Men’s Reactions to Participating in Interpersonal Violence Research

Abstract

This study assessed college men’s reactions immediately following and 2 months after completing self-report measures of interpersonal violence. Results showed that 4.3% of men experienced immediate negative emotional reactions. Greater immediate negative reactions were related to personal benefits to research participation, anticipation of future distress, experiences of childhood physical abuse and psychological abuse/neglect, and physical abuse perpetration either in adolescence or adulthood. Attrition from the study over the 2-month follow-up was predicted by fewer perceived personal benefits to study participation but not by negative emotional reactions. None of the participants who returned for the 2-month follow-up reported experiencing negative emotional reactions to research participation over the interim.

Keywords

interpersonal violence victimization perpetration ethics reactions

Introduction

Interpersonal violence—broadly defined as sexual, physical, and psychological violence in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood—is an endemic problem in our society, especially among college students. In a recent study of college students, Milner et al. (2010) reported that 28% of college students reported histories of childhood physical abuse, 8% reported histories of childhood sexual abuse, and 25% reported exposure to domestic violence. Other studies with college students (e.g., Edwards, Desai, Gidycz, & VanWynsberghe, 2009; Loh & Gidycz, 2006) have documented similar rates of childhood abuse and exposure to domestic violence, although there is often variability in these rates due to differing definitions and measurements of abuse. Research has also documented alarmingly high rates of sexual assault and intimate partner violence (IPV; e.g., physical, sexual, and psychological aggression perpetrated toward one partner) among college students. Indeed, research demonstrates that more than 50% of college women report sexual assault victimization (e.g., broadly defined as unwanted sexual contact, coercion, and attempted and completed rape) during adolescence or young adulthood, whereas between 25% and 60% of college men self-report a history of sexual assault perpetration (see Calhoun, Mousillo, & Edwards, 2012 [for a review]). Although men are more likely to be perpetrators and women victims of sexual assault, most research suggests that there is gender symmetry in the rates of physical and psychological IPV (Edwards, Dardis, & Gidycz, 2011; Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008). Specifically, it is estimated that physical IPV occurs in approximately 20% to 37% of dating relationships, and psychological IPV occurs in the vast majority of dating relationships (when broadly defined; Shorey et al., 2008).

Despite gender symmetry in the rates of IPV victimization and perpetration, the physical and psychological effects of IPV victimization are generally more severe for women than men (see Caldwell, Swan, & Woodbrown, 2012 [for a review]). However, some studies (e.g., Harned, 2001; Romito & Grassi, 2007) with college students in particular have found similar psychological outcomes among men and women who report IPV victimization. With regard to childhood abuse, there appears to be little differences in outcomes for men and women associated with childhood sexual abuse (Tolin & Foa, 2006; Tyler, 2002), although there is some evidence to suggest that some types of childhood abuse (e.g., physical) may be associated with more detrimental outcomes for women than men (Thompson, Kingree, & Desai, 2003).

Research, such as that cited above, has improved our understanding of the prevalence of interpersonal violence as well as the deleterious consequences associated with various forms of violence. However, there are often concerns expressed by institutional review boards (IRBs) that this type of research could be potentially distressing or even harmful to participants. Accordingly, there has been a burgeoning interest among researchers to assess participants’ reactions to participating in interpersonal violence research. In general, research suggests that participation in interpersonal violence research is not distressing to most participants and that many participants in fact report personal benefits (see Jorm, Kelly, & Morgan, 2007 [for review]; Newman & Kaloupek, 2009 [for review]). However, there is a dearth of published research that has assessed men’s reactions to completing surveys that inquire about both victimization and perpetration experiences, especially those occurring in different developmental periods (e.g., childhood, adolescence, adulthood). Given that some previous research demonstrates gender differences in consequences associated with experiences of interpersonal violence (see aforementioned discussion; Harned, 2001; Molidor & Tolman, 1998; Thompson et al., 2003; Tolin & Foa, 2006), we cannot assume that men’s reactions to interpersonal violence research participation is identical to women’s reactions to this type of research. The current study extends previous research by examining college men’s reactions to research participation immediately following and 2 months after completing surveys that inquire about interpersonal victimization and perpetration experiences in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. College students are an especially important group to consider given the endemic rates of interpersonal violence on college campuses (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; White & Koss, 1991) and that approximately 90% of social sciences research uses samples of college students (Sieber & Saks, 1989).

