercive proposal that for “practical imperatives, in our current society” we do not criminalize).

114. Berman, Normative , supra note 14 , at 82.

115. Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 72–73.

116. Some theorists use the blackmail-as-theft argument to explain why blackmail is immoral. See, e.g ., Green , supra note 51 , ch. 17; Rivlin, supra note 28 , at 419. However, Berman contends that this blackmail-as-theft strategy does not address the “puzzle of moral blackmail” that is his main focus. Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 53.

117. Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 40 (“[W]e should not be satisfied” with explanations of why blackmail should be criminally prohibited “that do not also shed light on the puzzle of moral blackmail”).

118. On the evidentiary theory, the wrong involved in coercion (wrongfully putting pressure on another's liberty to do otherwise) is distinct from the wrong involved in fraud. Therefore, a complex account that incorporates the evidentiary theory does not allow for an explanation by subsumption in the same way that a version based on Shaw's simple account does. See supra note 87 .

119. See the discussion of why fraudulence is a sufficient basis for criminalizing blackmail, supra at Section II.A.1 and II.B.

120. As noted above, Berman contends (a) that a theory of blackmail should draw internal connection between the explanation of why blackmail is immoral and why it is illegal; and (b) that its explanation of why blackmail is immoral should also be sufficient to explain why it is criminalized. The evidentiary theory does not satisfy either of these desiderata. For Berman, the coerciveness of the blackmail proposal explains why blackmail is wrongful and (on the blackmail-as-theft argument) the fact that blackmail is theft explains why it is illegal. By contrast, the complex account can capture both of these desiderata: the fact that blackmail involves fraud would provide a common basis for seeing blackmail as both immoral and worthy of criminalizing.

Here is a further respect in which the complex account improves on the evidentiary theory. By construing the case for criminalization in terms of fraud, the complex account can “persuade committed libertarians . . . based on libertarian premises” that blackmail should be prohibited, whereas (as Berman concedes) the evidentiary theory cannot do so. See Berman, Blackmail , supra note 1 , at 58.

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 22, Issue 1
• Stephen Galoob (a1)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325216000082

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Blackmail: A Crime of Paradox and Irony

• First Online: 03 December 2019

Cite this chapter

• Peter Westen 3  

1260 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Legal scholars have tended to focus upon whether blackmail is paradoxical rather than upon its substance. In actuality, federal and state blackmail laws vary considerably in their elements and defenses. After defining what I mean by blackmail, I discuss how jurisdictions frame prohibitions against blackmail in relation to prohibitions against theft, larceny, extortion, threats, coercion and intimidation; how extensively jurisdictions elect to prohibit blackmail; what, if anything, jurisdictions regard as defenses to blackmail; and how harshly or mildly jurisdictions penalize blackmail. I conclude by discussing the paradox of blackmail, including recent scholarly efforts by philosophers and legal scholars to resolve it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Before the Law: Criminalization, Accusation and Justice

See Helmholz ( 2001 , p. 35); McLaren ( 2002 , pp. 12–13); Ginsburg and Shechtman ( 1993 , p. 1851). The “Waltham Black Act” of 1722, which was enacted in response to a gang of extortionists who called themselves “blacks” and painted their faces black, further solidified the use of “black” as a pejorative description of extortion. See ibid. p. 1851. For an alternative etymology of the term, see Mackay ( 1888 , pp. 11–12).

See D.C. Code §22-3252; Kan. Stat. §21-5428; 21 Okla. Stat. §1488; 13 Vt. Stat. §2651.

See N.C. Gen. Stat. §14-118; S.C. Code §16-17-640; Wyo. Stat. §6-2-402.

For the frequency with which “blackmail” is used in common discourse, see Oxford English Dictionary ( n.d. ). For the popular meaning of “blackmail,” see how it is defined in Google, Dictionary (“the action, treated as a criminal offense, of demanding money from a person in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information about that person”).

This is not to say that the paradox is confined to information blackmail. To the extent the paradox exists, it extends more broadly to include statutes that, like the Model Penal Code, make it an offense to obtain property of another by threatening to “inflict any … harm which would not benefit the actor.” Model Penal Code §223.4(7); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §53a-119(5)(I).

The term with [ B ’s] consent is designed to distinguish extortion, which functions by inducing victims to cooperate for fear of the consequences, from robbery, which can function by brute force, as in purse grabbing or mugging ( see In re Stanley E.).

Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary ( 1997 , p. 412) (“extortion”). Some jurisdictions extend extortion to include private individuals who, while possessing legal authority to act on behalf of others, threaten to use such authority to obtain personal benefits for themselves rather than those they represent. See Oregon Rev. Stat. §164.075(1)(f) (extortion for a union leader to demand monies in return for not causing a labor strike, provided the leader demands money for the benefit of himself rather than for “the group in whose interest [he] purports to act”).

See 18 U.S.C. § 873; Mass. Code § 265-25; Mich. Code § 750.213; Miss. Code §97-3-82(2); North Carolina Code §14-118; Vermont Code §13-1701.

A majority of states treat truth as a defense to libel and slander, though some require in addition that speakers act from good motives. See Note ( 1993 ) (arguing that requiring a truth-speaker to act with “good motives” violates New York Times v. Sullivan ). In contrast, in the nineteenth century in England truth was not a defense to criminal libel. See Yehudai ( 2009 , pp. 799–800).

Compare W. Va. §61-2-13 (grading based on success) with D.C. Code §22-3252 (no grading based on success). Other jurisdictions implicitly grade based on success by, first, defining blackmail in terms of success and, then, separately criminalizing attempted blackmail but punishing it less severely. See , for example, Code of Ala. §§13A-8-13, 13A-4-2.

Under the MPC, affirmative defenses shift burdens of production to defendants but not burdens of persuasion; see MPC § 1.12(2)(a). In some states, however, affirmative defenses shift both burdens to defendants. See Ohio Rev. Code §2901.05(A).

See Conn. Code §§53a-119 (larceny); 53a-192 (coercion); 53a-192(b) (defense to coercion); N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-23-10 (theft); 12.1-17-06(1) (coercion); 12.1-17-06(2) (defense to coercion).

But see State v. Pauling , stating in dictum that victims of vandalizing property have a constitutional right to threaten criminal prosecution in order to obtain compensation.

Consider the common practice of conditioning reduced sentences on payment of restitution. See , for example, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663-64 (the “Victim Witness Protection Act”).

New York did not have a criminal statute against revenge porn at the time Payne acted.

Exceptions to this may be victims oflibelous blackmail. Victims of threatened disclosures of false information may have an adequate remedy in civil court because in contrast to victims of threatened disclosures of true information, victims of threats of libel may welcome the opportunity to litigate the truth in public.

See Lindgren ( 1993 , p. 1975) (describing blackmail as “one of the most elusive intellectual puzzles in all of law”) and articles in 2016, 2015, 2012, 2011 and 2007, referenced in note 19, infra.

See , for example, Levy ( 2007 , pp. 1082–84). Others, including this author, seek to partially negate the paradox’s existence by arguing that some instances of blackmail are no different from extortion. See , for example, Feinberg ( 1988 , pp. 240–258); Westen ( 2012 , pp. 599–611).

For critiques of older efforts to resolve the paradox of blackmail, see Westen ( 2012 , pp. 614–632); Christopher ( 2006 , pp. 750–769); Berman ( 1998 , pp. 799–832). For critical commentary on more recent efforts by Einer Elhauge ( 2016 ), Ram Rivlin ( 2015 ), James Shaw ( 2012 ), Mitchell Berman ( 2011 ) and Ken Levy ( 2007 ), see Westen ( 2018 ).

Thomas Aquinas appears to have such a case in mind in arguing that, when A knowingly kills a person, B, who is wrongfully threatening his life, A ’s conduct is permissible if A ’s purpose is to defend himself but impermissible if A ’s purpose is to kill B . See McMahan ( 1994 , p. 211). But see Cavanaugh ( 1997 , p. 109).

Ram Rivlin argues that even where conditional threats do not reveal motives that render otherwise permissible disclosures impermissible, they reveal motives that render any consequent transfer of hush money nonconsensual. See Rivlin ( 2015 , pp. 418–423). For criticism of Rivlin’s view, see note 19.

11 Del. Code § 846 (2017).

Google Scholar  

13 Vt. Stat. § 1701 (2017).

13 Vt. Stat. § 2651 (2017).

17-A Me. Rev. Stat. § 355(2)(B) (2017).

18 Pa. Comp. Stat. § 2906 (2017).

18 Pa. Comp. Stat. § 3921 (2017).

18 Pa. Comp. Stat. § 3922 (2017).

18 Pa. Comp. Stat. § 3923 (2017).

18 U.S.C. § 3363 (2017).

18 U.S.C. § 3364 (2017).

18 U.S.C. § 873 (2017).

19 Del. Code § 792 (2017).

21 Okla. Stat. § 1488 (2017).

43 Eliz.. ch.13, § 2.

Alaska Stat. § 11.41.520(a) (2017).

Alaska Stat. § 11.41.530(b) (2017).

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1804 (2017).

Ark. Code § 5-13-208(a)(5) (2017).

Ark. Code § 5-36-101(11)(B) (2017).

Ark. Code § 5-36-102 (2017).

Burns Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(d) (2017).

