Investigating the Relationship Between Approval and Experiences of Intimate Partner Aggression in Heterosexual Relationships

<p>This study explored the relationship between participants’ approval of intimate partner aggression (IPA) and their experiences of IPA in heterosexual relationships. Male (n = 216) and female (n = 299) university students completed an online questionnaire that consisted of the Conflict Tactic Scale-2, the Controlling Behaviours Survey-revised, and the Beliefs about Relationship Aggression Scale. Bivariate analyses showed the majority of aggressive and controlling behaviours were perpetrated and experienced at similar rates between men and women. ANOVA found an interaction effect where both male and female participants held greater approval of female-to-male aggression, compared to male-to-female aggression, when provoked by physical, sexual, or psychological aggression, or infidelity. An interaction between participants’ gender and the aggressors’ gender in the vignettes showed men were significantly more approving of female aggression than women. ANOVA also demonstrated a main effect of perpetration status (aggressive/non-aggressive), where aggressive students approved of IPA more than non-aggressive students, regardless of the participant’s or the aggressor’s gender. These findings show that participants, especially male participants, hold chivalrous beliefs about IPA in heterosexual relationships. Although this chivalrous pattern also held for aggressive participants, aggressive men and women both displayed significantly higher approval of aggression by both male and female perpetrators than non-aggressive controls. Therefore, this study found perpetrators of IPA not only approve of aggression by their own gender significantly more than non-aggressors, but also tolerate aggression by the opposite gender more readily. The need for treatment to address beliefs that approve of IPA by both partners in heterosexual relationships, rather than gender specific beliefs, is discussed alongside other implications for practice and policy.</p>

Investigating the Relationship Between Approval and Experiences of Intimate Partner Aggression in Heterosexual Relationships

<p>This study explored the relationship between participants’ approval of intimate partner aggression (IPA) and their experiences of IPA in heterosexual relationships. Male (n = 216) and female (n = 299) university students completed an online questionnaire that consisted of the Conflict Tactic Scale-2, the Controlling Behaviours Survey-revised, and the Beliefs about Relationship Aggression Scale. Bivariate analyses showed the majority of aggressive and controlling behaviours were perpetrated and experienced at similar rates between men and women. ANOVA found an interaction effect where both male and female participants held greater approval of female-to-male aggression, compared to male-to-female aggression, when provoked by physical, sexual, or psychological aggression, or infidelity. An interaction between participants’ gender and the aggressors’ gender in the vignettes showed men were significantly more approving of female aggression than women. ANOVA also demonstrated a main effect of perpetration status (aggressive/non-aggressive), where aggressive students approved of IPA more than non-aggressive students, regardless of the participant’s or the aggressor’s gender. These findings show that participants, especially male participants, hold chivalrous beliefs about IPA in heterosexual relationships. Although this chivalrous pattern also held for aggressive participants, aggressive men and women both displayed significantly higher approval of aggression by both male and female perpetrators than non-aggressive controls. Therefore, this study found perpetrators of IPA not only approve of aggression by their own gender significantly more than non-aggressors, but also tolerate aggression by the opposite gender more readily. The need for treatment to address beliefs that approve of IPA by both partners in heterosexual relationships, rather than gender specific beliefs, is discussed alongside other implications for practice and policy.</p>

Neural Mechanisms of Intimate Partner Aggression

People sometimes hurt those they profess to love; yet our understanding of intimate partner aggression (IPA) and its causes remains incomplete. We examined brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in an ethnically and racially diverse sample of 50 female-male, monogamous romantic couples as they completed an aggression task against their intimate partner, a close friend, and a different-sex stranger. Laboratory and real-world IPA were uniquely associated with altered activity within and connectivity between cortical midline structures that subserve social cognition and the computation of value. Men’s IPA most corresponded to lower posterior cingulate reactivity during provocation and women’s IPA most corresponded to lower ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity during IPA itself. Actor-partner independence modeling suggested women’s IPA may correspond to their male partner’s neural reactivity to provocation. Broadly, these findings highlight the importance of self-regulatory functions of the medial cortex and away from effortful inhibition subserved by dorsolateral cortices.