Only a limited number of researchers have assessed men’s reactions to participating in interpersonal violence research. DePrince and Freyd (2004) asked college men and women how important it was for psychologists to do trauma research (including natural disasters, motor vehicle accidents, and interpersonal traumas) and how distressing trauma questions were compared to things they encountered in their daily lives. Results suggested that 6.4% of all undergraduate participants (men and women) reported the trauma questions as distressing but that men reported the trauma questions as less distressing than things they encountered in their daily lives compared to women. These findings are similar to studies with female only samples, which document that between 5% to 7.7% of undergraduate women report immediate negative emotional reactions to answering questions inquiring about interpersonal victimization experiences (Edwards, Kearns, Calhoun, & Gidycz, 2009; Edwards, Probst, Tansill, & Gidycz, in press). In addition to the DePrince and Freyd (2004) study, a subsequent study conducted by the same research group (i.e., Cromer, Freyd, Binder, DePrince, & Becker-Blease, 2006) found that men reported trauma questions as less distressing to answer than women. However, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Arata, O’Brien, Bowers, and Klibert (2006) found that gender was not a significant predictor of adolescents’ distress following completion of surveys that assessed physical and sexual abuse, drug use, and suicidal behavior. In a recent study, Shorey, Cornelius, and Bell (2011) assessed college students’ reactions to dating violence research. Results demonstrated that college men with histories of perpetration of physical violence reported significantly greater negative emotional reactions to research participation than men without such histories. There were no differences in emotional reactions between men who reported histories of sexual perpetration and men without such histories as well as men who reported histories of psychological perpetration and men without such histories. Taken together, these studies underscore the importance of assessing men’s reactions to participating in studies that inquire about sensitive topics, specifically pertaining to interpersonal violence.

To summarize, there are a number of gaps in the literature on men’s reactions to interpersonal violence research. First, studies assessing emotional reactions to IPV research have primarily focused on women. Second, studies have not typically been comprehensive in the forms of violence that they study nor have they taken into consideration the developmental period during which the violence occurs. Third, studies in this area have also typically assessed participants at one point in time and have not assessed participants’ reactions over time.

The purpose of the current study was to explore these gaps in the literature. Specifically, the aims of the study were to answer the following research questions: (a) What percentage of men would report experiencing immediate negative emotional reactions to research participation? (b) What are the correlates of men’s reports of immediate negative emotional reactions to research participation? (c) Do initial reactions to research predict attrition from the study over the 2-month follow-up period? (d) What percentage of men report experiencing negative emotional reactions to research participation at the 2-month follow-up? We chose these research questions because they are consistent with the research aims and questions posed in previous studies with college students (e.g., DePrince & Freyd, 2004; Edwards et al., 2009; Shorey et al., 2011). In addition, these questions are similar to those commonly asked by IRBs across the nation (e.g., Becker-Blease & Freyd, 2007) and thus seem to have the most practical applicability for researchers in the field.

Based on previous research (DePrince & Freyd, 2004; Shorey et al., 2011) with college students, we hypothesized that a small number (~5%) of men would report immediate negative emotional reactions to research participation and that an even smaller number would report long-term negative emotional reactions to research participation. Furthermore, we generally hypothesized that both victimization and perpetration experiences would be positively correlated with negative emotional reactions. However, given the dearth of existing research, we had no specific a priori hypotheses about which types of experiences would be more or less correlative with emotional reactions. In addition, although it seems logical that individuals who have greater immediate negative emotional reactions to the research study would be less likely to return for the follow-up session than individuals without these immediate negative emotional reactions, given the dearth of existing research, we had no specific a priori hypotheses about these relationships.

Method

Participants

Participants at the first study session (T1) were 232 men from a medium-sized Midwestern University. At the second study session (T2), 179 (77.2%) of participants returned. The average age of participants was 19.29 (SD = 1.68, range = 18-33). The majority of participants were White (86.6%) followed by African American (5.2%), Asian (3.4%), and Multiracial/Other (2.6%). Approximately 25%, 47%, and 28% of participants stated that their combined family/parents’ annual income was less than US$50,000, between US$51,000 and US$100,000, and greater than US$100,000, respectively.

