Same violence, different answer: how AI responds to coercive control against women across languages

Key Findings

• — Failure splits along two independent axes: systems from non-anglophone developers gave way most often in their builders' own language, and how far a sympathetic excuse for the partner stripped a model's naming of the control varied sharply by language
• — Pooled held-line rates across all seven systems range from 83% in Hebrew to 43% in Chinese; a composite protection measure orders the same way, 72% Hebrew to 37% Chinese
• — Two frontier systems (GPT-5.5 and Claude Haiku 4.5) declined the letter in every one of the nine languages and did nearly all the protective work in each, so a protective ceiling is attainable within this scenario family and failures elsewhere are a design outcome
• — The authors argue recognition of coercive control should be held to a per-language floor

Methodology Notes

Preprint, arXiv 2608.01436, submitted 2026-08-02, 16 pages; supplementary methods, coding manual and data workbook included as arXiv ancillary files. Affiliations from the PDF title block: Universitat de Barcelona (Electronic and Biomedical Engineering; Sociology); the abs page does not state affiliations. Single scripted scenario family with variants, seven repeats per cell, single-turn, no system instruction — the one-scenario design is the main thinness caveat.

Sources