Rejection Sensitivity,Jealousy,and the Relationship to Interpersonal Aggression

Abstract

The development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships lead individuals to risk rejection in the pursuit of acceptance. Some individuals are predisposed to experience a hypersensitivity to rejection that is hypothesized to be related to jealous and aggressive reactions within interpersonal relationships. The current study used convenience sampling to recruit 247 young adults to evaluate the relationship between rejection sensitivity, jealousy, and aggression. A mediation model was used to test three hypotheses: Higher scores of rejection sensitivity would be positively correlated to higher scores of aggression (Hypothesis 1); higher scores of rejection sensitivity would be positively correlated to higher scores of jealousy (Hypothesis 2); jealousy would mediate the relationship between rejection sensitivity and aggression (Hypothesis 3). Study results suggest a tendency for individuals with high rejection sensitivity to experience higher levels of jealousy, and subsequently have a greater propensity for aggression, than individuals with low rejection sensitivity. Future research that substantiates a link between hypersensitivity to rejection, jealousy, and aggression may provide an avenue for prevention, education, or intervention in reducing aggression within interpersonal relationships.

Keywords

aggression rejection sensitivity jealousy

Introduction

The forming and maintenance of stable intimate interpersonal relationships is a key factor in sustaining psychological health and well-being, through experiences of support, belonging, and connection (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). However, to establish intimacy and close connection within interpersonal relationships, individuals risk rejection in the pursuit of acceptance, which becomes more poignant biologically in the preservation of the relationship to raise children (Romero-Canyas, Downey, Berenson, Ayduk, & Kang, 2010).

Rejection is a risk involved in the establishment of all interpersonal relationships and involves direct or indirect exclusion from a social relationship or interaction (Brewer, 2005) that can lead to disrupted psychological functioning (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Leary & Downs, 1995). Depending on intra and interpersonal factors, the experience of actual or perceived rejection, interpretation of an event termed rejection, and the reaction to rejection can vary among individuals. A concept identifying a disposition, in which rejection is perceived more readily due to a hypersensitivity to cues that are perceived to indicate imminent interpersonal rejection, is termed rejection sensitivity (Downey & Feldman, 1996).

The developmental pathway that leads to a disposition, that is, sensitivity to rejection, is not well understood (Butler, Doherty, & Potter, 2007; London, Downey, Bonica, & Paltin, 2007). Past research has focused on the link between experiences of rejection in childhood and adult rejection sensitivity (Bowlby, 1980; Downey & Feldman, 1996; Erikson, 1950; Horney, 1937). Simply, childhood rejection experiences are thought to create a vulnerability to be more sensitive to rejection in the future, due to learnt interpretive biases and maladaptive self-regulatory strategies. As such, rejection sensitivity is often accompanied by anticipatory anxiety common when expressing needs and vulnerabilities due to the fear of rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996).

There is much ambiguity in the interpretation and perception of what constitutes rejection within interpersonal relationships. When this is combined with a disposition that is sensitive to rejection, a neutral situation may act as a trigger for cognitive (e.g., “this person means to end our relationship”), emotional (e.g., “I am scared of being hurt”), and behavioral reactions (e.g., buys partner flowers) to avoid or prevent what is perceived as imminent or likely rejection (Levy, Ayduk, Downey, & Leary, 2001; Rosenbach, 2013).

Jealousy is one emotional reaction to perceived or actual rejection, often occurring when a partner expresses a desire to leave the relationship or in the presence of a (perceived or actual) rival or threat (Mullen & Martin, 1994; Puente & Cohen, 2003). Jealousy, when described as a secondary emotion, perhaps reflects the underlying primary feeling, state of fear (of rejection; Dutton, Van Ginkel, & Landolt, 1996), which is more prominent in those with higher levels of rejection sensitivity. Thus, the arousal of jealousy as an emotional reaction to rejection is hypothesized to serve the function of prompting behavioral responses designed to address such relationship threats (Batinic, Duisin, & Barisic, 2013; Purdie & Downey, 2000).

Behavioral reactions prompted by experiences of jealousy may be as simple as communication with a partner. However, more extreme reactions include the use of aggression (reactive or instrumental violence) to establish or maintain power and control to prevent the loss of a relationship (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006), by withholding resources (i.e., financial abuse) and providing punishments (i.e., physical abuse) or more subtle coercive threats to modify behavior (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). D. M. Buss and Shackelford (1997) have labeled behaviors that attempt to establish power and control over an individual (usually a romantic partner) as mate retention tactics.