Measures

At T1, participants completed a packet of surveys to assess for a history of victimization and perpetration experiences followed by a measure of immediate reactions to research participation. At T2, participants completed a measure of reactions to research participation over the 2-month interim period. The study measures are described in detail below, and all possess adequate psychometric properties. Of note, there were several attitudinal measures (e.g., hostility toward women, rape myth acceptance) administered to participants at T1 and several interpersonal violence measures administered at T2 after participants completed the reactions to research participation measure. These additional measures were included as part of a larger study assessing the prospective predictors of men’s use of aggression. These additional measures were not included in the analyses presented herein as they are not relevant to the research questions of this particular study. Of additional note, this study only involved survey completion; there were no additional laboratory procedures (e.g., vignettes, couple interactions) involved in this study.

Childhood abuse and exposure to domestic violence

Three behaviorally worded measures were included at T1 to assess men’s experiences of childhood sexual abuse, childhood physical abuse, childhood verbal abuse/neglect, and childhood exposure to domestic violence.

The Childhood Sexual Victimization Questionnaire (Finkelhor, 1979) was used to assess childhood sexual abuse (CSA). Participants answer “yes” or “no” to indicate whether they had certain sexual experiences before the age of 14, which range from noncontact CSA (e.g., another person showing their sex organs to the child) to completed rape CSA (e.g., actual vaginal, oral, or anal penetration of the child). Participants who indicated having any of these experiences answered follow-up questions to assess the age difference between the victim and the perpetrator and the main reason the individual participated (e.g., curiosity; other person threatened to hurt or punish child; other person used physical force). Participants were considered to be victims of CSA if they endorsed one or more of the eight experiences and that the perpetrator was at least 5 years older and/or force or threats were used. CSA was considered a dichotomous variable (any CSA or no CSA).

The Early Trauma Inventory Self Report–Short Form (ETISR-SF; Bremner, Vermetten, & Mazure, 2000) was used to assess childhood physical abuse (CPA) and childhood psychological abuse/neglect (CPA-N) perpetrated by a parent or primary caregiver. Participants were instructed to answer about events that happened between themselves and their parents, stepparents, or primary caregivers during childhood and adolescence. Participants were considered to be victims of CPA if they endorsed at least one of the five CPA items (e.g., “punched or kicked by a parent, stepparent, or primary caregiver”), and participants were considered to be victims of CPA-N if they endorsed at least one of the five CPA-N items (e.g., “told you were no good by a parent, stepparent, or primary caregiver”). Both CPA and CPA-N were considered dichotomous variables.

Exposure to domestic violence was assessed by three items created by Malmuth and colleagues (Malamuth, Linz, Heavey, Barnes, & Acker, 1995; Malamuth, Sockloskie, Koss, & Tanaka, 1991) to assess exposure to both physical and verbal domestic violence. Participants were instructed to answer about events that happened between their parents or stepparents during childhood and adolescence (e.g., “While you were growing up, how often within a typical month did your father/stepfather use physical blows [e.g., hitting, kicking, throwing] against your mother/stepmother?”). Participants were considered to have been exposed to domestic violence if they endorsed at least one of the three items. Exposure to domestic violence was considered a dichotomous variable.

Adolescence/adulthood perpetration

Two behaviorally worded measures were included at T1 to assess men’s experiences of adolescent/adulthood physical IPV perpetration, adolescent/adulthood psychological IPV perpetration, and adolescent/adulthood sexual violence perpetration.

A modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale–Revised (CTSR; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was used to assess men’s engagement in physical and psychological IPV perpetration at T1. Participants were instructed to answer how many times using the original response options (e.g., “Never” to “More than 20 times”) they engaged in a variety of coercive dating behaviors since the age of 14 to the time of the present study. We did not include the victimization items of the CTSR. Participants were considered to be perpetrators of physical IPV at T1 if they endorsed any of the physical items (e.g., “slapped,” “kicked”) on the CTSR at T1. C Consistent with previous research (e.g., Edwards, Probst, Tansill, & Gidycz, in press; Testa, VanZile-Tamsen, & Livingston, 2005), participants were considered to be perpetrators of psychological IPV at T1 if they endorsed any of the severe psychological items (e.g., “destroyed something belonging to my partner,” “called my partner fat or ugly”), as defined by Straus et al. (1996). We did not include moderate psychological abuse items (e.g., “shouted or yelled at my partner”) in our definition of psychological IPV perpetration since this would have resulted in the vast majority of our sample being classified as perpetrators. Physical IPV perpetration and psychological IPV perpetration were both dichotomous variables.

The Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982) was used at T1 to assess men’s engagement in sexually violent behaviors since the age of 14 to the time of the present study. The SES includes a range of sexually aggressive behaviors including unwanted sexual contact, sexual coercion, attempted rape, and completed rape. Participants were considered to be perpetrators of sexual dating violence at T1 if they endorsed any of the sexual dating violence items on the SES at T1. Thus, sexual violence perpetration was considered a dichotomous variable.

Reactions to research

The Reactions to Research Participation Questionnaire (RRPQ; Newman, Willard, Sinclair, & Kaloupek, 2001) was administered as the last survey at T1 to assess men’s immediate reactions to research participation. The two primary subscales of interests were the immediate negative emotional reactions (four items; e.g., “The research raised emotional issues for me I had not expected”) and personal benefits (four items; e.g., “I found participating in this study personally meaningful”) subscales. Internal consistencies at T1 were acceptable for both the immediate negative emotional reactions (Cronbach’s α = .80) and personal benefits (Cronbach’s α = .79) subscales. We did not use the participation or perceived drawbacks subscales as these demonstrated internal reliabilities below what is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). Although the global evaluation subscale had an acceptable internal consistency, we chose to include just the immediate negative emotional reactions and personal benefits subscales as these subscales have been used alone in previous research (e.g., Edwards et al., 2009) and are the most relevant to our specific research questions.

Based on previous research (Edwards et al., 2009), an additional item was included on the RRPQ at T1 to assess participants’ expectations of experiencing future distress (i.e., “I will experience distress in the future as a result of participating in this study”). Participants were instructed to answer the questions based on their reactions to participating in the study using the following 5-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The subscales of interests (immediate negative emotional reactions, personal benefits, anticipation of future distress) were considered both continuous and dichotomous variables. For continuous variables, mean scores were computed so that participants’ total score on each subscale ranged from 1 to 5. Higher scores on these subscales reflected greater immediate negative emotional reactions and greater personal benefits. To create dichotomous variables, participants with mean scores of four or greater on the immediate negative emotional reactions subscale were considered to have experienced immediate negative emotional reactions at T1. A value of four was chosen as the cut-off because it indicates that, on average, participants agreed with the items on the immediate negative emotional reaction subscale; this coding scheme is consistent with previous research (Edwards et al., 2009). Similar coding was used for the personal benefits and expectations of future distress subscales.

For the T2 study session, the RRPQ was modified by the researchers in consultation with the author of the RRPQ (Elana Newman, personal communication, July 25, 2007) to assess men’s reactions to research participation over the 2-month interim (e.g., “I was emotional during the past 2 months as a result of participating in this study”). Participants were instructed to answer the questions based on their reactions over the past 2 months since participating in the first session of the study using the same 5-point scale discussed above. Similar to the coding scheme used at T1, at T2 negative emotional reactions over the interim and personal benefits over the interim were considered continuous and dichotomous variables. Specifically, mean scores were computed so that participants’ total scores on the two RRPQ subscales (negative emotional reactions over the interim, personal benefits over the interim) ranged from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicative of greater negative emotional reactions and personal benefits over the interim. In addition, participants were coded 0 (no) or 1 (yes) for negative emotional reactions over the interim and benefits over the interim (indicated by a mean score of 4 or greater). Internal consistencies at T2 were acceptable: negative emotional reactions over the interim (Cronbach’s α = .79) and personal benefits over the interim (Cronbach’s α = .80).

Procedure

Participants were recruited through introductory psychology courses at a medium-size, public, Midwestern University. To avoid selection bias, the study was advertised to participants as a study generally assessing men’s social and relationship experiences. Participants completed anonymous surveys in a group testing environment facilitated by a male research assistant at the beginning and end of a 2-month academic quarter. To encourage honest responding, participants’ T1 and T2 surveys were matched by using a subject number calculation form that participants completed at both testing sessions, and it did not require any identifying information. Prior to both T1 and T2 survey completion, participants completed informed consent, and following both T1 and T2 survey completion participants were provided with debriefing and referral information. All study procedures were approved by the university’s IRBs.

Results

Rates of Victimization and Perpetration

Rates of childhood victimization and adolescent/adulthood perpetration as measured at T1 are reported in Table 1. These rates are comparable to previous research with college men (e.g., Calhoun et al., 2012; Milner et al., 2010; Shorey et al., 2011).

Table 1.