Calif. Gov. Code § 8313 (2017).

Calif. Pen. Code § 484 (2017).

Calif. Pen. Code § 518 (2017).

Calif. Pen. Code § 519 (2017).

Code of Ala. § 13A-4-2 (2017).

Code of Ala. § 13A-6-25 (2017).

Code of Ala. § 13A-8-1(14)(f) (2017).

Code of Ala. §§ 13A-8-15 (2017).

Code of Ala. § 13A-8-13 (2017).

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-119(5) (2017).

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-192 (2017).

D.C. Code § 22-3251 (2017).

D.C. Code § 22-3252 (2017).

Fla. Stat. § 836.05 (2017).

Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 707-764 (2017).

Hodges v. Gibson Prods. Co. , 811 P.2d 151 (Utah 1991).

In re Stanley E. , 81 Cal. App. 3d 415 (1978).

Iowa Code. § 711.4 (2017).

Kan. Stat. § 21-5428 (2017).

Ky. Rev. Stat.. § 514.080(2).

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 509.080(2) (2017).

La. Rev. Stat. § 14-66(A) (2017).

Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 582 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. Sup. Ct., 1998).

Landry v. Daley , 280 F. Supp. 938 (S.D. Ill., 1968), rev’d on other grounds sub nom Boyle v. Landry , 401 U.S. 77 (1969).

Larceny Act of 1861, § 44 (Eng.).

Libel Act of 1843, § 3 (Eng.).

Mass. Gen. L. ch. 265, § 25 (2017).

Mich. Comp. L. § 750.213 (2017).

Miss. Code § 97-3-82(2) (2017).

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.010 (2017).

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.030 (2017).

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 588.011(6) (2017).

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-118 (2017).

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.23(c) (2017).

N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-17-06 (2017).

N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-23-10(12) (2017).

N.J. Stat. § 2C:20-5 (2017).

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.320(3) (2017).

New York Times v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.05(A) (2017a).

Ohio Rev. Code § 2905.11 (2017).

Ohio Rev. Code § 2905.12 (2017b).

Ore. Rev. Stat. § 164.075(1)(f) (2017).

People v. Bollaert , 248 Cal. App. 4th 699 (2016).

People v. Umana , 138 Cal. App. 4th 625 (2006).

Prezioso v. Thomas , 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 7740 (4th Cir.).

R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-42-2 (2017).

Rev. Code of Wash. § 9A.56.120 (2017).

S.C. Code § 16-17-640 (2017).

State v. Gile , 2014 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 209.

State v. Haugen , 392 NW2d 799 (N.D. Sup. Ct., 1986).

State v. Pauling , 108 Wash. App. 445 (2001), rev’d on other grounds , 149 Wn. 2d 1001 (2002).

State v. Robertson , 649 P.2d 569 (Ore. Sup. Ct., 1982).

State v. Strong , 167 Wash. App. 206 (Ct. App., 2012).

Tenn. Code § 39-14-112(b) (2017).

Tex. Pen. Code § 31.03 (2017).

U.S. v. Osinger , 753 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2014).

United States v. Jackson , 180 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1988), rev’d on other grounds , 196 F.3d 383 (2d Cir., 1999).

Vafaie v. Owens , 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557.

W. Va. Code § 61-2-13 (2017).

Whimbush v. People , 869 P.2d 1245 (Colo. Sup. Ct. 1994).

Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-402 (2017).

American Law Institute. 1962. Model penal code . Philadelphia: American Law Institute.

———. 1965. Restatement (Second) of torts . Philadelphia: American Law Institute.

———. 1980. Model penal code and commentaries . Pt. 2, Vol. 2. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.

Annotation. 2017. Truth a defense to state charge of criminal intimidation, extortion, blackmail, threats, and the like, based upon threats to disclose information about a victim. American Law Reports 4th 39:1011.

Associated Press. 2007. More victims possible in L.I. sex blackmail case. Feb. 2.

Berman, Mitchell. 1998. The evidentiary theory of blackmail. The University of Chicago Law Review 65: 795–878.

Article   Google Scholar  

———. 2006. Meta-blackmail and the evidentiary theory: Still taking motives seriously. Georgetown Law Journal 94: 787–812.

———. 2011. Blackmail. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of criminal law , ed. John Deigh and David Dolinko, 37–105. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Block, Walter, and Gary Anderson. 2001. Blackmail, extortion, and exchange. New York Law School Law Review 44: 541–561.

Block, Walter, and David Gordon. 1985. Blackmail, extortion and free speech. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 19: 37–54.

Cavanaugh, Thomas. 1997. Aquinas’s account of double effect. The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 61: 107–121.

Christopher, Russell. 2006. Meta-blackmail. Georgetown Law Journal 94: 739–786.

Elhauge, Einer. 2016. Contrived threats and uncontrived warnings: A general solution to the puzzles of contractual duress, unconstitutional conditions, and blackmail. The University of Chicago Law Review 83: 503–584.

Feinberg, Joel. 1988. Harmless wrongdoing . New York: Oxford University Press.

Fletcher, George. 1993. Blackmail: The paradigmatic crime. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141: 1617–1638.

Ginsburg, Douglas H., and Paul Shechtman. 1993. Blackmail: An economic analysis of the law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141: 1849–1876.

Google. Dictionary. https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=d9J0W-TtGqjOjwTa067ADA&q=blackmail+definition&oq=blackmail+definition&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l9.3110.8556.0.8700.20.20.0.0.0.0.100.1585.18j1.19.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.19.1583...0i131k1j0i10k1.0.qf6NaEuYfIM

Gordon, Wendy. 1993. Truth and consequences: The force of blackmail’s central case. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141: 1741–1785.

Helmholz, R.H. 2001. The Roman law of blackmail. The Journal of Legal Studies 30: 33–52.

Kamm, Francis. 2004. Failures of just war theory. Ethics 114: 650–692.

Katz, Leo. 1993. Blackmail and other forms of arm-twisting. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141: 1567–1615.

Lamond, Grant. 1996. Coercion, threats, and the puzzle of blackmail. In Harm and culpability , ed. A.P. Simester and A.T.J. Smith, 214–238. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Levy, Ken. 2007. The solution to the real blackmail paradox. Connecticut Law Review 39: 1051–1096.

Lindgren, James. 1984. Unraveling the paradox of blackmail. Columbia Law Review 84: 670–717.

———. 1993. Blackmail: An afterword. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141: 1975–1989.

Mackay, Charles. 1888. A dictionary of lowland scotch . Edinburgh: Ballantyne Press.

McMahan, Jeff. 1994. Revising the doctrine of double effect. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11: 201–212.

McLaren, Angus. 2002. Sexual blackmail: A modern history . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Mish, Frederick, ed. 1997. Merriam Webster’s collegiate dictionary . 10th ed. Springfield: Merriam Webster.

Note. 1993. The truth will not set you free in Nebraska. Nebraska Law Review 72: 1236–1274.

Overland, Gerhard. 2014. Moral obstacles: An alternative to the doctrine of double effect. Ethics 124: 481–506.

Oxford English Dictionary . n.d. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Posner, Richard. 1993. Blackmail, privacy, and freedom of contract. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141: 1817–1848.

Prosser, William. 1960. Privacy. California Law Review 48: 383–423.

Revenge porn laws by state. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/revenge-porn-laws-by-state.html

Rivlin, Ram. 2015. Blackmail, subjectivity and culpability. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 28: 399–424.

Robinson, Martin. 2013. Ex-boyfriend of Tamara Ecclestone found guilty of £200,000 blackmail plot to reveal her “intimate secrets.” Daily Mail , February 25. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284229/Derek-Rose-ex-boyfriend-Tamara-Ecclestone-guilty-200-000-blackmail-plot.html

Robinson, Paul, Michael Cahill, and Daniel Bartels. 2010. Competing theories of blackmail. Texas Law Review 89: 291–352.

Sachs, Stephen. 2006. Saving Toby: Extortion, blackmail, and the right to destroy. Yale Law & Policy Review 24: 251–261.

Shaw, James. 2012. The morality of blackmail. Philosophy and Public Affairs 40: 165–196.

The Guardian . 2009. David Letterman foils $2 m sex blackmail plot. October. 2.

Westen, Peter. 2012. Why the paradox of blackmail is so hard to resolve. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 9: 585–636.

———. 2018. Critical Commentary. University of Michigan. http://www.umich.edu/~pkw/criticalcommentary

Yehudai, Chen. 2009. Information blackmail: Survived by technicality? Marquette Law Review 92: 779–828.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Peter Westen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Westen .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of San Diego School of Law, San Diego, CA, USA

Larry Alexander

University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Kimberly Kessler Ferzan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Westen, P. (2019). Blackmail: A Crime of Paradox and Irony. In: Alexander, L., Kessler Ferzan, K. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22811-8_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22811-8_6

Published : 03 December 2019

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-22810-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-22811-8

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Health Psychol Res
• v.10(2); 2022

The Association of Emotional Blackmail and Adjustment to College Life Among Warned Female Students at Al-Balqa University Students

Raed a. al-kreimeen.