There are a plethora of psychosocial predisposing factors that influence an individual’s propensity to use aggression as the predominant behavioral response, within the context of (perceived or actual) rejection and arousal of jealousy (Bell & Naugle, 2008; Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Tilley & Brackley, 2005; Webster et al., 2014). While aggression can have many adaptive features for human survival, it can also at times be maladaptive resulting in serious injury or death (DeWall, Anderson, & Bushman, 2011; Kar & O’Leary, 2013).

The current study aimed to understand the relationship between jealousy, rejection sensitivity, and aggression by evaluating three hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Higher scores of rejection sensitivity would be positively correlated to higher scores of aggression.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Higher scores of rejection sensitivity would be positively correlated to higher scores of jealousy.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Jealousy would mediate the relationship between rejection sensitivity and aggression.

Method

Research Participants

Recruitment

Convenience sampling was used to obtain participants expediently from an Australian young adult population by way of an advertisement on university-related groups through the social media platform Facebook. This method of sampling was considered advantageous as it allowed expedited data collection to examine data trends in young Australian adults in a short time period. In light of the limited research to date in the young adult population regarding interpersonal rejection and jealousy, social media was considered an age-appropriate method of advertising the research to specifically seek a sample of young adults.

Demographics

The sample of 247 adult participants (over the age of 18 years) was made up of 72 males (29%) and 175 females (71%), with no previously diagnosed psychological disorders and with at least moderate English speaking and writing abilities. In light of the intention to seek a young adult sample, the mean age of scores was (M_age) 22.19 years (SD = 3.79).

Procedure

Once Human Research Ethics Committee ethical approval was gathered via the Cairnmillar Institute Ethics Committee, participants were recruited through an advertisement on Facebook, an online social media platform. The advertisement was a plain language statement that detailed the study’s aims, exclusion criteria (under 18 years and diagnosed with a psychological disorder), time to complete (10-15 min), and a link to the study online via Survey Monkey.

The questionnaire sought demographics on age and gender of participants, followed by the electronic administration of the Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ; Downey & Feldman, 1996), the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989), and the Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; A. H. Buss & Perry, 1992). Each participant undertook all measures, and each questionnaire was counterbalanced to help reduce fatigue effects.

Participants were told that they were answering questions on aggression in relation to their cognitions, behaviors, and emotions. Following questionnaire completion, participants were debriefed and informed of the jealousy and rejection sensitivity elements to the research and explained why this information was originally excluded. The minimal deception used was rationalized by concerns for socially desirable responding (van de Mortel, 2008)

Measures

All measures were intact instruments adopted from studies testing variables of jealousy, aggression, and rejection sensitivity. These measures are widely available, and no permission was required to obtain them.

Jealousy was assessed by The MJS (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989), a 24-item measure of romantic subjective jealousy on three factors: cognitive (frequency of such thoughts), behavioral (frequency of such behaviors or actions), and emotional (intensity of emotional response or feeling). Higher scores on each subscale are indicative of higher levels of overall jealousy. A strong Cronbach’s alpha (.92) was found for the MJS in the current study.

Aggression was measured using the 29-item AQ (A. H. Buss & Perry, 1992). The AQ assesses total aggression on four subscales: Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Anger, and Hostility. Questions include “Once in a while I cannot control the urge to hit another person” (Physical Aggression), “When frustrated I let my irritation show” (Anger), “My friends say that I’m somewhat argumentative” (Verbal Aggression), “Other people always seem to get the breaks” (Hostility). The present study found the AQ to have high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α = .90.

Rejection sensitivity was measured using the RSQ (Downey & Feldman, 1996), an 18-item measure that calculates an individual’s anxious-expectations to rejection in intimate relationships. Questions involve hypothetical situations such as “16. You ask your boyfriend/girlfriend if he or she really loves you.” The current study noted a Cronbach’s alpha of .81 for the RSQ.

Results

Relationships Between Rejection Sensitivity, Aggression, and Jealousy

To assess the size and direction of the linear relationships between rejection sensitivity, aggression, and jealousy, Pearson’s (r) correlations were computed. Prior to calculating the r, the assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedascity were assessed and supported. One-tailed relationships were strong between rejection sensitivity and jealousy, r = .30, p ≤ .001; rejection sensitivity and aggression, r = .40, p ≤ .001; and jealousy and aggression, r = .52, p ≤ .001. One-tailed relationships were conducted due to theoretical understandings and the current study’s proposition of directional relationships between these variables. Pearson’s correlations are present in Table 1.

Table 1.

Intercorrelations Between Aggression, Jealousy, and Rejection Sensitivity.

	1	2	3
1. Aggression	—
2. Jealousy	.52**	—
3. Rejection sensitivity	.40**	.30**	—

Note. Significant correlations (p < .05) are shown in bold.

p < .001.