Victimization and Perpetration Rates (Reported at T1)

	Victimization/Perpetration Experience
	Yes	No
	% (n)	% (n)
Childhood sexual abuse	7.8 (18)	92.2 (214)
Childhood physical abuse	32.8 (76)	67.2 (156)
Childhood psychological abuse/neglect	56.0 (130)	44 (102)
Exposure to domestic violence	62.1 (143)	37.9 (88)
Adolescent/adulthood sexual perpetration	12.1 (28)	87.9 (204)
Adolescent/adulthood physical perpetration	30.2 (70)	69.8 (162)
Adolescent/adulthood psychological perpetration	25.2 (58)	74.8 (172)

Research Question 1: What percentage of men would report experiencing immediate negative emotional reactions to research participation?

Using the T1 RRPQ immediate negative emotional reactions subscale that was coded dichotomously, 4.3% (n = 10) of men had mean scores that were greater than or equal to 4, which indicates that these men, on average, agreed with items assessing immediate negative emotional reactions. Using this same categorical coding scheme, 23.3% (n = 54) of men reported personal benefits to research participation at T1 and 5.6% (n = 13) of men reported anticipations of future distress as a result of research participation.

Research Question 2: What are the correlates of men’s reports of immediate negative emotional reactions to research participation?

For these analyses, reactions variables were continuous; victimization and perpetration variables were dichotomous. t tests (see Table 2) showed that men with histories of childhood psychological abuse/neglect, childhood physical abuse, and adolescent/adulthood physical IPV perpetration reported significantly higher levels of immediate negative emotional reactions than men without comparable histories. There were no differences in immediate negative emotional reactions between men who did and did not report childhood sexual abuse, exposure to domestic violence, adolescent/adulthood sexual violence perpetration, and adolescent/adulthood psychological IPV perpetration.

Table 2.

Immediate Negative Emotional Reactions as a Function of Victimization and Perpetration Experiences (Reported at T1)

	Victimization History
	Yes	No
	M (SD)	M (SD)	t Statistic	Cohen’s d
Childhood sexual abuse	2.42 (0.98)	2.26 (0.87)	1.18	0.17
Childhood physical abuse	2.46 (0.84)	2.18 (0.88)	2.27*	0.33
Childhood psychological abuse/neglect	2.37 (0.90)	2.14 (0.84)	2.00*	0.26
Exposure to domestic violence	2.32 (0.86)	2.19 (0.90)	1.11	0.14
Adolescent/adulthood sexual perpetration	2.45 (0.92)	2.25 (0.87)	0.73	0.22
Adolescent/adulthood physical perpetration	2.47 (0.93)	2.19 (0.84)	2.26*	0.32
Adolescent/adulthood psychological perpetration	2.31 (0.95)	2.25 (0.85)	0.47	0.07

Note: RRPQ scaling system: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

p < .05.

Bivariate correlations showed that immediate negative emotional reactions were positively and significantly related to anticipation of future distress (r = .43, p < .001) and personal benefits (r = .34, p < .001). Of note, personal benefits were not significantly related to anticipation of future distress (r = .07, p = .232).

Research Question 3: Do initial reactions to research predict attrition from the study over the 2-month follow-up period?

For these analyses, reactions variables were continuous variables; attrition from the study was a dichotomous variable. Logistic regression analyses showed that neither T1 immediate negative emotional reactions (G2 [df = 1] = 0.30, p = .586; Nagelkerke R² = .002) nor T1 anticipation of future distress (G2 [df = 1] = 2.05, p = .153; Nagelkerke R² = .013) were significant predictors of study attrition. However, perceived personal benefits was a significant predictor of attrition, G2 (df = 1) = 5.08, p < .05. Nagelkerke R² = .034. Specifically, men who returned for T2 reported significantly greater personal benefits at T1 than men who did not return for T2.

Of note, we also tested whether attrition varied as a function of all of the victimization and perpetration variables (dichotomous variables). All of these tests were nonsignificant with the exception of childhood psychological abuse (χ² = 5.29, p < .05). Specifically, men who reported a history of childhood psychological abuse/neglect at T1 were less likely to return for T2 then men without similar histories reported at T1.

Research Question 4: What percentage of men would report experiencing negative emotional reactions to research participation at the 2-month follow-up?