1 Department of Educational Sciences, Al-Salt College for Social Science/ Al-Balqa Applied University

Nedal Ahmad Alghafary

2 Teaching Curricula in Physical Education, Al-Salt College for Social Science/ Al-Balqa Applied University

Fadi Soud Samawi

The present study aimed to identify the association between emotional blackmail and college adjustment among warned female students at Al-Balqaa Applied University. It was a descriptive correlational study that included recruiting all warned female students at Al-Balqaa Applied University (BAU) (n=357) during the beginning of the second semester of the academic year 2019/2020. The study adopted the emotional abuse scale developed by Neil Jacobson and John Gottman. The questionnaire consisted of 28 items and the college adjustment test (CAT) developed by Pennebaker (2013). The test comprised 19 items. The collected data were analyzed statistically using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) (v. 26 IBM Corporation). The study’s findings showed that warned female students had a high level of emotional blackmail (2.90±0.799). In addition, the results indicated that there is a low level of college adjustment among the warned female students (3.62±0.736). Finally, the study showed a strong and significant inverse correlation between emotional blackmail and college adjustment among warned female students at Al-Balqa Applied University. Therefore, the study recommended increasing the students’ awareness and knowledge about coping strategies to overcome the effects of emotional blackmail and increase their college adjustment.

Introduction

A person lives amid a society governed by a social and civilized nature. Still, his tendencies and attitudes take different forms and patterns of behavior in dealing with them, and material benefits or personal interests in this deal are often overwhelming. He realizes these benefits to the interests of these two groups. This is what is called emotional blackmail.

Usually, this behavior that a person adopts to achieve his personal goals at the expense of and emotional manipulation of the other party is a type of psychological violence. It is often more harmful than physical and verbal violence because it clearly impacts the other party’s conscience (the victim). Because of the psychological negligence that the victim is exposed to, he begins to feel that he himself is worthless and that he deserves nothing, and this is known in the psychology of low self-esteem, which affects the characteristics of the victim’s personality, psychological disturbances, and affliction with affection If he is subjected to emotional blackmail.

Emotional blackmail is a subtle form of manipulation that may shape some of our closest relationships. 1 Just like any blackmail, emotional blackmail centers around a basic threat; if you don’t do this for me, bad things will happen. 2

The subject of blackmail has received great attention in the world, and this concern represented the call for awareness of its dangers, the need to confront it, and the undertaking of special projects in the community to protect it and raise awareness of its effects, the seminars held around it, and the media programs that referred to it. 3 An urgent need to study the reality of extortion in society and to what degree it exists in a way that threatens the psychological, social, and religious security of the individual and society. This necessitated the need for a study that gives indications of the reality of extortion. The current study’s problem is identifying the extent of emotional blackmail related to compatibility in university life among warned female students at Al-Balqa Applied University.

Emotional blackmail is a situation or speech that someone takes to cause you a sense of shame or error or make you responsible for what you do not bear. 4 Emotional blackmail is used to achieve emotional and psychological control over others and to make the other feel that he is in debt or guilty of the right of the person who blackmails him, which is a very despicable method of dealing with others. 5

Emotional blackmail is a type of exploitation practiced by a person who influences another person within a system of relationships. From the angle and based on the threat to deprive or prevent the use of various means of punishment or to exploit the need for one of the parties to keep something by the other party. 6

Emotional blackmail can be more devastating than physical abuse. While wounds and bruises may leave scars, they will heal eventually. 7 However, emotional trauma can leave lifelong invisible scars that may affect the brain chemistry and change the individual. 8 Emotional abuse can affect the development of the brain and the capacity to process emotions. Emotional blackmail happens when someone tries to control you by using emotions as a weapon instead of physical violence. 9 The blackmailer acts in a dominating way and tries to scare and isolate the victim to control. It can be done through abusive words and statements, threats, and body language regularly or whenever the abuser feels. 10

Going off to college is a life-changing experience. It is also a big challenge; some of the demands they are ready to confront, others just blindside them. 11 College life can be among the most rewarding and challenging periods in a young person’s life. Increasingly, students need mental health care and support for their well-being. 12 According to the American College Health Association report released in 2017, 39% of students reported feeling so depressed that they were having trouble functioning, 61% reported that they experienced overwhelming anxiety in the last 12 months. In addition, the center for collegiate mental health reported that the number of students using counseling centers increased by approximately 30% on average from 2009 to 2015. 11

Like other groups of society, college students may be exposed to emotional blackmail by their colleagues or by other people outside the university campus. 13 So, we find those who intentionally or unintentionally practice this method that leads to harm to the other, who may become a victim of deviations. 14 Because of anxiety and lack of internal reassurance, decisions being taken within the cognitive bias diverges from successful decision-making, which increases the size of the problem. 15

The psychology of the emotional blackmail parties

Emotional blackmail requires two parties; it is a bilateral process and not individual performance. There is the blackmailer who is the one who threatens and bargains, and there is the other party (the victim), which is the person who is under blackmail through threat and bargaining from the blackmailer. Each side of the emotional blackmail process has its psychology and silence, which is part of his personality. 16

The blackmailer ’s psychology: On the surface, the blackmailer looks like others, and they are usually highly effective in many aspects of their lives, but in many aspects, the internal world of the blackmailer appears different. 17

Emotional blackmailers act out of fear of deprivation. This deprivation is not apparent unless his sense of stability and deprivation are subjected to violent vibration. Hence, the blackmailer feels fear as a sign of instability, just as simple frustration is seen as a potential disaster. He believes that if he does not get what he wants, even by force, then the world around him will collapse. Therefore the blackmailer blackmails the other party for the following reasons: fear of loss, fear of losing control, and fear of rejection. 18

The psychology of the other party under blackmail: The submissive personality (under blackmail) is, in fact, subject to power, cannot make decisions, is hypersensitive, vulnerable, hesitant, and insecure in itself, all because it has not exercised the will, and has not had the opportunity for self-growth or the opportunity to exercise power. In the right context, they do not have the moral strength that enables them to resist and withstand life situations. They are no longer in the correct way to perform their future role, they will feel distressed, apprehensive, and suspicious of others, and they cannot enjoy life or see the positive aspects in it. 19

Among the features that make the other party vulnerable to blackmail are: an excessive need to satisfy others, an intense fear of anger, a need for reassurance at any cost, a tendency to assume more responsibilities than it should be about the lives of others, a high level of self-doubt, and when these traits control In a person and enter into war with his intelligence, confidence, certainty and thought, he is the one who prepares himself to be a victim of great manipulation.

Theories explaining emotional blackmail

1. Social exchange theory: This theory was proposed by Peter Blau (1959). The social exchange theory is considered one of the first theories that explained emotional blackmail. Thibout & Kelley (1959), of the founders of this theory, revealed that the relations between individuals in the community are based on the social exchange that depends on the quantitative and qualitative balance in the rights and duties, and it is natural that will affect the shape and continuity of the relationships. 13

Homans (1961) confirmed what Thibout & Kelley (1959) revealed, which is that the continuous communication between groups and individuals leads to the formation of love, sympathy, and cooperation; this consequently increases the size of interaction between community groups. 12

2. Emotional blackmail model (Forward, 1979): Susan Forward (1979) proposed the emotional blackmail hypothesis through her work as a volunteer in the neurological diseases institute at California state university in Los Angles. Forward revealed in her book (Emotional blackmail) that many successful and skilled people in different fields feel hesitant and helpless in front of those practicing emotional blackmailing. Forward reported that the blackmailer tries to hide their acts and take care that the victim does not notice that. Forward pointed to the FOG state that the victim experience due to fear, obligation, and guilt. As the blackmailer works – in his relationship with the victim – to stir those factors to ensure that the victim will fear losing the relationship, show obligation to it, and feel guilty if not doing what is required and asked by the blackmailer. 17

By presenting the two theories, we find a difference in viewpoints, as the concept of force is the only means used by a blackmailer to trap the victim, according to Peter Blau (1964). When there is a need for another person, he will pay for it in a form that does not take acceptance and approval but rather obeys his/her desires. Therefore, those subject to force based on affection do not necessarily feel their poor position and lack of identity.

While Forward goes with her model in a way or broadly from Blau, as she indicated, emotional blackmail might occur during the social relationship, directly or indirectly, such as using force by the blackmailer in Blau. However, as Forward sees that the blackmailers are intelligent and self-sufficient persons, to fulfill their needs and not feel the blackmailer (the victim), it may be the weak that extorts the emotionally strong one.

Emotional blackmail occurs through systemic steps, best described as follows:

• Demand: When the blackmailer asks the victim (either directly or indirectly) to do something for him/her.
• Resistance: When the victim shows refusal and worries about this request
• Stress: When the victim is narrowed down, the blackmailer describes the victim as a selfish person.
• Threat: when the blackmailer finds continuous resistance from the victim, the blackmailer might start threatening the victim
• Bowing: When the victim does not want to lose the relationship, tries to convince themself that it was a mistake to resist, starts to bow and submit.
• Duplication: when the previously mentioned steps are repeated

Previous studies

Up to the researcher’s knowledge, there is a significant lack of studies investigating the association of emotional blackmail and college life adjustment among the youth category. However, several studies explored emotional blackmail and adjustment to college life as separated variables. For example, Karnani & Zelman 1 measured the emotional blackmail among couples from different ethnicities in Hong Kong. The sample of the study consisted of 199 expatriates committed to couple relations. A structured emotional blackmail scale consisted of 25 items was used in this study. The study’s findings showed that FOG (Fear, Obligation, and guilt) status explained 47.8% of the emotional blackmail among the studied subjects.

