Social Support as a Moderator for Alcohol-Related Partner Aggression During the Transition to Parenthood

Abstract

Alcohol-related partner aggression is a pervasive social problem throughout various life stages, including the transition to parenthood. Previous research shows that alcohol use is associated with partner aggression perpetration for both men and women; however, not all individuals who consume alcohol act aggressively. In this study, the moderating effects of general social support and partner-specific support on the association between prepregnancy alcohol use and recent partner physical aggression are investigated using a community sample of 98 pregnant couples. For men, high levels of general appraisal social support (i.e., someone to talk to about one’s problems) increases the strength of the association between alcohol use and aggression perpetration, whereas partner-specific emotional support serves as a buffer. For women, general social support is not a significant moderator, but high levels of partner-specific instrumental support strengthens the association between alcohol use and aggression. These results can be applied to prevention and treatment programs for alcohol-related partner aggression.

Keywords

partner physical aggression alcohol use pregnancy social support partner-specific support

Aggression between couples is now widely recognized as a prevalent social concern. A large representative sample in the United States indicated that 12% of men and women were the victims of at least one act of partner physical aggression during the past year (Stets & Straus, 1990). Looking specifically at at-risk young couples, 21% of men and 26% of women reported perpetrating physical aggression against their current romantic partner (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997). Although female-to-male partner aggression has previously received less attention, it is now recognized that women are also perpetrators of aggression. Partner aggression is most prevalent in the early to mid-20s and much less common from then on (O’Leary & Woodin, 2005).

Contrary to popular belief, partner aggression also occurs during pregnancy. Charles and Perreira found that 33% of women and 40% of men in a nationally representative cohort of pregnant couples in the United States reported being the victim of physical aggression during or one year after pregnancy. Consistent with these high rates, some research suggests that partner aggression increases in frequency and severity during pregnancy (e.g., Burch & Gallup, 2004). Moreover, if partner aggression occurred during pregnancy, there was a 70% to 80% greater likelihood of partner aggression occurring one year after pregnancy than if there was no aggression during pregnancy (Charles & Perreira, 2007). It is important to explore aggression in the context of parenthood because couples who engage in partner aggression are at-risk for engaging in negative parenting practices, such as child abuse and neglect (Zolotor, Theodore, Coyne-Beasley, & Runyan, 2007). In addition, childhood exposure to partner aggression is associated with depression, anxiety, behavior problems, and a proneness to violence perpetration and victimization (Owen et al., 2008).

Alcohol Use and Partner Aggression

A recent meta-analysis of 50 studies indicated that there is a small-to-moderate effect for the relationship between alcohol use and male-to-female partner physical aggression and a small effect for the association between alcohol use and female-to-male partner physical aggression (Foran & O’Leary, 2008). The well-documented association between alcohol use and partner aggression perpetration has encouraged researchers to explain how alcohol influences aggression. Recent research supports the proximal effects model that suggests that alcohol use directly facilitates aggression due to its effects on cognitive functioning (e.g., Fals-Stewart, 2003).

Social Support as a Moderator

Despite the consistent link between alcohol use and partner aggression perpetration, not all individuals who consume alcohol become aggressive with their partners. Various researchers have proposed different moderators in the link between alcohol use and partner aggression (e.g., Foran & O’Leary, 2007; Schumacher, Homish, Leonard, Quigley, & Kearns-Bodkin, 2008). Given the known benefits of social support (e.g., Owen et al., 2008), social support may be a moderating variable that serves as a buffer for individuals who may otherwise be at risk for alcohol-related partner aggression.

Social support consists of responsiveness to another’s needs; acts that communicate caring; validation of other’s words, feelings, or actions; or the facilitation of coping with problems through information or tangible resources (Cutrona, 1996). Four types of social support have been proposed: (1) appraisal social support is the availability of someone to talk to about one’s problems, (2) self-esteem social support is the availability of a positive comparison, (3) belonging social support is the availability of people to socialize with, and (4) tangible social support is the availability of material aid (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983). Although many researchers have focused on the positive effects of social support for the victim of partner aggression (e.g., Coker et al., 2002), few researchers have examined how social support affects the potential perpetrator. Two contradictory predictions have been proposed for how perceived social support influences perpetrators of partner aggression. First, control theory states that individuals who have strong attachments to others fear negative sanctions from their loved ones and, therefore, are less likely to act aggressively (Loseke, 2005). In contrast, deviant peer theory suggests that individuals are drawn to others whose approval or disapproval of partner aggression matches their own. Therefore, aggressive individuals who have a large support network that supports their aggression will be more likely to engage in aggression than similar individuals with smaller support networks (e.g., O’Leary, Smith Slep, & O’Leary, 2007).