Using the T2 RRPQ negative emotional reactions over the interim subscale that was coded dichotomously, none of the men had mean scores that were greater than or equal to 4, which indicates that none of the men in the study agreed, on average, with items assessing negative emotional reactions over the interim. Using this same categorical coding scheme, 19.0% (n = 34) of men reported personal benefits to research participation at T2.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to examine college men’s reactions to research participation immediately following and 2 months after completing surveys that inquire about childhood victimization and adolescent/adulthood perpetration experiences. Results showed that 4.3% of men experienced immediate negative emotional reactions, consistent with our hypothesis and previous studies with college men and women (DePrince & Freyd, 2004; Edwards et al., 2009; Shorey et al., 2011). Results also identified several significant correlates of men’s immediate negative emotional reactions. Childhood physical abuse and childhood psychological abuse/neglect were related to immediate negative emotional reactions, but childhood sexual abuse and exposure to domestic violence were not. Previous studies with college women (e.g., Edwards, Probst, Tansill, & Gidycz, in press; Edwards et al., 2009) have documented a significant relationship between childhood sexual abuse and immediate negative emotional reactions to research participation. It is possible that a similar relationship exists among men but that we were unable to detect this due to the small number (n = 18) of men reporting childhood sexual abuse histories. An alternative hypothesis is that, unlike for women, answering questions about childhood sexual abuse does not elicit negative emotional reactions among male survivors of childhood sexual abuse, although this runs counter to research suggesting that adult male survivors of childhood sexual abuse demonstrates similar levels of psychosocial impairment than female survivors of childhood sexual abuse (see Tyler, 2002 [for a review]).

Results also documented that adolescent/adulthood physical IPV perpetration was related to immediate, negative emotional reactions but that adolescent/adulthood sexual perpetration and adolescent/adulthood psychological IPV perpetration were not. These findings are identical to the Shorey et al. (2011) study with college men. Although speculative, it is possible that physical IPV perpetration, but not other forms of perpetration, are related to immediate negative emotional reactions because men who perpetrate physical aggression are more likely to acknowledge the aggressive nature of their acts. Indeed, among men who reported perpetrating sexual violence, most of these individuals reported less severe forms of sexual aggression (e.g., verbal coercion) as opposed to more severe forms (e.g., completed rape). Thus, it is possible that men who engage in psychological and sexual perpetration by means of verbal coercion may not view their behaviors as problematic and are therefore comfortable disclosing these experiences on surveys. As researchers, we do not want to induce negative reactions in participants, yet it is concerning that men who reported perpetrating psychological and sexual IPV were emotionally unaffected by their endorsement of these experiences. Additional reasons for these findings could be the anonymous and confidential nature of the survey, previous resolution of guilt/remorse associated with one’s aggressive behaviors, lack of historical or current guilt/remorse that may be indicative of maladaptive personality traits (e.g., psychopathy), or lack of acknowledgment of the severity/aggressiveness of one’s behaviors.

Immediate negative emotional reactions were also related to personal benefits, which is similar to previous research with college women (Edwards et al., 2009). Although research is needed to better understand these relationships, catharsis is frequently cited as the likely mechanism by which negative emotional reactions to research participation is related to personal benefits to research participation (Edwards et al., 2009; Jorm et al., 2007). Given the need for research on these mechanisms, we are currently conducting a qualitative study in which participants are asked to describe in detail their positive and negative reactions to research participation.

Results from the current study also found that immediate negative emotional reactions were related to participants’ reports of anticipated future distress. Although this is a logical finding, it is interesting in light of the fact that no participants reported research-related distress over the interim period. This perplexing finding could perhaps be explained by previous social psychological research on affective forecasting, which demonstrates that individuals are generally not good predictors of how they will feel in the future (Ayton, Pott, & Elwakili, 2007) and often overestimate the amount of negative emotions they will experience in the future following an initially upsetting event (see Wilson & Gilbert, 2003 for a discussion). Future mixed-methodological research is needed to better understand how affective forecasting processes may relate to individuals’ anticipated future reactions to participation in interpersonal violence research.

Although no participant indicated long-term distress associated with their research participation, approximately one in five men reported personal benefits as a result of research participation over the interim. Furthermore, results from the longitudinal, attrition analyses suggested that participant dropout from the study was not predicted by immediate negative emotional reactions or anticipation of future distress, which is reassuring. However, a history of childhood psychological abuse and fewer perceived personal benefits to research participation predicted participant dropout from the study. These findings are interesting, and follow-up research is needed to better understand the explanatory mechanisms underlying these relationships.