In a study carried out by Al-Khatib, Awamleh, & Samawi, 20 the purpose of the study was to assess the level of college life adjustment among undergraduate students at Albalqa Applied University. The study adopted the descriptive cross-sectional research approach by recruiting a sample of 334 undergraduate students. The study results showed a moderate degree of adjustment to college life among undergraduate students in Albalqa Applied University. In addition, the results showed that there were no statistically significant differences in the responses to the college life adjustment scale neither referred to the college, gender, academic level, nor the interaction between these variables.

Moreover, Bushong 21 investigated the association between gender, emotional blackmail and mental health problems among college students. A sample of 101 undergraduate students was recruited in this study. The depressive disorders, apprehension, self-confidence and emotional abuse aspects were assessed using a self-filled questionnaire. The findings revealed that there was no variation in the mental health problems assessed in this study as a result of emotional blackmail referred to gender differences.

In a study that was carried out by Liu, 17 the purpose of the study was to investigate the association between blackmail and employees well-being. A sample of 299 employees filled a questionnaire to examine their perceptions of emotional blackmail. The findings showed that explored employees had negative perceptions about the association between emotional blackmail and well-being.

Lee & Park 22 carried out a cross-sectional study that investigated the impact of grit and stress on the adjustment to college life among nursing undergraduates. The sample of the study was 145 nursing students. The study results showed that grit was positively correlated to the adjustment to college life among nursing students. However, the results showed that there was a negative correlation between stress and adjustment to college life. Therefore, the study recommended improving the students’ awareness about the effective coping strategies to manage stress and improve grit level among them.

Jeong 23 carried out a descriptive cross-sectional study that sought to determine the effect of resilience and social support on the adaptation to college life among junior and senior students. The study sample consisted of 166 undergraduates from two higher education institutions. The study results indicated that both resilience and social support significantly had a positive impact on the level of the students’ adjustment to college life. Therefore, the study recommended developing educational programs to increase students’ awareness of emotional support and resilience and their significant role in improving students’ adjustment to college life.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Lee 24 carried out a cross-sectional study that aimed to explore the impact of YouTube addiction and loneliness on adjustment to college life during distance education. The participants of the study were 95 undergraduate students in Korea. The study results showed that their loneliness and YouTube addiction negatively affected the adjustment to college life, and based on the regression analysis, they were found to be significant predictors of adjustment to college life.

In another study carried out by Klem, 25 the purpose was to investigate the impact of aggression on college adjustment among undergraduate students. The study sample consisted of 135 undergraduate college students. Both student adaptation to college questionnaire and indirect aggression scale was used in this study. The findings of the study indicated that indirect aggression was not associated with students’ adjustment to college. However, the study reported that indirect aggression was significantly associated with students’ emotional adjustment but not overall college adjustment.

The present study

Analyzing the reality of university education for students, and determining the types of obstacles that may hinder the university student’s career, regardless of their quality (academic, psychological, economic, social, ethical, etc.). It also helps to provide and suggest means and methods that can help the university student face what He may encounter difficulties, which may affect his potential and performance in his roles. Hence, the current study aims to find out the relationship between emotional blackmail and compatibility in university life among the warned students at Al-Balqa Applied University.

Research Questions

The present study addressed the following research questions:

• What is the prevalence of emotional blackmail among warned female students at Al-Balqaa Applied University, Jordan?
• To how extent is warned female students at Albalqaa Applied University in Jordan are adjusted to their college?
• Is there any significant association between emotional blackmail and college adjustment among warned female students at Abalqaa Applied University, Jordan?

Research Significance

In light of the increasing interest in university students’ mental health, due to its significant impact on achieving their psychosocial adjustment, this study reveals the association between emotional blackmail and college adjustment among students. Furthermore, this study derives its importance from the importance of the study sample represented by female students who obtained academic warnings, which indicates in advance the existence of weakness in academic achievement.

Up to the researcher’s knowledge, there is a significant lack of studies investigating the association between emotional blackmail and other psychological variables within the educational institution’s contexts. This study is considered one of the few studies in the Middle East region that investigated emotional blackmail and its association with the extent of female students’ college adjustment. Therefore, it provides a useful theoretical framework that may form the nucleus of future studies that include more variables and a larger study sample and various academic institutions.

The current study results will positively contribute to designing and laying the foundations for awareness programs to increase students’ awareness of strategies for dealing with emotional blackmail and how to achieve a higher level of adjustment to university life.

Research Definitions

Warned students : The researcher defines the warned students as those students having one or more academic warnings due to lack of acceptable academic performance or misconduct during the academic process.

Emotional Blackmail : A form of psychological manipulation - during which a system of threats and various types of punishment inflicted by a person on another close to them occurs in an attempt to control their behavior. 14 The researcher defines emotional blackmail operationally as the total score obtained by the warned female students at Al- Balqa Applied University on the emotional blackmail scale adopted in the present study.

Adjustment to college : The researcher defines adjustment to college in this study as a state of internal equilibrium that occurs for college students so that they are satisfied with themselves and accept it, with relative freedom from tension and conflict that is associated with negative feelings about the self, the state of internal balance can be accompanied by a positive deal with reality and the environment. It is defined as the total score obtained by the warned female students at Al-Balqa Applied University on the college adjustment scale adopted in the present study.

Methodology

Research design.

The present study was correlational. It examined the association between emotional blackmail and college adjustment among warned undergraduate females at Al- Balqa Applied University, Jordan.

Participants

The study sample consists of all (357) female warned students at Al-Balqa Applied University, according to the statistics of the Deanship of Student Affairs and the Admission and Registration Unit at the university, as shown in Table (1) .

Research instruments

To achieve the study objectives, the researchers adopted the following instruments:

• Emotional abuse questionnaire developed by Neil Jacobson and John Gottman. The questionnaire consisted of 28 items. Each item is scored based on a 4-point Likert scale (Never=1, Rarely=2, Occasionally = 3, and Very often=4). If a participant gets a score between 73 and 94, she is considered emotionally abused. Obtaining a score higher than 95 indicates severe emotional abuse of the participant. The internal consistency is .92. The EAQ has been widely used in previous research, indicating its external validity (Babcock, Jacobson, Gottman, & Yerington, 2000). The EAQ focuses on a wide range of different patterns of emotional abuse and has strong psychometric values. Higher scores indicated higher levels of experiencing emotional abuse.
• The college adjustment test (CAT) was developed by Pennebaker (2013). The test comprised of 19 items covering three domains: positive affect (items 9, 10, 12, 13,18,19), negative affect (items 4,5,6,7,8,14, 15, 16, 17), and homesickness domain (items 1, 2, 3, 15, 16 and (8-item 11). As indicated by the test’s author: “Based on two samples of 287 and 260 entering college students, the internal consistency of the scale is acceptable, Cronbach alpha = .79. Two-month test-retest with 196 introductory college students was good, r = .65.”

To ensure the adopted scale’s reliability in the Jordanian context, both scales were administered to a pilot sample consisting of 20 warned students excluded from the original study sample. The reliability coefficient for the emotional abuse questionnaire was 0.783, whereas the college adjustment test’s reliability coefficient was 0.81.

Statistical processing

The collected data were organized, coded, and exported to the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) (v.26, IBM Corporation). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study participants’ characteristics and their responses to the adopted scales. In addition, the Pearson Correlation factor was used to assess the association between emotional blackmail and the adjustment to college life among the study participants. Finally, the results of the study were presented as texts, tables and discussed later.

The results presented in Table (2) indicate the sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants. The results indicated that 40.3% (n=144) of the study participants were less than 20 years old, whereas 32.2% (n=115) and 27.5% (n=98) were more than 22 years and 20 to 22 years old, respectively. In addition, single females were the most participating students as they constituted 80.4% (n=287). Married and divorced females constituted 17.1% and 2.5%, respectively. Finally, the results related to the participating females’ academic year indicated that first-year students were the highest (33.9%, n=121); on the other hand, second, third, and fourth-year students were constituting 29.7%, 18.8%, and 17.6%, respectively.

The results are shown in table (3) , represent the means and standard deviations of the warned students’ responses to the emotional abuse scale items. The results showed that warned female students experienced a high level of emotional blackmail as the total score was (78.33) with a mean score of 2.90 and a standard deviation of 0.799. The students reported that they are exposed to be caught at consistencies to show that they were lying; their partners tried to convince people that they were crazy and told other people that they were crazy. The mean scores of the scale items ranged between 3.45 and 2.19. all items were shown to be moderate to high at the emotional blackmail scale used in this study.

The results shown in table (4) represent mean scores and standard deviations for the warned students’ responses to the college adjustment test items. The results showed that the participating warned students had a low college adjustment level (3.62± .736). The students reported that they felt anxious or nervous during the last seven days (4.91±.791), liked the social life (4.44±.743), felt depressed (4.21±.891). In addition, the students reported that they felt angry (4.18±.607) they worried about the impression they made on others (4.16±.841). The warned female students’ overall adjustment score was 77.95, which indicated maladjustment to college life.