Intimate partners are particularly important sources of social support. Research has found that support provided outside of a marriage does not compensate for a lack of spousal support (Coyne & DeLongis, 1986). Moreover, partner-specific support is believed to be related to relationship satisfaction. In a sample of newly married couples, Pasch and Bradbury (1998) found that wives’ support solicitation and provision behaviors predicted marital outcomes 2 years later independent of negative behaviors displayed during discussions between partners. Specifically, wives of couples who were later classified as distressed were about half as likely to display positive behavior and twice as likely to display negative behavior when offering support as well as twice as likely to engage in negative behavior when receiving partner support compared to wives of couples who were later classified as satisfied or highly satisfied.

The Current Study

The goal of this study was to determine whether social support serves as a moderator for the association between alcohol use and partner aggression perpetration, using a sample of couples expecting their first child. First, it was hypothesized that there would be a correlation between alcohol use and partner physical aggression perpetration and this correlation would be stronger for men than women. Second, it was hypothesized that both general social support (appraisal, self-esteem, belonging, and tangible support) and partner-specific support (positive nonverbal, instrumental, and emotional support) would moderate the relation between alcohol use and partner aggression whereby high levels of support would result in a weaker alcohol-aggression link. Third, it was expected that different forms of general social support would serve as important moderators for the alcohol–aggression link for each gender. Specifically, appraisal, self-esteem, and belonging forms of support were believed to be important forms for women and tangible social support was believed to be an important form of support for men (e.g., Reevy & Maslach, 2001). Due to the limited extant research on partner-specific support, no specific hypotheses were generated for which forms of support were more important for each gender.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through brochures distributed to maternity physicians’ offices, midwives, and prenatal classes as well as through advertisements on local university and college campuses, maternity-related stores, and baby fairs. Interested couples were given a brief interview by telephone in order to determine if they were eligible to participate. Eligible couples were (a) living together, (b) able to speak and read in the English language, and (c) in the third trimester of pregnancy with their first biological child.

A total of 100 couples participated in the study. Due to the nature of the research questions, two same-sex couples that participated were excluded from the analyses, resulting in a final sample of 98 heterosexual couples. The average ages of participant men and women were 32.03 (SD = 5.51) and 29.98 (SD = 5.49) years, respectively. The average levels of education were 14.77 (SD = 2.38) years for men and 15.28 (SD = 2.31) years for women. Approximately 64% of men and 59% of women were employed full-time and their average annual incomes were CAD$51,716 (SD = CAD$35,254) and CAD$35,019 (SD = CAD$24,825), respectively. Approximately 69% of the couples were legally married, and the average time couples reported living together was 4.55 (SD = 3.15) years. The average length of pregnancy was 30.52 (SD = 3.65) weeks. Approximately 13% of the men and 14% of the women identified with an ethnic minority group.

Procedures

Data for this study were part of a larger Partners to Parents Study. Couples completed a 3.5-hr session at the University of Victoria. Participants were told that the study was designed to learn about how couples adjust to the transition to parenthood. Anonymity and confidentiality procedures were carefully explained to both members of each couple verbally and through written consent forms. After consent was obtained, participants were seated in separate, nonadjoining rooms to complete a series of computerized questionnaires.

Following the questionnaires, couples engaged in two 10-min videotaped interaction tasks used to measure their ability to provide support to each other. To complete this task, each partner identified an important personal characteristic or issue that he or she wanted to change, with the restriction that the topic could not cause relationship tension. Commonly chosen topics included losing weight, being more assertive, and making a career change. Couples were unaware of the purpose of the interactions and were instructed to communicate with each other as they normally would. Each individual served as the “helpee” (i.e., talking about their chosen area of change with their partner) and as the “helper” (i.e., talking about their partner’s chosen area of change with their partner). The helper’s behavior provided an estimate of the quality of partner-specific support the helpee generally receives. At the conclusion of the session, couples received a community resource list, an infant t-shirt, and a CAD$100 honorarium for their time.