Accounting for Differences in Aggression

To estimate the proportion of variance in aggression that can be accounted for by rejection sensitivity and jealousy, a standard multiple regression analysis was performed. In combination, jealousy and rejection sensitivity accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in aggression, R² = .33, adjusted R² = .33, F(2, 244) = 61.23, p < .001. Significant variances in aggression indicate that mediation is possible in the current study. Unstandardized (B) and standardized (β) regression coefficients and squared semi-partial (or “part”) correlations (sr²) for each predictor in the regression model are reported in Table 2.

Table 2.

Unstandardized (B) and Standardized Regression (β) Coefficients, and Squared Semi-Partial Correlations (sr²) For Each Predictor in a Regression Model Predicting Aggression (N = 247).

	B [95% CI]	β	sr ²
Rejection sensitivity	1.75 [1.03, 2.47]	.26**	.062
Jealousy	0.57 [0.43, 0.71]	.44**	.18

Note. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .001.

Understanding the Role of Jealousy

To determine whether jealousy mediates the effect of rejection sensitivity on aggression, the Sobel test was performed (Preacher & Hayes, 2013). There was a significant indirect effect of rejection sensitivity on aggression through jealousy, b = .13, 95% BCa confidence interval (CI) = [.077, .205]. This outcome represents a medium to large effect, K² = .14, 95% BCa CI = [.080, .214] (K² refers to the D’Agostino’s K² test; BCa CI refers to the bias-corrected accelerated bootstrap confidence interval). When the mediator jealousy was controlled for, the model explained only 15.5% of the variance in aggression with a total effect of b = 2.64, p < .001. This outcome is contrasted to the proposed model where jealousy is mediating the effect of rejection sensitivity on aggression, explaining 33.4% of the variance in aggression with a Sobel z = .89, p < .001. Figure 1 represents the proposed mediation model with regression coefficients, the indirect effect, and its bootstrapped confidence intervals.

Figure 1.

Proposed model with mediation.

Discussion

The results of the study substantiated the direction and strength of the relationships between rejection sensitivity, jealousy, and aggression in the young adult, Australian sample. The hypothesis (H1) that rejection sensitivity would be positively correlated with aggression was supported. This finding is consistent with the current literature’s understanding that rejection sensitivity can negatively affect interpersonal relationships (D. M. Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Downey & Feldman, 1996). Higher levels of rejection sensitivity may prompt behaviors that compromise relationship satisfaction and well-being. For example, mate retention behaviors such as aggression appear to substantially increase as attachment, relationship satisfaction, and positive attribution to a partner decrease (Downey & Feldman, 1996).

Conversely, while there are links between rejection sensitivity and aggression found in the literature, some studies have found no predictive qualities between the two concepts (see Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2008). These contrary findings may be attributable to the exclusion of a third variable that is mediating the link between rejection sensitivity and aggression, namely, jealousy (Levy et al., 2001). The hypothesis (H2) that rejection sensitivity and jealousy would be positively correlated was supported. This finding is consistent with known theoretical associations between rejection sensitivity and jealousy, that heightened levels of rejection sensitivity promote jealousy which functions to prevent rejection and maintain belonging (Vespa, Ottaviani, Rosselli, Rossini, & Balducci, 2013). The literature has asserted that jealousy is a dimensional construct ranging from normal to morbid. In the context of romantic interpersonal relationships, it is theorized that an individual’s level of jealousy on this spectrum is thought to depend on a corresponding level of rejection sensitivity (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Easton, Schipper, & Shackelford, 2007).

While these correlations present an argument that rejection sensitivity is influencing jealousy, there is no theoretical construct that connects jealousy to specific intrinsic motives, or how the experience of jealousy varies between individuals in similar circumstances and to what degree rejection sensitivity influences the jealousy–aggression link (Puente & Cohen, 2003). Past studies have alluded to jealousy as not only a determinant of aggression, or a consequence of rejection sensitivity, but also as a mediator of these two factors, where jealousy positively influences rejection sensitivity’s effect on aggression (see Gupta, 2008; Mullen, 1991; Somasundaram, 2010). The current study examined this theory in a young adult sample with an attempt to establish to what degree mediation was possible.

The hypothesis (H3) that jealousy was mediating the effect of rejection sensitivity on aggression was supported. Tests of regression identified that without jealousy, rejection sensitivity explained only a small proportion of the variance in aggression. The results complement previous findings regarding the role of jealousy, and more generally, the association between broad difficulties with emotion regulation, as well as more specific emotion regulation problems, possibly differentiating those who perpetrate aggression (Shorey, Brasfield, Febres, & Stuart, 2011). The proposed model also supports Peters, Eisenlohr-Moul, Pond and DeWall’s (2014) proposition that jealousy relates to numerous negative outcomes such as rejection and aggression, and further confirms past suggestions of rejection sensitivity as a cognitive process, influencing jealousy and, subsequently, aggression (e.g., Butler et al., 2007).