Pearson’s correlation factor was calculated to investigate the correlation between emotional blackmail and adjustment to college among warned female students. As shown in table (5), there was a significant inverse association between emotional blackmail and college adjustment (r=-0.641, P=0.03)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Emotional blackmail is when someone uses our empathy and care for them against us. They can threaten to hurt themselves or someone else if the other partner does not do what they want. So, they are using the fact that we care for them and their well-being to manipulate others into doing something for them or giving them something they want. They can even threaten publicly revealing personal information or secrets about their partners or withholding love and affection until they get what they want.

The present study sought to identify the association of emotional blackmail and college adjustment among warned female students at Al-Balqa Applied University. Therefore, a sample of 357 warned female students from different academic majors and levels were recruited in the present study.

The results of the study showed that there is a high level of emotional blackmail among the warned female students. The high level of emotional blackmail among recruited female students might refer to the social and academic pressure exerted on the participating students. The study sample represented by female students having academic issues they have to overcome. Therefore, they might be emotionally disturbed and simply affected by other surrounding psychological effects. In addition, the high level of emotional blackmail might be referred to an emotional relationship in the university campus that might be affected by the academic performance of the warned students and vice versa.

Furthermore, the study results showed a low level of college adjustment among the warned female students. The decline in the adjustment to college life might be attributed to the students’ low academic performance. Lack of adjustment to college might significantly affect the student’s engagement in academic activities and tasks.

The present study results indicated a significant inverse association between emotional blackmail and college adjustment among warned female students. Thus, mood disturbance and emotional disturbance caused by the emotional blackmail might significantly affect the students’ engagement, attitudes, and perceptions of college life and academic performance.

A psychotherapist, Susan Forward popularized emotional blackmail; she uses the term FOG to explain how manipulative people can use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to get the partner to do what they want. FOG can be dangerous sometimes, and that’s exactly what fear, obligation, and guilt can do. When an individual is scared, his/, her brain uses stress response, fight, flight, freeze to help them assess and act accordingly. When this response is triggered, the amygdala sounds the alarm, which causes the prefrontal cortex to go offline. Therefore the individual is more reactive, impulsive, and can be really bad at making decisions. Therefore, when an individual is in that state, he/she can be, ore malleable or easily manipulated.

The obligation also plays a big role. Relationships are not built on what is owed to an individual. Instead, the individual’s relationships, especially females, should be based on mutual love and care. No healthy relationship can exist when the obligation is used to manipulate.

Finally, there is guilt. We have all had someone guilt us into doing something. It could be through obligation; whatever an individual can do to get another feels bad for him/her, like poking him/her, feel like he/she owe him/her for all they have done.

To conclude, the present study showed a significant inverse correlation between emotional blackmail and college adjustment among warned female students at Al-Balqaa Applied University, Jordan. Fear, obligation, and guilt were huge motivators that raised emotional blackmail among the studied females. Consequently, their adjustment to college was negatively affected due to emotional disturbances resulting from the emotional blackmail.

Implications

In terms of practice: The findings of the current study might be beneficial for the warned female students, both males, and females, in different educational settings, as they might improve the awareness and practices of those students when exposed to emotional blackmail acts. In addition, these findings highlight the association between emotional blackmail and college life adjustment, which will enable the students to adopt specific acts and strategies to overcome any possible effects.

In terms of education: This study’s results might draw the attention of the curriculum designers and developers to include the concepts of emotional blackmail and college adjustment in the university curricula, especially elective courses related to psychology.

In terms of policy: The results of the current study might draw the attention of the educational institutions’ administrative authorities to issue and set a policy regarding the practice of any emotional blackmail acts among students, in addition, to issue strict rules, regulations, and punishment for any harmful acts related to emotionally blackmail and might disrupt the adjustment to college life among the students.

In terms of research: The current study explores the association between emotional blackmail and college adjustment among university students. The findings and the theoretical framework of this study might direct future research studies about the possible investigations of different variables related to emotional blackmail, factors influencing emotional blackmailing, adjustment to college life, and coping strategies.

Recommendations

The study recommends holding educational and awareness campaigns aiming to increase the female students’ knowledge and awareness about emotional blackmail and the coping strategies they might adopt to reduce their emotional disturbance. In addition, students should be encouraged to engage in more social and academic activities on the university campus, consequently improving their adjustment level, either to college or socially.

• 1. Karnani SR, Zelman DC. Measurement of emotional blackmail in couple relationships in Hong Kong. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice . 2019;8(3):165. doi:10.1037/cfp0000126 [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. ABBASPOUR Z, AMANELAHI A, Choubdari A. Evaluation of psychometric properties of the Emotional Blackmail Scale (EB). Published online 2019. https://www.sid.ir/en/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=748210
• 3. Chiang JC, Gozali A. Care or Hurt? Exploring Emotional Blackmail on Social Media based on Social Capital Theory. Published online 2019. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2019/100
• 4. Forward S, Frazier D, Newman CF. Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You . Springer; 1997. https://www.harpercollins.com/products/emotional-blackmail-susan-forwarddonna-frazier?variant=32128672333858 [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Khan MW, Bilal M, Khan WA, Abbas S. Strategy Development through Emotional Manipulation in Agents using Q-Learning. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security . 2016;14(11):395. https://www.academia.edu/31876129 [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Taklavi S, Ghodrati S. Prediction of Suicidal Thoughts Based on Emotional Failure and Attachment Styles among University Students. Journal of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences . 2019;19(2):204-215. http://jarums.arums.ac.ir/article-1-1668-en.html [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Vidourek RA. Emotional abuse: Correlates to abuse among college students. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment Trauma . 2017;26(7):792-803. doi:10.1080/10926771.2017.1308980 [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Stolorow RD. A phenomenological-contextual, existential, and ethical perspective on emotional trauma. The Psychoanalytic Review . 2015;102(1):123-138. doi:10.1521/prev.2015.102.1.123 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Meinck F, Cluver L, Boyes M, Loening-Voysey H. Physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of children in South Africa: incidence, prevalence, perpetrators, and locations. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health . 2016;70:910-916. doi:10.1136/jech-2015-205860 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Keller S. Moral blackmail and the family. Journal of Moral Philosophy . 2016;13(6):699-719. doi:10.1163/0130600217455243- [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Auerbach RP, Mortier P, Bruffaerts R, et al. WHO world mental health surveys international college student project: prevalence and distribution of mental disorders. Journal of abnormal psychology . 2018;127(7):623. doi:10.1037/abn0000362 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Sladek MR, Doane LD, Luecken LJ, Eisenberg N. Perceived stress, coping, and cortisol reactivity in daily life: a study of adolescents during the first year of college. Biological psychology . 2016;117:8-15. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.02.003 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Al-Saggaf Y. An exploratory study of attitudes towards privacy in social media and the threat of blackmail: the views of a group of Saudi women. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries . 2016;75(1):1-16. doi:10.1002/j.1681-4835.2016.tb00549.x [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Bastiani F, Romito P, Saurel-Cubizolles MJ. Mental distress and sexual harassment in Italian university students. Archives of Women’s Mental Health . 2019;22(2):229-236. doi:10.1007/s00737-018-0886-2 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Ajjawi R, Dracup M, Zacharias N, Bennett S, Boud D. Persisting students’ explanations of and emotional responses to academic failure. Higher Education Research Development . 2020;39(2):185-199. doi:10.1080/07294360.2019.1664999 [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Bartol CR, Bartol AM. Introduction to Forensic Psychology: Research and Application . Sage Publications; 2018. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/introduction-to-forensic-psychology/book255552 [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. Liu CC. The relationship between employees’ perception of emotional blackmail and their well-being. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences . 2010;5:299-303. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.092 [ Google Scholar ]
• 18. Nesse RM. Evolutionary Psychology and Mental Health. In: Buss DM, ed. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology . Vol 2: Integrations. ; 2015:1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939376.ch32
• 19. Vashistha A, Garg A, Anderson R, Raza AA, eds. Threats, abuses, flirting, and blackmail: gender inequity in social media voice forums. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ; 2019:1-13. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300302
• 20. Al-Khatib BA, Awamleh HS, Samawi FS. Student’s adjustment to college life at Albalqa Applied University. American International Journal of Contemporary Research . 2012;2(11):7-16. http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_11_November_2012/2.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Bushong KG. Emotional abuse in college students: gender differences in psychological outcomes. Published online 2018. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/359 [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Lee SJ, Park JY. The effects of grit and stress on nursing student’s adjustment to college life. Journal of Digital Convergence . 2018;16(2):269-276. doi:10.14400/JDC.2018.16.2.269 [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Jeong JN. The Impacts of Resilience, Social Support on Adjustment to College Life of Freshman and sophomore year in university students. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society . 2020;11(2):385-394. doi:10.15207/JKCS.2020.11.2.385 [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Lee JM. An Exploratory Study on Effects of Loneliness and YouTube Addiction on College Life Adjustment in the Distance Education During COVID-19. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association . 2020;20(7):342-351. doi:10.5392/JKCA.2020.20.07.342 [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Klem J. The impact of indirect aggression on college student adjustment. Published online 2008. https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081=etd [ Google Scholar ]

Students who cheat don’t just have to worry about getting caught. They risk blackmail and extortion

Director, Academic Integrity, Torrens University Australia

Disclosure statement

Kristina Nicholls does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Torrens University Australia provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

When students use a commercial contract cheating service, getting caught by their lecturers is just one of many serious consequences that could damage them and those who trust them. They also expose themselves to blackmail and extortion. Despite these risks, one in ten students at Australian higher education institutions have used a commercial cheating service to complete an assessment, according to survey findings presented at the inaugural Australian Academic Integrity Network Forum 2021 (AAIN) hosted by Torrens University.