Measures

Conflict Tactics Scales Revised (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996)

The CTS2 is a 78-item scale that assesses how individuals deal with relationship conflicts. Items are arranged in 39-item pairs that allows respondents to report on their behavior and their partner’s behavior during the past 12 months (e.g., “Have you pushed or shoved your partner?” is arranged with “Has your partner pushed or shoved you?”). The CTS2 has five subscales used to measure negotiation, psychological aggression, physical aggression, sexual aggression, and injury. In this study, the physical aggression subscale was used as a measure of aggression perpetration. The highest score between self- and partner-reports for the same aggressive act was used to compute each individual’s perpetration rate. Cronbach’s alphas were .72 for men and .76 for women.

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Saunders, Aasland, Babor, De La Fuente, & Grant, 1993)

The AUDIT is a 10-item questionnaire that assesses alcohol consumption, drinking behavior, and alcohol-related problems. The respondent is asked to indicate the frequency of experiences on a 4-point scale. Participants completed the full AUDIT regarding their alcohol use during the year prior to pregnancy as a measure of typical usage and also completed the three consumption items to assess their alcohol use during the current pregnancy. Cronbach’s alphas for the AUDIT were .87 for men and .80 for women.

Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL; Cohen & Hoberman, 1983)

The ISEL is a 48-item questionnaire that assesses perceived availability of social support on a 4-point scale. The measure includes four subscales of social support: appraisal, self-esteem, belonging, and tangible support; these subscales had Cronbach’s alphas of .73, .62, .80, and .75 for men and .84, .71, .86, and .81 for women, respectively.

Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976)

The DAS is a 32-item questionnaire designed to measure perceptions of relationship satisfaction for either married or unmarried cohabiting couples. The total score of the DAS was used to control for relationship satisfaction in the analyses. Cronbach’s alphas were .94 for men and .91 for women.

Partner Support Rating System (PSRS; Caldeira, Owen, & Woodin, 2009)

A 5-point macroanalytic rating system was created to assess behaviors during the social support interactions. Each helper was rated on items that were combined to form total scores for various partner support dimensions, including positive nonverbal behaviors, negative nonverbal behaviors, negative affect, negative communication, positive instrumental support, and positive emotional support. For example, the positive emotional support dimension was comprised of ratings on various items such as clarifying feelings, bolstering self-esteem, validation, and reassurance (see Table 1). The three positive dimensions were measures of partner-specific support, and the three negative dimensions were used to control for non-constructive partner support. All the interactions were double coded and interrater reliability was established using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs). ICCs ranged from .76 to .89 (M = 0.84) for positive support and from .81 to .90 (M = 0.86) for negative support, which all exceed acceptable levels of reliability.

Table 1.

Description of Codes From the Partner Support Rating System (PSRS)

Dimension	Examples of items
Positive nonverbal	Engagement in conversation (i.e., head nods, eye contact), smiling, supportive touching
Negative nonverbal	Disinterest/boredom, frowning, stonewalling (i.e., disengagement accompanied by negative affect)
Negative affect	Criticism, defensiveness, sarcasm, domineering, pessimism/doubt
Negative communication skills	Self-directed conversation, change of subject, demanding, misses opportunities to support partner, interrupts partner
Positive instrumental support	Suggests plan of action/new way of handling situation, willingness to help, offers constructive feedback, demonstrates interest, refocuses conversation when off-task
Positive emotional support	Clarifies feelings, bolsters self-esteem, reassures partner, affection, validation, expresses concern, encourages optimism, joins partner in expressing feelings, mutual laughter

Statistical Analyses

To test whether social support moderates the association between alcohol use and aggression, a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted for each form of support while controlling for confounding variables (Aiken & West, 1991). To increase interpretability, all predictor variables were centered and the interaction term was computed from the centered variables. The hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted as follows: The covariates were entered in the first block, the independent variable and the moderator were simultaneously entered in the second block, and the interaction term was entered in the third block. Moderation is established when the interaction term is statistically significant (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Results

Prevalence of Alcohol Use and Partner Aggression

During the year prior to pregnancy, 90.8% of men and women endorsed any alcohol use. In contrast, 84.7% of men and 11.2% of women reported alcohol use during the pregnancy period. Average levels of alcohol consumption significantly decreased during pregnancy for both men and women (t = −5.30, p < .01 and t = −63.19, p < .01, respectively).