Several limitations to the current study should be noted. The demographic makeup of the sample was homogeneous, and the sample size was relatively small, especially in light of the small number of men reporting some types of victimization and perpetration experiences. Thus, future research should use larger and more diverse samples. An additional limitation is that we only assessed men’s experiences as perpetrators of IPV and not their experiences as victims of IPV. Future research should include measures of both IPV victimization and perpetration, especially in light of a recent study which documented that men with IPV victimization histories reported more negative emotional reactions to research participation than men without these histories (Shorey et al., 2011). In addition, more research, especially research that incorporates qualitative methodologies, is needed to better understand the explanatory mechanisms underlying the relationships detected.

Despite these limitations, the study offers implications for researchers and IRBs charged with the duty to protect human subjects. We recommend that researchers include empirical data, such as the results of the current study, in their IRB applications to demonstrate to their local IRB that questions that inquire about interpersonal victimization and perpetration experiences are not distressing for the vast majority of participants and for those who report initial distress, it is most often minimal and transient. Although researchers are generally required in IRB applications to state the benefits of interpersonal violence research to society, making IRBs aware of potential personal benefits to participants could be important as well. We also recommend that researchers include this type of information in their informed consent documents so that participants are made aware of the likelihood that they might experiences negative emotional reactions as well as the potential personal benefits associated with research participation. Given that a small number of participants do report negative emotional reactions related to research participation, we recommend the continued inclusion of referral information in debriefing forms. The extent to which distressed participants use this information in the debriefing forms is an empirical question that is yet to be answered. Finally, we encourage researchers to systematically assess all participants’ reactions to interpersonal violence research, especially research using samples of understudied populations or novel methodologies where there might be little to no existing data on reactions to research participation. The results of the current study provide novel information on young men’s reactions to participating in interpersonal violence research that should be reassuring to IRBs whose job is to protect the welfare of participants as well as to researchers who are committed to the study and prevention of interpersonal violence.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Katie M. Edwards, PhD, is an assistant professor of psychology at the University of New Hampshire, Durham. Specific research interests include predictors and correlates of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization and perpetration, leaving processes in relationships characterized by IPV, disclosure of IPV experiences and social reactions to these disclosures, and ethics of IPV research. She is committed to using research to inform legislative action and promote social change.

Christine A. Gidycz, PhD, is a professor of psychology and director of clinical training at Ohio University, Athens. Research interests include the evaluation of sexual-assault-prevention and risk-reduction programs and correlates, predictors, and consequences of various forms of violence. Her work has been funded through the Centers for Disease Control and the Ohio Department of Health. She has served on various state and national panels that address violence-related issues.

Angeli D. Desai, MA, received her master’s degree in psychology from New York University in 2006 and is currently working toward her doctorate degree in clinical psychology at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology in Westwood, California. Her professional interests include sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

References

Ayton

Pott

Elwakili

(2007). Affective forecasting: Why can’t people predict their emotions? Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 62-80. doi:10.1080/13546780600872726

Becker-Blease

K. A.

Freyd

J. J.

(2007). The ethics of asking about abuse and the harm of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” American Psychologist,62, 330-332. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.330

Bremner

J. D.

Vermetten

Mazure

C. M.

(2000). Development and preliminary psychometric properties of an instrument for the measurement of childhood trauma: The early trauma inventory. Depression and Anxiety, 12, 1-12. doi:10.1002/1520-6394(2000)12:1<1::AID-DA1>3.0.CO;2-W

Caldwell

J. E.

Swan

S. C.

Woodbrown

(2012). Gender differences in intimate partner violence outcomes. Psychology of Violence, 2, 42-57. doi:10.1037/a0026296

Calhoun

K. C.

Mouilso

Edwards

K. M.

(2012). Sexual assault among college students. In McAnulty

R. D.

(Ed.), Sex in college. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood.

Cromer

L. D.

Freyd

J. J.

Binder

A. K.

DePrince

A. P.

Becker-Blease

(2006). What’s the risk in asking? Participant reaction to trauma history questions compared with reaction to other personal questions.Ethics & Behavior, 16, 347-362. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1604_5

DePrince

A. P.

Freyd

J. J.

(2004). Forgetting trauma stimuli. Psychological Science, 15, 488-492. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00706.x

Edwards

K. E.

Dardis

Gidycz

C. A.

(2011). The role of adolescent victimization in women’s aggression. In Paludi

(Ed.), The psychology of teen violence and victimization (pp. 71-85). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Edwards

K. M.

Desai

A. D.

Gidycz

C. A.

VanWynsberghe

(2009). College women’s aggression in relationships: The role of childhood and adolescent victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 255-265. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01498.x

10.