Read more: 1 in 10 uni students submit assignments written by someone else — and most are getting away with it

With sophisticated artificial intelligence and indeed sinister forces coming into play, there is a growing urgency for higher education institutions to act on this increasing threat to academic integrity. The threat isn’t just to the reputation of institutions. It also places students at risk.

When students fill in their credit card number to complete a purchase from a contract cheating service, they are doing business with unscrupulous gremlins. They risk heading down a sinister black hole of extortion and blackmail using the threat of exposure to their university or employer.

Services have found a new income stream

Extortion is the new name of the game. Contract-cheating gremlins have turned to blackmail as an ongoing source of income from students. They threaten to tell the university the student has bought an assignment unless the student pays up.

Students can be blackmailed even after finishing their degrees when the gremlins threaten to expose their cheating behaviour to employers.

If the student refuses to pay up, then the gremlins get to work on destroying their credibility. The university can revoke the degree the student “earned”. The student loses their qualification and potentially their career and suffers reputational damage and financial loss.

Contract cheating starts off as a rational approach to getting an assignment done quickly and easily. As the student descends the morality ladder, the lines between right and wrong become blurred. The student who engages in academic misconduct is laying the foundations for unethical conduct in the workplace.

There is strong evidence that cheating as a student can lay the foundations for unethical behaviour in life and as members of society.

When the US audit watchdog fined KPMG Australia A$615,000 following major cheating in its workplace, it revealed the dangers of the normalisation of these practices in society. Similarly, ASIC is suing the ANZ Bank for breaching the Credit Act by allegedly paying commissions to unlicensed third parties who referred borrowers to the bank for loans. Bank representatives overlooked these actions in an attempt to achieve sales targets for bonuses.

Gremlins are smart. They advertise their services as assignment help and tutors 24/7, in an attempt to normalise the practice of cheating.

Students then unknowingly open themselves up to a raft of offences, including misrepresentation, fraud, forgery and financial advantage from crime. When a student submits a bought assignment and completes the cover sheet stating that it’s their own work, it could be considered fraud because they are making a false or misleading statement. The financial advantage from this action would be the avoidance of retaking a subject and saving on course fees.

It’s potentially an act of forgery when a student submits a fabricated assignment and the university considers it to be original work, legitimately created by the student. So far no students have been charged with fraud for submitting a contract-cheated assessment in Australia.

Read more: Artificial intelligence is getting better at writing, and universities should worry about plagiarism

What is being done about cheating?

The Australian government’s introduction of anti-cheating laws in 2020 offers some hope of reining in the gremlins. The first successful prosecution by the higher education regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), resulted in the blocking of two illegal cheating websites.

The new law also makes the promotion and selling of contract cheating services illegal. Penalties include up to two years’ jail and a fine of $110,000.

By their very nature, these services are not exemplars of integrity and ethical behaviour. They blackmail their customers and exploit the so-called “academic” writers they employ. They are now also recruiting students to on-sell their services, exposing them to the risk of a criminal record.

Read more: Universities unite against the academic black market

Individuals make a significant investment in their education. But if they turn to cheating, their actions can have far-reaching consequences for their lives. They also harm those around them – their families, partners, employers and society in general.

While the AAIN Forum identified some strategies to encourage students to rethink cheating, it is critical that we create a robust culture of academic integrity across our institutions. Appreciating the true value of a well-earned degree will be just as important as the law in keeping the cheat gremlins at bay.

Let the student buyer beware!

• Essay mills
• Academic integrity
• Contract cheating
• Online crime
• academic fraud
• University cheating

Social Media Producer

Student & Academic Services Officer

Dean (Head of School), Indigenous Knowledges

Senior Research Fellow - Curtin Institute for Energy Transition (CIET)

Laboratory Head - RNA Biology

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

The essay mills undermining academic standards around the world

Try unlimited access only $1 for 4 weeks.

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, ft professional, weekend print + standard digital, weekend print + premium digital.

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• FT App on Android & iOS
• FirstFT: the day's biggest stories
• 20+ curated newsletters
• Follow topics & set alerts with myFT
• FT Videos & Podcasts
• 20 monthly gift articles to share
• Lex: FT's flagship investment column
• 15+ Premium newsletters by leading experts
• FT Digital Edition: our digitised print edition
• Weekday Print Edition
• Videos & Podcasts
• Premium newsletters
• 10 additional gift articles per month
• FT Weekend Print delivery
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Everything in Premium Digital

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• 10 monthly gift articles to share
• Everything in Print
• Make and share highlights
• FT Workspace
• Markets data widget
• Subscription Manager
• Workflow integrations
• Occasional readers go free
• Volume discount

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

• icon-search
• icon-comments 1
• About Wonkhe
• Our subscriptions
• Our partners
• Pitch an article
• Explore the whole archive
• Wonkhe research
• Wonk Corner
• Jobs posting & prices
• Wonkhe Pass
• Monday Briefing
• Wonkhe Daily
• Policy Update
• ADD NEW SUs USER
• COST OF LIVING HUB
• BRIEFINGS INDEX
• WEBINAR INDEX
• LATEST SUs BLOGS
• FREE SPEECH
• SU STRATEGIES

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Students that use essay mills are vulnerable to blackmail

Author 1 's' : '')>, daniel sokol.

Daniel Sokol is the founder of Alpha Academic Appeals

Bradley Talbot

Bradley Talbot is a legal adviser at Alpha Academic Appeals

• academic misconduct
• SU Featured

In recent years, the popularity of essay-writing companies (sometimes called essay- mills) has grown.

These companies purport to offer original, “plagiarism-free” assignments in exchange for a fee. Some studies estimate that worldwide up to 1 in 7 students have enlisted the help of essay mills for at least one assignment.

Aside from detection by the student’s institution, a risk of using essay mills is blackmail. And we are increasingly coming across cases of it.

What is blackmail?

Blackmail is a criminal offence under section 21(1) of the theft act 1968, punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. The offence is comprised of three principal elements.

1. Demands made with menaces: “pay us or we will inform your institution”

In order to commit blackmail, there must be a menacing demand. A demand, whether explicit or implicit, is menacing if it is detrimental or unpleasant to the victim.

Essay mills demand payment. In default, they threaten to inform the institution that the student has used, or attempted to use, their service.

In one case, Simon (not his real name) wanted to cancel his contract with an essay mill after he got cold feet only minutes after ordering the work. The company refused a refund and warned that its legal department could take “strong actions” against him.

The essay mill sent Simon a deluge of frightening emails and notified him that, in the event of non-payment, they would inform his university of his attempt to use an essay mill, post the work online and sue him for a “serious academic act”. Simon agreed to pay for the essay.

In another case, similar underhand tactics were used. Rosie (not her real name), tempted by an attractive discount, paid an essay mill to write an assignment. When she received it, she found that it failed to follow the brief, contained errors and was not written by a native English speaker.

Despite boasting a “100% money back” guarantee on its website, the company refused to return the money.

The company informed Rosie that it would need to contact the VC of her university to confirm that she was not using the essay. The company, however, offered to close down her account without the need to contact her university for £300.

Rosie paid up. Soon after, the company’s compliance officer informed her that the money had not been received and requested that a further £300 be paid into another account. This is a common tactic.

In both cases, the essay mills made demands for money. As enlisting third-party assistance for assignments can lead to expulsion, the essay mills know that threatening to inform the university is “unpleasant or detrimental”. It was this fear that caused Simon and Rosie to yield to the essay mills’ demands.

2. Unwarranted demands: “we are entitled to the money”

To constitute blackmail, the menacing demands must be unwarranted. The 1968 act provides that a person making a menacing demand will be committing blackmail unless they genuinely believe that:

• they have reasonable grounds for making the demand, and
• it is proper or lawful to reinforce it with those menaces.

In Simon’s case, the essay mill had no genuine belief that they were entitled to demand more money or that the threat was proper. The threats to contact Simon’s university, post the work online and sue him for a “serious academic act” were coercive attempts to get him to continue with a contract which he was entitled in law to cancel.

Similarly, in Rosie’s case, the essay mills fabricated the closing down fee to compel further payment. Since the closing down fee was a sham and inconsistent with its own terms and conditions, the company could not have genuinely believed that it was reasonable to ask for the payment.

That the essay mills ceased correspondence with simon and rosie once they realised that a lawyer was involved reflects their lack of genuine belief in their entitlement to the money. They knew that their demands were unwarranted and that their arguments would not withstand legal scrutiny.

3. Your loss is their gain

Finally, the offence of blackmail requires the unwarranted and menacing demand to be made to make a gain or cause loss to the victim.

The essay mills in simon’s and rosie’s cases acted with a view to their own financial gain. Feeding off the students’ fear that the university would be tipped off, the essay mills’ only motivation was to wring more money out of them.

This brief analysis reveals that some essay mills commit the criminal offence of blackmail to extort more money from students.