Approximately 18.4% of men and 30.6% of women reported perpetrating at least one incident of aggression against their partner during the previous year. The means and standard deviations of these behaviors are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptives and Correlations Among Alcohol Use, Partner Aggression, and Demographic Variables

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	M	SD
Alcohol
1. Prepregnancy use	—	.71^**	.24^*	−.32^**	−.08	−.24^**	−.29^**	−.16	6.56	6.31
2. Pregnancy use	.22^*	—	.08	−.22^*	.01	−.10	−.19	−.07	2.96	2.48
Aggression
3. Physical aggression	.14	−.04	—	−.18	−.20^*	−.07	−.14	−.14	1.47	6.04
Demographics
4. Age	−.15	.21^*	−.26^**	—	.12	.29^**	.05	−.05	32.03	5.51
5. Yearly income in CAD$	.05	−.01	−.24^**	.27^**	—	.05	.16	.12	51,716	35,254
6. Level of education	−.19	.04	−.23^**	.31^**	.42^**	—	.26^**	−.11	14.77	2.38
7. Marital status^a	−.36^**	−.12	−.17	.17	.09	.28^**	—	.02	0.69	0.46
8. Relationship satisfaction	−.24^*	−.04	−.24^*	−.02	.10	.30^**	.21^*	—	118.32	17.03
M	4.21	.15	2.92	29.98	35,019	15.28	.69	123.46
SD	3.98	.46	8.88	5.49	24,825	2.31	.46	12.37

Note: N = 98 couples. Coefficients printed above the diagonal are for men, coefficients below the diagonal are for women.

0 = unmarried, 1 = legally married.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Zero-Order Correlations

Consistent with hypotheses, prepregnancy alcohol use was significantly correlated with aggression perpetration for men, but this was not the case for women (see Table 2). The correlation between pregnancy alcohol use and aggression perpetration was also examined, with nonsignificant correlations for both genders (see Table 2). Given the significant decrease in alcohol consumption during pregnancy, a restricted range may be contributing to the nonsignificant correlations between pregnancy alcohol use and aggression perpetration for men and women. Subsequent analyses used prepregnancy alcohol use as a measure of typical alcohol usage because of the large decrease in consumption during pregnancy. The correlations among prepregnancy alcohol use, partner aggression, relationship satisfaction, general social support, and partner-specific support were also examined and are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Descriptives and Correlations Among Alcohol Use, Partner Aggression, Relationship Satisfaction, and Support

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	M	SD
Alcohol
1. Pre-pregnancy use	–	.24^*	−.16	−.16	−.12	.03	−.09	−.14	− .28^**	−.11	6.56	6.31
Aggression
2. Physical aggression	.14	–	−.14	−.07	−.11	−.06	−.15	−.09	−.04	−.18	1.47	6.04
Relationship
3. Relationship satisfaction	−.24^*	−.24^*	–	.31^**	.46^**	.28^**	.34^**	.21^*	.08	.02	118.32	17.04
General social support
4. Appraisal support	−.12	−.35^**	.48^**	–	.49^**	.62^**	.57^**	−.03	−.01	−.10	25.69	3.62
5. Self-esteem support	.03	−.16	.33^**	.55^**	–	.63^**	.43^**	.07	−.08	−.07	22.84	3.19
6. Belonging support	.10	−.17	.39^**	.71^**	.65^**	–	.66^**	.04	−.16	−.20^*	24.02	4.41
7. Tangible support	.01	−.28^**	.47^**	.65^**	.42^**	.70^**	−	.05	−.05	−.08	26.01	3.49
Received partner support
8. Positive nonverbal	−.06	−.03	.05	.14	.16	.15	.13	–	.27^**	.52^**	7.79	1.60
9. Positive instrumental	−.17	−.03	.14	.17	.13	.13	.03	.16	–	.52^**	13.97	3.08
10. Positive emotional	−.09	−.03	.10	.06	−.09	.06	.07	.40^**	.45^**	–	17.94	4.26
M	4.21	2.92	123.46	26.35	22.95	24.28	26.19	7.35	13.18	16.83
SD	3.98	8.88	12.37	4.17	3.30	4.84	4.10	1.57	3.09	3.89

Note: N = 98 couples. Coefficients printed above the diagonal are for men, coefficients below the diagonal are for women.

p < .05. **p < .01.

In order to control for confounding variables in the analyses, the zero-order correlations between partner aggression and various demographic variables were examined. Aggression perpetration was correlated with individual income for men and with age, level of education, individual income, and relationship satisfaction for women. All regression analyses presented below controlled for the significant demographic associations for each gender.