The current study was able to substantiate relationships between key variables of rejection sensitivity, aggression, and jealousy. These significant positive ties appear to align with previous findings in research. Furthermore, the mediation model proposed, demonstrated theoretical and conceptual understandings of the underlying psychological processes of aggression (i.e., rejection sensitivity influencing jealousy). The current study’s strengths of a large sample size (N = 247) and significant outcome may encourage the use of the jealousy mediation model in future research.

Non-probability convenience sampling used in the study limits the researchers’ ability to generalize the findings to the wider population, as adults without Facebook access or without knowledge of the ability to participate in the study were inadvertently excluded. This exclusion may limit results to a specific age group, socioeconomic status, or location, which are contributing factors to Internet use (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014). The current study is hopefully a start toward utilization of a more diverse data set.

Theoretical implications from the current findings are twofold. Firstly that individuals who have become highly attuned to rejection (highly rejection sensitive) and thus hypersensitive to perceived occurrences (even when vague, and realistically of no direct threat to an individual relationship) view rejection as intolerable and distressing, and responded to with negative affect (i.e., jealousy). Second, according to the proposed model, an individual’s willingness and propensity to use aggression may be dependent on the perceived likelihood of rejection and the corresponding intensity of jealous feelings. High rejection sensitivity appears to allow greater identification of a threat to a relationship through jealousy. Subsequently, rejection sensitivity is considered a key process influencing jealousy within interpersonal relationships and the propensity to use aggression as a behavioral response.

In practice, these findings could be utilized to help target aggression in the young adult Australian population. Hypothetically, detecting high levels of rejection sensitivity may allow for early intervention that teaches emotional regulation skills (i.e., to manage jealousy) to improve relationship sustaining behaviors, rather than resorting to destructive aggressive behavior in an attempt to retain a partner (mate retention tactics).

Future studies may wish to examine whether clinical and forensic settings should look more closely at jealousy as a predictor of violence, where treatment efforts or risk assessments could include rejection sensitivity as a notable factor underlying the jealous response. Rejection sensitivity could be considered a clinical target variable and an early identifier for re-offending. Levels of rejection sensitivity among pre and post aggressive perpetrators could also be contrasted, to identify the level at which rejection sensitivity perpetuates morbid jealousy. Identifying these levels of rejection sensitivity that incite a morbid jealous response may be an option for future research.

The current study demonstrates that recognizing high levels of rejection sensitivity may aid in prediction of jealousy (even in circumstances that are disproportionately related to using aggression) and aggression before it is present in individuals. Considering rejection sensitivity as a contributor to jealousy may help to facilitate the prediction of aggression and the prevention of its occurrence.

Supplemental Material

Rejection_Sensitivity,_Jealousy,_Aggression_Data – Supplemental material for Rejection Sensitivity, Jealousy, and the Relationship to Interpersonal Aggression

Supplemental material, Rejection_Sensitivity,_Jealousy,_Aggression_Data for Rejection Sensitivity, Jealousy, and the Relationship to Interpersonal Aggression by Anna M. Murphy and Gemma Russell in Journal 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.

Supplementary Material

The supplemental materials are available at

Author Biographies

Anna M. Murphy has completed her Graduate Diploma of Psychology at the Cairnmillar Institute in Camberwell, Melbourne, Australia. She is interested in research concerning risk assessment and violence prevention. More specifically, her work examines the prevalence and prevention of domestic violence in Australia.

Gemma Russell received her Doctorate in Clinical Psychology from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. She is a registered clinical psychologist and Australian Psychological Society Board Approved Supervisor with more than 10 years of experience in mental health and forensic psychology. She specializes in adult mental health and forensics, with a particular emphasis on personality disorders, anger regulation, low prevalence disorders, and risk assessment.

References

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Human aggression. Psychology, 53, 27-51.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014, February 25). Household use of information technology: Australia, 2012-13 (Catalogue No. 8146.0). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8146.0Chapter32012-13

Ayduk

Gyurak

Luerssen

(2008). Individual differences in the rejection–aggression link in the hot sauce paradigm: The case of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 775-782.

Batinic

Duisin

Barisic

(2013). Obsessive versus delusional jealousy. Psychiatria Danubina, 25, 334-339.