Beware of the blackmailers

Our advice to students is obviously to avoid using essay mills. If, however, students do use one and find themselves on the receiving end of intimidatory tactics, they should not reply, not pay any money (since the chances of recovery are slim) and seek specialist help immediately.

This article does not constitute any form of legal advice and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice relevant to particular circumstances. You should consult your own lawyer for legal advice.

• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

SUs latest Latest SUs blogs Latest SUs blogs -->

Why are we paying students to be good citizens, there’s only so much that universities can do, faculty-based officers are about giving student communities power, why we need a new benchmark for academic representation (and how you can get involved), meeting students’ basic needs is about more than just a pantry, what should sus do when an election is in the summer, we’ve worked with careers to build student engagement and promote employability, isn’t su awards season all a bit elitist, latest sus briefings latest sus briefings latest sus briefings -->, the wonkhe sus 2024 general election student policy guide, general election 2024 manifesto watch: the reform party, what on earth is “graduate outcomes” data and why should sus care, finding your university in the data: summer 2024 edition, top ten takeaways from this year’s student academic experience survey, gaza campus protests: two human rights law experts write new principles for universities, general election 2024 manifesto watch: plaid cymru, general election 2024 manifesto watch: the labour party, festival side festival side -->, one response to “ students that use essay mills are vulnerable to blackmail ”.

I eschew terms terms that use ‘black’ pejoratively (and ‘white’ approvingly) since they reinforce the racial stereotypes that black = bad and white = good.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Copyright © 2024 Wonkhe Ltd.

Company Number: 08784934

Wonkhe Ltd, Lower Third Floor Evelyn Suite, Quantum House,

22-24 Red Lion Court, London, United Kingdom, EC4A 3EB

• Moderation policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy

Wonkhe Mondays

Organisation

Job Area professional area Academic Learning and teaching Academic registry and Quality Finance Business Development Policy and public affairs Planning and strategy Marketing, PR and communications International Student Services, recruitment and WP HR and resources Research and doctoral Research manager Library services Estates management Legal and governance Data, IT and technology Students' Unions Unsure / other

Job Level level Entry Level (assistant, administrative) Intermediate Middle Management (e.g. Head of, manager, director) Senior Leadership (e.g. DVC/PVC/Dean) Head of organisation (VC/principal/CEO) Unsure / other

By submitting you agree to our terms and conditions

Essay by Bryony Dixon & Kieron Webb, BFI National Archive (UK)

Hitchcock’s silent  Blackmail  is one of the best British films, if not the best, of the late 1920s. Made in 1929, during the transition to the sound era, it was commissioned as both a silent and as a part-talkie with music and some dialogue scenes. With remarkable skill (and an eye to building a solid career in the new medium), Hitchcock managed to produce both a beautifully crafted silent and a groundbreaking sound version. Indeed, he tackled the considerable technical obstacles with such imagination that the latter has tended to obscure the reputation of the silent version, which is in fact superior in a number of ways.

As Hitchcock said, “The silent pictures were the purest form of cinema” and indeed the film contains more shots, more camera movement and the fluidity of the cutting conveys the narrative with greater style. Every scene counts and every shot either enhances the atmosphere or moves the story along. The opening eight minutes of the film is a tour de force of montage in which we see the forces of the law hunt down and “process” a career villain from capture to the police cell. Blackmail displays many of the stylistic elements and themes with which Hitchcock would come to be associated: particularly a fascination with male sexual aggression and female vulnerability. Like the later Sabotage (1936) it features a woman who is protected from the law by her policeman lover. It is also one of a number of Hitchcock’s films to feature a heroine who enters a daze or “fugue” state in which she acts mechanically and apparently without control of her actions—other examples are  Murder!  (1930),  Sabotage  and, more ambiguously,  Vertigo  (1958) and  Psycho  (1960).

The young Michael Powell ( A Matter of Life and Death , 1946), then a stills photographer, claimed to have suggested that the script should lose the third act of the original play, in which it is revealed that no murder has been committed, and end instead with a chase over the dome of the British Museum Reading Room.  The Lodger  and  The Ring  both have London locations, but this is undoubtedly the first of Hitchcock’s trademark set-piece finales.

Festival Details

Special guest(s), release date:  1929.

share this!

December 1, 2021

Students who cheat don't just have to worry about getting caught, they risk blackmail and extortion

by Kristina Nicholls, The Conversation

When students use a commercial contract cheating service, getting caught by their lecturers is just one of many serious consequences that could damage them and those who trust them. They also expose themselves to blackmail and extortion. Despite these risks, one in ten students at Australian higher education institutions have used a commercial cheating service to complete an assessment, according to survey findings presented at the inaugural Australian Academic Integrity Network Forum 2021 (AAIN) hosted by Torrens University.

With sophisticated artificial intelligence and indeed sinister forces coming into play, there is a growing urgency for higher education institutions to act on this increasing threat to academic integrity. The threat isn't just to the reputation of institutions. It also places students at risk.

When students fill in their credit card number to complete a purchase from a contract cheating service , they are doing business with unscrupulous gremlins. They risk heading down a sinister black hole of extortion and blackmail using the threat of exposure to their university or employer.

Remember: cheat sites for assessments are not your friends. Read this account from @AcademicAppeals of an Essay Mill's attempt to blackmail a student. https://t.co/iT8EJBRnfI — Mike Ratcliffe (@mike_rat) May 1, 2020

Services have found a new income stream

Extortion is the new name of the game. Contract-cheating gremlins have turned to blackmail as an ongoing source of income from students. They threaten to tell the university the student has bought an assignment unless the student pays up.

Students can be blackmailed even after finishing their degrees when the gremlins threaten to expose their cheating behavior to employers.

If the student refuses to pay up, then the gremlins get to work on destroying their credibility. The university can revoke the degree the student "earned." The student loses their qualification and potentially their career and suffers reputational damage and financial loss.

Contract cheating starts off as a rational approach to getting an assignment done quickly and easily. As the student descends the morality ladder, the lines between right and wrong become blurred. The student who engages in academic misconduct is laying the foundations for unethical conduct in the workplace.

There is strong evidence that cheating as a student can lay the foundations for unethical behavior in life and as members of society.

When the US audit watchdog fined KPMG Australia A$615,000 following major cheating in its workplace, it revealed the dangers of the normalization of these practices in society. Similarly, ASIC is suing the ANZ Bank for breaching the Credit Act by allegedly paying commissions to unlicensed third parties who referred borrowers to the bank for loans. Bank representatives overlooked these actions in an attempt to achieve sales targets for bonuses.

Gremlins are smart. They advertise their services as assignment help and tutors 24/7, in an attempt to normalize the practice of cheating.

New study finds that 91.8% of students are not aware that using contract cheating services leaves them open to blackmail (although 2.4% of students know someone who has been blackmailed by a #contractcheating service—the risk is real) #academicintegrity https://t.co/vgBp51nqH5 — Thomas Lancaster (@DrLancaster) February 26, 2020

Students then unknowingly open themselves up to a raft of offenses, including misrepresentation, fraud, forgery and financial advantage from crime. When a student submits a bought assignment and completes the cover sheet stating that it's their own work, it could be considered fraud because they are making a false or misleading statement. The financial advantage from this action would be the avoidance of retaking a subject and saving on course fees.

It's potentially an act of forgery when a student submits a fabricated assignment and the university considers it to be original work, legitimately created by the student. So far no students have been charged with fraud for submitting a contract-cheated assessment in Australia.

What is being done about cheating?

The Australian government's introduction of anti-cheating laws in 2020 offers some hope of reining in the gremlins. The first successful prosecution by the higher education regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), resulted in the blocking of two illegal cheating websites.

The new law also makes the promotion and selling of contract cheating services illegal. Penalties include up to two years' jail and a fine of $110,000.

By their very nature, these services are not exemplars of integrity and ethical behavior. They blackmail their customers and exploit the so-called "academic" writers they employ. They are now also recruiting students to on-sell their services, exposing them to the risk of a criminal record.

Blackmail is a real outcome for students who #contractcheat . @UniofAdelaide #academicintegrity pic.twitter.com/UeKBGUeIUH — Dr. Amanda White (@AmandasAudit) February 27, 2020

Individuals make a significant investment in their education. But if they turn to cheating, their actions can have far-reaching consequences for their lives. They also harm those around them—their families, partners, employers and society in general.

While the AAIN Forum identified some strategies to encourage students to rethink cheating, it is critical that we create a robust culture of academic integrity across our institutions. Appreciating the true value of a well-earned degree will be just as important as the law in keeping the cheat gremlins at bay.

Let the student buyer beware!

Provided by The Conversation

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Look to women for sustainable livestock farming bordering the Amazon rainforest, says study

2 hours ago

New study finds at least 1 in 4 US residential yards exceeds new EPA lead soil level guideline

Biologists take closer look at stress response in cells

3 hours ago

City sprawl is now large enough to sway global warming over land

New theory broadens phase transition exploration

4 hours ago

Physicists combine multiple Higgs boson pair studies and discover clues about the stability of the universe

5 hours ago

Anti-Asian rhetoric during the pandemic negatively impacted employment and earnings, new research finds

6 hours ago

New method enhances X-ray microscopy for detecting tiny defects

New technique achieves visualization of instantaneous states of materials in high-speed devices

Team of biologists discover fluorescence in 27 marine creatures

Relevant physicsforums posts, how is physics taught without calculus.