Moderating Effects of General Social Support

Given the distinction among the four subtypes of general social support, analyses examined the moderating influence of each subtype in separate hierarchical regressions. After controlling for individual income, appraisal social support moderated the alcohol-aggression link for men (β = .31, p < .01; ΔR² = .18, p < .01). The other three subtypes of social support were not significant moderators for men (self-esteem, β = –.04, p > .05; belonging, β = .16, p > .05; tangible, β = .15, p > .05). The significant interaction of alcohol use and appraisal social support was probed according to procedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991). The data were segmented into three groups of men who reported levels of appraisal support that were (1) at least half a standard deviation below the mean, (2) 1 standard deviation around the mean, and (3) at least half a standard deviation above the mean in order to reflect low, average, and high levels of appraisal support, respectively. Inconsistent with the hypotheses, men who consumed alcohol demonstrated significantly higher levels of aggression if they also had high levels of appraisal support (β = .69, p < .01; see Figure 1). In contrast, alcohol use and partner aggression were uncorrelated for men with moderate or low levels of appraisal support (β = .26, p > .05, and β = –.34, p > .05, respectively). Contrary to expectations, none of the subtypes of general social support were significant moderators for women (appraisal, β = –.11, p > .05; self-esteem, β = .00, p > .05; belonging, β = .24, p > .05; tangible, β = −.21, p > .05).

Figure 1.

Moderating effects of perceived appraisal social support on the association between alcohol use and partner aggression perpetration for men. Categories of average, low, and high perceived appraisal support reflect men who reported mean, half a standard deviation below, and half a standard deviation above the mean of perceived appraisal support, respectively

Moderating Effects of Partner-Specific Support

Analyses examined each subtype of positive partner-specific support (i.e., positive nonverbal behaviors, instrumental support, and emotional support) in separate hierarchical regressions, controlling for the same demographic variables as the previous analyses and for nonconstructive forms of support (i.e., negative nonverbal behaviors, negative affect, and negative communication). Receiving emotional support from one’s partner significantly moderated the association between alcohol use and aggression for men (β = −.35, p < .01; ΔR² = .24, p < .01); however, positive nonverbal support and instrumental support were not significant moderators (β = –.22, p > .05; β = –.16, p > .05, respectively). As expected, exploration of the significant interaction between alcohol use and emotional support indicated that among men who received low levels of emotional partner support, greater alcohol use was associated with higher levels of aggression (β = .43, p < .05; see Figure 2). In contrast, alcohol use and aggression were not significantly correlated for men with average or high levels of emotional support (β = –.25, p > .05, and β = .01 p > .05, respectively).

Figure 2.

Moderating effects of received emotional partner support on the association between alcohol use and partner aggression perpetration for men. Categories of average, low, and high received partner-specific emotional support reflect men who received mean, half a standard deviation below, and half a standard deviation above the mean levels of received partner-specific emotional support, respectively

For women, receiving instrumental partner-specific support significantly moderated the alcohol-aggression link (β = .27, p < .05; ΔR² = .28, p < .01), but positive nonverbal behaviors and emotional support did not (β = .05, p > .05, and β = .22, p > .05, respectively). Contrary to expectations, probing the interaction indicated that women with low levels of instrumental support reported less aggression in the context of alcohol use (β = –.10, p > .05), whereas among women with average or high levels of instrumental partner support there were positive associations between alcohol use and aggression perpetration (β = .26, p > .05, and β = .16, p > .05, respectively; see Figure 3). Although the simple regressions are not significant, the significant interaction indicates that the differences among the slopes are significant.

Figure 3.

Moderating effects of received instrumental partner support on the association between alcohol use and partner aggression perpetration for women. Categories of average, low, and high received partner-specific instrumental support reflect women who received mean, half a standard deviation below, and half a standard deviation above the mean levels of received partner-specific instrumental support, respectively.

Discussion

Past research has demonstrated a significant association between alcohol use and partner aggression perpetration, especially for men (Foran & O’Leary, 2008). Less is known about the occurrence and the association of these behaviors during the transition to parenthood. Moreover, there is limited research examining factors that buffer individuals from the negative effects of alcohol use. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by studying a potential moderator of the alcohol–aggression link, social support, using a community sample of pregnant couples.