Edwards

K. M.

Kearns

M. C.

Calhoun

K. S.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2009). Women’s reactions to participating in sexual assault research: Is it distressing? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 225-234. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01492.x

11.

Edwards

K. M.

Probst Tansill Gidycz

C. A.

(in press). Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

12.

Finkelhor

(1979). Sexually victimized children. New York, NY: Free Press.

13.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

14.

Harned

M. S.

(2001). Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and outcomes of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 16, 269-285.

15.

Jorm

A. F.

Kelly

C. M.

Morgan

A. J.

(2007). Participant distress in psychiatric research: A systematic review.Psychological Medicine: A Journal of Research in Psychiatry and the Allied Sciences, 37, 917-926. doi:10.1017/S0033291706009779

16.

Koss

M. P.

Oros

C. J.

(1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.50.3.455

17.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Arata

O’Brien

Bowers

Klibert

(2006). Sensitive research with adolescents: Just how upsetting are self-report surveys anyway? Violence and Victims,21, 425-444. doi:10.1891/vivi.21.4.425

18.

Loh

Gidycz

C. A.

(2006). A prospective analysis of the relationship between childhood sexual victimization and perpetration of dating violence and sexual assault in adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 732-749. doi:10.1177/0886260506287313

19.

Malamuth

N. M.

Linz

Heavey

C. L.

Barnes

Acker

(1995). Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 353-369. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.353

20.

Malamuth

N. M.

Sockloskie

R. J.

Koss

M. P.

Tanaka

J. S.

(1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 670. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.59.5.670

21.

Milner

J. S.

Thomsen

C. J.

Crouch

J. L.

Rabenhorst

M. M.

Martens

P. M.

Dyslin

C. W.

. . .Merrill

L. L.

(2010). Do trauma symptoms mediate the relationship between childhood physical abuse and adult child abuse risk? Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 332-344. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.09.017

22.

Molidor

Tolman

R. M.

(1998). Gender and contextual factors in adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4(2), 180-194. doi:10.1177/1077801298004002004

23.

Newman

Kaloupek

(2009). Overview of research addressing ethical dimensions of participation in traumatic stress studies: Autonomy and beneficence. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22, 595-602. doi:10.1002/jts.20465

24.

Newman

Willard

Sinclair

Kaloupek

(2001). Empirically supported ethical research practice: The costs and benefits of research from the participants’ view. Accountability in Research, 8, 309-329. doi:10.1080/08989620108573983

25.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

26.

Romito

Grassi

(2007). Does violence affect one gender more than the other? The mental health impact of violence among male and female university students. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 1222-1234. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.017

27.

Shorey

R. C.

Cornelius

T. L.

Bell

K. M.

(2008). A critical review of theoretical frameworks for dating violence: Comparing the dating and marital fields. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(3), 185-194. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.03.003

28.

Shorey

R. C.

Cornelius

T. L.

Bell

K. M.

(2011). Reactions to participating in dating violence research: Are our questions distressing to participants? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2890-2907.

29.

Sieber

J. E.

Saks

M. J.

(1989). A census of subject pool characteristics and policies. American Psychologist, 44, 1053-1061. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.44.7.1053

30.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

31.

Testa

VanZile-Tamsen

Livingston

J. A.

(2005). Childhood sexual abuse, relationship satisfaction, and sexual risk taking in a community sample of women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1116-1124. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1116

32.

Thompson

M. P.

Kingree

J. B.

Desai

(2003). Gender differences in long-term health consequences of physical abuse of children: Data from a nationally representative survey. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 599-604. doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.4.599

33.

Tolin

D. F.

Foa

E. B.

(2006). Sex differences in trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder: A quantitative review of 25 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 959-992. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.959

34.

Tyler

K. A.

(2002). Social and emotional outcomes of childhood sexual abuse: A review of recent research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 567-589. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00047-7

35.

White

J. W.

Koss

M. P.

(1991). Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence and Victims, 6, 247-256.

36.

Wilson

T. D.

Gilbert

D. T.

(2003). Affective forecasting. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 345-411). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01006-2