Jun 16, 2024

Is "College Algebra" really just high school "Algebra II"?

Uk school physics exam from 1967.

May 27, 2024

Physics education is 60 years out of date

May 16, 2024

Plagiarism & ChatGPT: Is Cheating with AI the New Normal?

May 13, 2024

Physics Instructor Minimum Education to Teach Community College

May 11, 2024

More from STEM Educators and Teaching

Related Stories

Study: COVID-19 creates a new marketplace for contract cheating

Oct 11, 2021

A new law to tackle contract cheating and Essay Mills?

Dec 6, 2017

Finding the freelance cheats

May 8, 2019

Latest study reveals sharp rise in essay cheating globally, with millions of students involved

Aug 31, 2018

Don't assume online students are more likely to cheat. The evidence is murky

Jul 27, 2018

15% of students admit to buying essays. What can universities do about it?

Oct 18, 2018

Recommended for you

Study reveals complex dynamics of philanthropic funding for US science

Jun 10, 2024

First-generation medical students face unique challenges and need more targeted support, say researchers

Investigation reveals varied impact of preschool programs on long-term school success

May 2, 2024

Training of brain processes makes reading more efficient

Apr 18, 2024

Researchers find lower grades given to students with surnames that come later in alphabetical order

Apr 17, 2024

Earth, the sun and a bike wheel: Why your high-school textbook was wrong about the shape of Earth's orbit

Apr 8, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

San Francisco Silent Film Festival

The San Francisco Silent Film Festival is a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating the public about silent film as an art form and as a culturally valuable historical record.

• The Hitchcock 9 2013

Hitchcock’s silent  Blackmail  is one of the best British films, if not the best, of the late 1920s. Made in 1929, during the transition to the sound era, it was commissioned as both a silent and as a part-talkie with music and some dialogue scenes. With remarkable skill (and an eye to building a solid career in the new medium), Hitchcock managed to produce both a beautifully crafted silent and a groundbreaking sound version. Indeed, he tackled the considerable technical obstacles with such imagination that the latter has tended to obscure the reputation of the silent version, which is in fact superior in a number of ways.

As Hitchcock said, “The silent pictures were the purest form of cinema” and indeed the film contains more shots, more camera movement and the fluidity of the cutting conveys the narrative with greater style. Every scene counts and every shot either enhances the atmosphere or moves the story along. The opening eight minutes of the film is a tour de force of montage in which we see the forces of the law hunt down and “process” a career villain from capture to the police cell. Blackmail displays many of the stylistic elements and themes with which Hitchcock would come to be associated: particularly a fascination with male sexual aggression and female vulnerability. Like the later Sabotage (1936) it features a woman who is protected from the law by her policeman lover. It is also one of a number of Hitchcock’s films to feature a heroine who enters a daze or “fugue” state in which she acts mechanically and apparently without control of her actions—other examples are  Murder!  (1930),  Sabotage  and, more ambiguously,  Vertigo  (1958) and  Psycho  (1960).

The young Michael Powell ( A Matter of Life and Death , 1946), then a stills photographer, claimed to have suggested that the script should lose the third act of the original play, in which it is revealed that no murder has been committed, and end instead with a chase over the dome of the British Museum Reading Room.  The Lodger  and  The Ring  both have London locations, but this is undoubtedly the first of Hitchcock’s trademark set-piece finales.

The Restoration Fortunately the BFI National Archive holds the original negative of the silent version. However the negative had suffered extensively from “curling” as a result of one side of the film stock having shrunk more than the other. This, in combination with very narrow joins between shots, meant careful digital scanning was required to prevent further damage and to make the film lie flat in the scanner’s gate. Without this, the sharpness of the images would have been severely compromised. Eventually, despite the curl of the film emulsion and the delicate splices, a sharp scan with excellent tonal range was achieved.

The film is one of the first features to be scanned on the BFI’s scanner and it has benefited from the use of a wet-gate for sections of the film. In this technology, the film is immersed in a fluid at the point of scanning in order to greatly reduce or eliminate the many fine scratches on the surface. After scanning, which was carried out at 4K resolution, the negative’s remaining damage and several multi-frame tears were removed by digital repair. The intertitles were present at full-length—rather than the “flash-titles” which often exist in other silent negatives—and have been preserved as part of the new master. The dissolves between shots are a crucial part of the film’s narration and, where possible, they have been reconstructed from the two separate shots.

In the end, the restoration has produced an exceptionally clean picture that retains the essence, texture and beauty of the original photography.

Restoration by the BFI National Archive in association with STUDIOCANAL. Principal restoration funding provided by The Hollywood Foreign Press Association and The Film Foundation. Additional funding provided by Deluxe 142, Pia Getty, Col & Karen Needham, and the Dr. Mortimer & Theresa Sackler Foundation

Presented at The Hitchcock 9 event with live music by Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra

The Cheat Sheet

Essay Mills, Blackmail and Expulsion

Plus, should schools not consider evidence of cheating if it comes from a blackmailer plus, edtech digest pumps up cheating tool. plus, have you seen this woman.

To join the 2,904 smart people who subscribe to “The Cheat Sheet,” enter your e-mail address below:

If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the 11 amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks a month via Patreon. And to those who are, thank you!

Support "The Cheat Sheet"

Essay Mill Blackmail and Expulsion

Daniel Sokol, a British barrister, academic integrity lawyer and friend of The Cheat Sheet, has another article this week - this one in Wonkhe.

In it, Sokol tells of a post-grad student on a study visa who used the services of an essay mill and was blackmailed after submitting his mill-assisted work. The blackmail scheme is fairly common - pay more or be turned in to your school for cheating. I wrote about one in Issue 48 .

What’s different about the case Sokol shares is that the blackmailing essay mill actually followed through and turned the student in, leading to expulsion, revocation of the student visa and having to re-pay significant program fees.

The student simply did not believe the paid essay writer would do it.

Interestingly, Sokol suggests that essay mill blackmail may become more common soon as essay mills struggle to sustain business or fight to change their service models in the ChatGTP era. Personally, I think essay mills will be fine, given how wrong and predictable ChatGPT can be. But it’s an intriguing consideration and he may well be right.

Further in the article, Sokol suggests that, to combat this type of blackmail, universities refuse information from blackmailers. He writes:

To discourage blackmail, universities should refuse “tip offs” of cheating without proof of identity by the reporter and if there is evidence of unconscionable conduct, such as threats and blackmail, directed at the student.

I disagree.

The risk of blackmail or the risk of being caught is a deterrent to using contract cheating providers. If students know that their schools will ignore evidence of cheating when it comes from a co-conspirator or blackmailer, there’s less downside to using an essay service. Promising to disregard evidence of misconduct incentivizes misconduct.

It is dangerous to do business with people who sell fraud - it’s possible they cannot be trusted. If schools want to help their students, they should tell them that.

In fact, I’d prefer to see schools have policies committing them to act on all evidence of essay or education fraud, even if it comes from dubious sources. Certain action, and stories such as the one Sokol relays - cheating, blackmail, being turned in, expelled and kicked out of the country - will prevent cheating. That should be what we all want.

Cool Tool. But Not for School.

For reasons that escape me, Edtech Digest, has added QuillBot - the cheating friendly paraphrasing engine owned by Course Hero - to its series “Cool Tools.”

That’s not true, actually. I have a pretty good idea why.

Anyway, the write up is laughable:

On average, QuillBot helps students save 75% of their time spent on a writing project

Wow. That is cool. I bet it is pretty darn easy to save 75% of your writing time when you don’t have to actually write anything.

And, golly:

Here’s a solution that helps lifelong learners transform their thoughts into comprehensive and compelling write-ups.

Transform thoughts into compelling write-ups. You mean, it writes for you. Yes, that’s what it does. It’s a cheating engine. Everyone knows it. And yet, in the Edtech Digest write up, not a word about cheating - not even the usual toothless warning not to use it for cheating. They don’t even mention that it’s owned by Course Hero.

They do say that Quillbot has “7 million monthly active users,” which is probably true.

And Edtech Digest did thoughtfully tweet it to their 42,000 followers:

I just don’t know what more to say.

Interpol Seeks Leader in Singapore Cheating Case

According to this article by the BBC, Interpol is seeking Poh Yuan Nie, 57, for her role in exam cheating.

The article is absolutely worth a read.

Here’s an excerpt:

Poh's ex-girlfriend Tan Jia Yan, then aged 30, also sat for the papers as a private candidate. She did so with a camera phone attached to her chest via sticky tape, and hidden beneath her clothes. Using FaceTime, Tan broadcast a livestream of the papers to Poh, her niece Fiona Poh and an employee Feng Riwen, who were waiting at the tuition centre. The trio then worked out the answers and fed them to the students via their headphones. "If I heard them clearly, I should keep silent, if not, I should cough," testified one student. The scheme unravelled when an exam supervisor heard unusual transmission sounds coming from one of the students, who came clean when questioned.

Poh, the article says, was convicted of 27 counts of cheating and sentenced to “between two and four years” in jail. And now Interpol wants her.

Damn. Don’t cheat in Singapore, right?

Ready for more?