Approximately 18.4% of men and 30.6% of women perpetrated at least one incident of partner physical aggression during the previous year. These figures are high compared to a study using a large representative sample of individuals from various developmental periods (Stets & Straus, 1990), but low relative to a newlywed sample that found that approximately 29% of newlywed husbands and 46% of newlywed wives were physically aggressive toward their partner (Lawrence & Bradbury, 2001). Similarly, other researchers have documented higher levels of aggression among young, newly married couples compared to couples from later developmental stages (e.g., Lawrence & Bradbury, 2007; Leonard & Roberts, 1998; O’Leary, Barling, Arias, & Rosenbaum, 1989; Schumacher et al., 2008). There are three possible explanations for why the rates of aggression in this study tend to be higher than studies with couples from various developmental periods. First, this study included individual and partner reports of aggression perpetration that results in a more reliable estimate of aggression since individuals tend to minimize their own aggressive behavior (O’Leary & Williams, 2006). Second, the stress that is associated with the transition to parenthood could partially account for the higher prevalence rates. Finally, the sample was predominantly comprised of couples at a younger developmental period, and research suggests that partner aggression is more prevalent during early adulthood (Capaldi, Kim, & Shortt, 2007). It is of note that the women’s perpetration rates were higher than men’s rates in the current study, which is consistent with the recent literature arguing that women may be more likely than men to engage in partner aggression (e.g., Capaldi et al., 2007).

Although it was expected that prepregnancy alcohol use would be significantly correlated with aggression perpetration for both men and women, the correlation was only significant for men. Consistent with this finding, there currently is some uncertainty in the literature regarding the link between alcohol use and physical aggression for women, even though the association has been well established for men (e.g., Foran & O’Leary, 2008). Therefore, the alcohol–aggression link may hold true at various life stages for men whereas the association between these behaviors may be limited to specific life stages or specific high-risk groups for women.

Moderating Effects of General Social Support

It was hypothesized that general social support would moderate the association between alcohol use and aggression whereby high levels of support would serve as a protective buffer. Appraisal social support was a significant moderator for men whereby men who reported alcohol use showed higher rates of aggression perpetration if they also reported a high availability of individuals to speak to about their problems. A possible explanation for this finding is the deviant peer theory (e.g., O’Leary et al., 2007). According to this theory, aggressive individuals are likely to befriend individuals who support aggressive behavior. Although these men may believe they have a support group to speak to about their problems, the support they receive may be of negative quality. More important, one’s peer group continues to shape an individual’s involvement in antisocial activities, which can lead to more serious delinquent acts. One avenue through which a peer group shapes an individual’s propensity toward aggression is through hostile talk about partners, thus reinforcing patterns of aggression (Williams, Craig, Connolly, Pepler, & Laporte, 2008). Although previous research has indicated that a deviant peer group is a significant predictor of partner aggression perpetration (e.g., Levendosky, Huth-Bocks, & Semel, 2002; O’Leary et al., 2007; Windle & Mrug, 2009), the present study did not measure peer approval of partner aggression. Therefore, the deviant peer theory is only a possible explanation for this finding.

Moderating Effects of Partner-Specific Support

As hypothesized, partner-specific support interacted with alcohol use to predict aggression perpetration for men and women, but the moderating effect differed between the genders. For men, a lack of partner emotional support (e.g., bolstering self-esteem, providing reassurance, displaying affection) increased the strength of the relation between alcohol use and aggression even after controlling for nonconstructive support. These results are consistent with the enabling hypothesis, which suggests that partner support may enhance one’s self-efficacy thereby leading to the use of socially acceptable behaviors instead of resorting to partner aggression (e.g., Bandura, 1997).

The detrimental impact of a lack of partner support for men has previously been demonstrated in the literature. Pasch and Bradbury (1998) found that married couples who were later classified as distressed had wives that were half as likely to demonstrate positive behaviors and twice as likely to display negative behaviors when offering support to their husbands than couples who were later classified as satisfied or highly satisfied. Moreover, a low level of esteem partner support (an element of emotional partner support in the present study) is a greater risk factor for men’s marital decline than women’s decline (Brock & Lawrence, 2009). Emotional partner support may be particularly important for men because it is less acceptable in Western society for men to seek this form of support from other social relationships.