Control and Intimate Partner Aggression

<p>Control is fundamental to theoretical conceptualizations of intimate partner aggression (IPA). In particular, it has been instrumental in the development of typologies of IPA, where control has been associated with more frequent and serious IPA carried out by men against women. Consequently, the concept of control has heavily influenced the design of treatment and legislation targeting partner violence. However, there is considerable theoretical divergence as to how control should be conceptualized, operationalized, and measured. This thesis comprises a series of studies designed to test the validity of some of the key theoretical assumptions that inform the common conceptualizations of control by examining control as a behavior, as a motivation, and as an outcome. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the thesis rationale and objectives. Chapter 2 investigated the theoretical assumption that non-physical ‘controlling behaviors’ (e.g., restricting access to money; threatening harm) comprise a unique form of IPA. Exploratory (N = 561) and confirmatory (N = 424) factor analyses on 54 measures used across the IPA literature identified three forms of aggression: Eclectic Aggression, Direct Psychological Aggression, Monitoring Acts. There was no evidence for a distinct form of ‘controlling behaviors’. Chapter 3 systematically reviewed the literature on motivations for physical and psychological IPA. The review aimed to appraise the quality of the literature and ascertain which motivations had the largest effect sizes. A meta-analysis of the motivations for physical IPA suggested self-defense, retaliation for emotional hurt, and communication difficulties had larger effect sizes than control. Chapter 4 investigated the assumptions that control motivations are associated with more severe and frequent IPA and IPA perpetrated by men. Categorical principal and latent class analyses (N = 1166) found considerable heterogeneity in motivations for IPA for both genders, but no evidence of distinct patterns or profiles of controlling motivations for either men or women. Chapter 5 investigated the assumptions that coercive control is experienced exclusively by women and is related to experiencing specific types and more frequent IPA (N = 1174). Evidence did not support a “coercive control” pattern or profile in people who experienced IPA, or that coercive control outcomes were gendered, or associated with the type or the frequency of IPA behaviors used. Regressing the item-average of coercive control outcomes on experiences of IPA in a path analysis provided some evidence that gender and experiences of physical and psychological aggression predicted feelings of coercive control. Collectively, the results of the thesis identified considerable heterogeneity in the patterns of behaviors, motivations and outcomes for IPA. The evidence challenges existing conceptualizations of control as a distinct and gendered construct and indicates the need for the development of a theoretical explanation of control, that is both gender-inclusive and multi-factorial, to guide future research.</p>

Control and Intimate Partner Aggression

<p>Control is fundamental to theoretical conceptualizations of intimate partner aggression (IPA). In particular, it has been instrumental in the development of typologies of IPA, where control has been associated with more frequent and serious IPA carried out by men against women. Consequently, the concept of control has heavily influenced the design of treatment and legislation targeting partner violence. However, there is considerable theoretical divergence as to how control should be conceptualized, operationalized, and measured. This thesis comprises a series of studies designed to test the validity of some of the key theoretical assumptions that inform the common conceptualizations of control by examining control as a behavior, as a motivation, and as an outcome. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the thesis rationale and objectives. Chapter 2 investigated the theoretical assumption that non-physical ‘controlling behaviors’ (e.g., restricting access to money; threatening harm) comprise a unique form of IPA. Exploratory (N = 561) and confirmatory (N = 424) factor analyses on 54 measures used across the IPA literature identified three forms of aggression: Eclectic Aggression, Direct Psychological Aggression, Monitoring Acts. There was no evidence for a distinct form of ‘controlling behaviors’. Chapter 3 systematically reviewed the literature on motivations for physical and psychological IPA. The review aimed to appraise the quality of the literature and ascertain which motivations had the largest effect sizes. A meta-analysis of the motivations for physical IPA suggested self-defense, retaliation for emotional hurt, and communication difficulties had larger effect sizes than control. Chapter 4 investigated the assumptions that control motivations are associated with more severe and frequent IPA and IPA perpetrated by men. Categorical principal and latent class analyses (N = 1166) found considerable heterogeneity in motivations for IPA for both genders, but no evidence of distinct patterns or profiles of controlling motivations for either men or women. Chapter 5 investigated the assumptions that coercive control is experienced exclusively by women and is related to experiencing specific types and more frequent IPA (N = 1174). Evidence did not support a “coercive control” pattern or profile in people who experienced IPA, or that coercive control outcomes were gendered, or associated with the type or the frequency of IPA behaviors used. Regressing the item-average of coercive control outcomes on experiences of IPA in a path analysis provided some evidence that gender and experiences of physical and psychological aggression predicted feelings of coercive control. Collectively, the results of the thesis identified considerable heterogeneity in the patterns of behaviors, motivations and outcomes for IPA. The evidence challenges existing conceptualizations of control as a distinct and gendered construct and indicates the need for the development of a theoretical explanation of control, that is both gender-inclusive and multi-factorial, to guide future research.</p>