Bell

K. M.

Naugle

A. E.

(2008). Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: Moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1096-1107.

Bowlby

(1980). Loss: Sadness and depression: Attachment and loss (Vol. 3). London, England: Hogarth Press.

Brewer

(2005). The psychological impact of social isolation: Discussion and commentary. In Williams

K. D.

Forgas

J. P.

Von Hippel

(Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 333-346). Sydney, Australia: Psychology Press.

Buss

A. H.

Perry

(1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.

Buss

D. M.

Shackelford

T. K.

(1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346-361.

10.

Bussey

Bandura

(1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676-713.

11.

Butler

J. C.

Doherty

M. S.

Potter

R. M.

(2007). Social antecedents and consequences of interpersonal rejection sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1376-1385.

12.

DeWall

C. N.

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2011). The general aggression model: Theoretical extensions to violence. Psychology of Violence, 1, 245-258.

13.

Downey

Feldman

S. I.

(1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327-1343.

14.

Dutton

D. G.

Van Ginkel

Landolt

M. A.

(1996). Jealousy, intimate abusiveness, and intrusiveness. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 411-423.

15.

Easton

J. A.

Schipper

L. D.

Shackelford

T. K.

(2007). Morbid jealousy from an evolutionary psychological perspective. Evolution & Human Behavior, 28, 399-402.

16.

Erikson

(1950). Childhood and society (1st ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

17.

Gupta

(2008). Functional links between intimate partner violence and animal abuse: Personality features and representations of aggression. Society & Animals, 16, 223-242.

18.

Horney

(1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

19.

Kar

H. L.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2013). Patterns of psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy within marriage. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 109-119.

20.

Keltner

Gruenfeld

D. H.

Anderson

(2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological review, 110, 265-284.

21.

Leary

M. R.

Downs

D. L.

(1995). Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive. In Kernis

(Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 123-144). New York, NY: Springer.

22.

Leary

M. R.

Twenge

J. M.

Quinlivan

(2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 111-132.

23.

Levy

S. R.

Ayduk

Downey

Leary

M. R.

(2001). The role of rejection sensitivity in people’s relationships with significant others and valued social groups. In Leary

M. R.

(Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 251-290). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

24.

London

Downey

Bonica

Paltin

(2007). Social causes and consequences of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 481-506.

25.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Personal Relationships, 12, 149-168.

26.

Mullen

P. E.

(1991). Jealousy: The pathology of passion. British Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 593-601.

27.

Mullen

P. E.

Martin

(1994). Jealousy: A community study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 35-43.

28.

Peters

J. R.

Eisenlohr-Moul

T. A.

Pond

R. S.

Jr DeWall

C. N.

(2014). The downside of being sexually restricted: The effects of sociosexual orientation on relationships between jealousy, rejection, and anger. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 18-22. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.04.002

29.

Pfeiffer

S. M.

Wong

P. T.

(1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 181-196.

30.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (PROCESS: Moderated Mediation Analysis). Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html

31.

Puente

Cohen

(2003). Jealousy and the meaning (or nonmeaning) of violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 449-460.

32.

Purdie

Downey

(2000). Rejection sensitivity and adolescent girls’ vulnerability to relationship-centered difficulties. Child Maltreatment, 5, 338-349.

33.

Romero-Canyas

Downey

Berenson

Ayduk

Kang

N. J.

(2010). Rejection sensitivity and the rejection-hostility link in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality, 78, 119-148.

34.

Rosenbach

(2013). Rejection sensitivity: Etiological aspects and psychopathological impact (Doctoral dissertation). Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.

35.

Shorey

R. C.

Brasfield

Febres

Stuart

G. L.

(2011). An examination of the association between difficulties with emotion regulation and dating violence perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20, 870-885.

36.

Somasundaram

(2010). Facets of morbid jealousy: With an anecdote from a historical Tamil romance. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 52, 284-288.

37.

Tilley

D. S.

Brackley

(2005). Men who batter intimate partners: A grounded theory study of the development of male violence in intimate partner relationships. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 26, 281-297.

38.

van de Mortel

(2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 40-48.

39.

Vespa

Ottaviani

Rosselli

Rossini

Balducci

(2013). Evaluation of intrapsychic processes, anxiety, and depression in postmenopausal women affected by breast cancer: A case-control study. Supportive Care in Cancer, 21, 1281-1286.

40.

Webster

Pennay

Bricknall

Diemer

Flood

Powell

Ward

(2014). Australians’ attitudes to violence against women: Findings from the 2013 National Community Attitudes towards Violence Against Women Survey (NCAS) (Full technical report). Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, Melbourne, Australia: VicHealth.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.29 MB