Partner support also moderated the link between alcohol use and aggression for women. Surprisingly, though, women who consumed alcohol and received high levels of instrumental support (e.g., suggesting a plan of action, offering constructive feedback, demonstrating interest in partner’s problem) were more likely to perpetrate aggression against their partner than women with lower levels of instrumental support. This unexpected finding is consistent with the idea of overprovision of support (Brock & Lawrence, 2009). Reactance theory may explain why the overprovision of instrumental support may strengthen the alcohol–aggression link for women. Reactance theory argues that when someone dictates how a person should behave, the individual enters a motivational state known as psychological reactance as a means of regaining their behavioral freedom (Brehm, 1966). High levels of some instrumentally supportive behaviors (e.g., offering advice) could be interpreted as controlling and aggression may be one method that women use to regain control. Consistent with this finding, Brock and Lawrence found that receiving more informational (i.e., advice), tangible (i.e., indirect or direct assistance), and emotional (i.e., comfort) support than wives’ desired had negative effects on marital satisfaction.

The advantages of using an observational coding system rather than a self-report questionnaire to measure partner-specific support in this study are of note. First, when individuals are asked to report on their perceived partner-specific support, their ratings involve a synthesis of the details of the past, present, and imagined future interactions and, therefore, are often less accurate than observational data (e.g., Hinde, 1997). Second, self-reports of partner support may be biased by sex role stereotypes (Verhofstadt, Buysse, & Ickes, 2007). More specifically, stereotypes about the interaction styles of men and women shape reports of partner-specific support whereas behavioral observations result in more objective data. Finally, in addition to verbal support, the use of the PSRS allowed for the examination of nonverbal partner support behaviors.

Clinical Implications

Couples transitioning to parenthood represent an important target group for prevention and treatment programs as these couples may be more open to change than couples at other life stages. For men who consume alcohol, modifying their support network by substituting deviant peers with more prosocial peers may be a means of reducing aggression. The knowledge that a low level of partner emotional support is associated with a stronger relationship between alcohol use and aggression for men is useful information to implement into these programs. Although treatment programs should not blame victims, couples may benefit from training in effective communication, including emotional support. It may be beneficial to educate men about the concept of overprovision of support and for women to discuss their desired levels of instrumental support with their partner. It is important to try to eliminate alcohol-related partner aggression before the transition to parenthood as previous research has documented negative consequences for children exposed to these behaviors, including childhood depression, anxiety, behavior problems, and violence victimization (Owen et al., 2008). In addition, exposure to aggression plays a key role in the intergenerational transmission of aggression (Stith et al., 2000).

Limitations

The results of this study should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, there is an important distinction between perceived and received social support (e.g., Knoll, Scholz, Burkert, Roigas, & Gralla, 2009). Since the general support measure assessed perceived social support and the partner-specific support measure assessed received partner support, the results are likely influenced by this distinction. Second, alcohol use was measured during the year prior to pregnancy, whereas partner aggression was measured during the last year. Because of this time lag as well as the correlational nature of this study, causality cannot be determined between the variables. For instance, it is possible that aggression perpetration and alcohol use are two common methods of coping with stress rather than there being a causal relationship. Third, the findings of this study cannot be generalized to other populations, such as couples from other cultures or same-sex couples.

Despite these limitations, the findings of this study provide important advances in understanding the association between alcohol use and partner aggression during the transition to parenthood. This study demonstrates that various forms of support differentially interact with alcohol use to affect aggression perpetration and that partner-specific support is a unique form of social support. Finally, this study highlights the importance of exploring other moderators of the alcohol–aggression link in order to better understand the association between these behaviors.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

A sincere thank you to Dr. Catherine Costigan, Dr. Marion Ehrenberg, and Dr. Marsha Runtz for their constructive feedback and direction that has greatly strengthened this work.

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors received the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Research Network.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Brehm

J. W.

(1966). A psychological theory of reactance. New York, NY: Academic.

Brock

R. L.

Lawrence

(2009). Too much of a good thing: Underprovision versus overprovision of partner support. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(2), 181-192.

Burch

R. L.

Gallup

G. G.

(2004). Pregnancy as a stimulus for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 19(4), 243-247.

Caldeira

Owen

Woodin

E. M.

(2009). Partner Support Rating System (PSRS). Unpublished manuscript, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Capaldi

D. M.

Crosby

(1997). Observed and reported psychological and physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Social Development, 6(2), 184-206.

Capaldi

D. M.

Kim

H. K.

Shortt

J. W.

(2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 101-111.

10.

Charles

Perreira

K. M.

(2007). Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and 1-year post-partum. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 609-619.

11.

Cohen

Hoberman

H. M.

(1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(2), 99-125.

12.

Coker

A. L.

Smith

P. H.

Thompson

M. P.

McKeown

R. E.

Bethea

Davis

K. E.

(2002). Social support protects against the negative effects of partner violence on mental health. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 11(5), 465-476.

13.

Coyne

J. C.

DeLongis

(1986). Going beyond social support: The role of social relationships in adaptation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 454-460.

14.

Cutrona

C. E.

(1996). Social support in couples. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

15.

Fals-Stewart

(2003). The occurrence of partner violence on days of alcohol consumption: A longitudinal diary study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 41-52.

16.

Foran

H. M.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2007). Problem drinking, jealousy, and anger control: Variables predicting physical aggression against a partner. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 141-148.

17.

Foran

H. M.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1222-1234.

18.

Hinde

(1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. London: Psychology Press.

19.

Knoll

Scholz

Burkert

Roigas

Gralla

(2009). Effects of received and mobilized support on recipients’ and providers’ self-efficacy beliefs: A 1-year follow-up study with patients receiving radical prostatectomy and their spouses, International Journal of Psychology, 44(2), 129-137.

20.

Lawrence

Bradbury

T. N.

(2001). Physical aggression and marital dysfunction: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 135-154.

21.

Lawrence

Bradbury

T. N.

(2007). Trajectories of change in physical aggression and marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 236-247.

22.

Leonard

K. E.

Roberts

L. J.

(1998). Marital aggression, quality, and stability in the first year of marriage: Findings from the Buffalo Newlywed Study. In Bradbury

T. N.

(Eds.), The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 44-73). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Levendosky

A. A.

Huth-Bocks

Semel

M. A.

(2002). Adolescent peer relationships and mental health functioning in families with domestic violence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 31(2), 206-218.

24.

Loseke

D. R.

(2005). Through a sociological lens: The complexities of family violence. In Loseke

D. R.

Gelles

R. J.

Cavanaugh

M. M.

(Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 35-47). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

25.

O’Leary

K. D.

Barling

Arias

Rosenbaum

Malone

Tyree

(1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 57, 263-268.

26.

O’Leary

K. D.

Smith Slep

A. M.

O’Leary

S. G.

(2007). Multivariate models of men’s and women’s partner aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(5), 152-764.

27.

O’Leary

K. D.

Williams

M. C.

(2006). Agreement about acts of aggression in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(4), 656-662.

28.

O’Leary

K. D.

Woodin

E. M.

(2005). Partner aggression and problem drinking across the lifespan: How much do they decline? Clinical Psychology Review, 25(7), 877-894.

29.

Owen

A. E.

Thompson

M. P.

Mitchell

M. D.

Kennebrew

S. Y.

Paranjape

Reddick

T. L.

Hargrove

G. L.

Kaslow

N. J.

(2008). Perceived social support as a mediator of the link between intimate partner conflict and child adjustment. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 221-230.

30.

Pasch

L. A.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1998). Social support, conflict, and the development of marital dysfunction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 219-230.

31.

Reevy

G. M.

Maslach

(2001). Use of social support: Gender and personality differences. Sex Role, 44(7-8), 437-459.

32.

Saunders

J. B.

Aasland

O. G.

Babor

T. F.

Fuente

J. R.

Grant

(1993). Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addictions, 88, 791-804.

33.

Schumacher

J. A.

Homish

G. G.

Leonard

K. E.

Quigley

B. M.

Kearns-Bodkin

J. N.

(2008). Longitudinal moderators of the relationship between excessive drinking and intimate partner violence in the early years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(6), 894-904.

34.

Spanier

G. B.

(1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15-28.

35.

Stets

J. E.

Straus

M. A.

(1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

(Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 151-165). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

36.

Stith

S. M.

Rosen

K. H.

Middleton

K. A.

Busch

A. L.

Lundeberg

Carlton

R. P.

(2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(3), 640-654.

37.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316.

38.

Verhofstadt

L. L.

Buysse

Ickes

(2007). Social support in couples: An examination of gender differences using self-report and observational methods. Sex Roles, 57, 267-282.

39.

Williams

T. S.

Craig

Connolly

Pepler

Laporte

(2008). Risk models of dating aggression across different adolescent relationships: A developmental psychopathology approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(4), 622-632.

40.

Windle

Mrug

(2009). Cross-gender violence perpetration and victimization among early adolescents and association with attitudes toward dating conflict. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(3), 429-439.

41.

Zolotor

A. J.

Theodore

A. D.

Coyne-Beasley

Runyan

D. K.

(2007). Intimate partner violence and child maltreatment: Overlapping risk. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 7(4), 305-321.