Self-Control and Emotional and Verbal Aggression in Dating Relationships: A Dyadic Understanding

Abstract

Guided by the dynamic developmental systems perspective, this study extends past research by examining the association between self-control and emotional and verbal aggression (EVA) using a dyadic multi-method design. Guided by empirical research and the dynamic developmental systems perspective, we hypothesized that (a) there would be a negative association between one’s own self-control and one’s own perpetration of EVA and (b) there would also be a negative association between one’s partner’s self-control and one’s own perpetration of EVA. One hundred twenty heterosexual dating couples (ages 18-25 years) provided data on self-control (Grasmick et al.’s Low Self-Control Scale; reverse scored for ease of interpretation), self-reported perpetration of EVA (Emotional and Verbal Abuse subscale of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory), and observationally assessed perpetration of EVA. Data were analyzed using path analyses within the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) framework. Consistent with previous findings, we found that self-control was negatively associated with the perpetration of EVA. Furthermore, we found partner effects, such that female—but not male—self-control predicted partner-observed perpetration of EVA. These findings highlight the importance of examining risk factors for EVA of both partners. Our findings also suggest that the association between self-control and EVA is partially a function of whether EVA is assessed through self-report or observational methodology. This highlights the need to conduct multi-method assessments in future research. As discussed in the article, our findings have implications for theories on intimate partner violence, study designs, and couple interventions.

Keywords

dating violence domestic violence intervention/treatment anything related to domestic violence

Aggression in intimate relationships is a prevalent and important issue (see Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012, for a review). More than one in three women and one in four men in the United States experience physical aggression, sexual aggression, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2010b). Yet, even more prevalent than these types of intimate partner aggression is emotional and verbal aggression (EVA), with nearly half of all men and women in the United States experiencing EVA victimization in their lifetime (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2010b). Although there are multiple definitions of EVA used in the literature, we conceptualize EVA as the intention to negatively affect someone’s emotional well-being through the use of verbal comments (Wolfe et al., 2001).

In addition to being the subtype of aggression that occurs most often in romantic relationships, EVA has serious implications for a number of negative mental and physical health outcomes, such as depression and anxiety (Lawrence, Yoon, Langer, & Ro, 2009; Taft et al., 2006), poorer physical health symptoms (Taft et al., 2006), and cognitive impairment (Straight, Harper, & Arias, 2003). In addition, EVA is a major risk factor for future physical aggression (Baker & Stith, 2008; Murphy & O’Leary, 1989). Due to the fact that EVA is the most commonly experienced form of aggression in romantic relationships and is predictive of negative mental and physical health, our research focuses specifically on this subtype. Given that the onset of aggression perpetrated against an intimate partner tends to occur before the age of 24 years (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2010a), young adults offer a unique opportunity to explore and intervene on risk factors for EVA perpetrated by dating partners. Therefore, we focus specifically on this age group.

Self-Control and Aggression

When examining the perpetration of aggression, it is intuitive to take into account one’s self-control, which refers to one’s ability to “regulate and override impulses and urges, including thoughts, desires, and behaviors” (Watkins, DiLillo, Hoffman, & Templin, 2015, p. 2). Indeed, a large body of theoretical work highlights the importance of self-control in understanding aggression (i.e., General Theory of Crime, I³ Theory, prefrontal-subcortical balance model; Finkel, 2013; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Heatherton & Wagner, 2011). Furthermore, empirical research shows that reduced self-control is associated with an increase in aggressive behavior (Denson, DeWall, & Finkel, 2012; DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot, 2007) and increased self-control is associated with a decrease in aggressive behavior (Denson, Capper, Oaten, Friese, & Schofield, 2011). Additional support for the association between self-control and aggression comes from neurobiological research. Recent reviews on this body of research conclude that the same regions of the prefrontal cortex that control anger and aggressive urges broadly support self-regulation. Accordingly, individuals with abnormalities in these regions are at increased risk of aggressive behavior (Denson et al., 2012; DeWall, Finkel, & Denson, 2011).

Although there is less work investigating the role of self-control in understanding aggression specific to intimate relationships, recent work has begun to examine the ability to control one’s owns actions as a risk factor for intimate partner violence (DeWall et al., 2011; Finkel, 2007, 2013; Finkel, DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, & Foshee, 2009). This shift toward examining self-control is well founded, as many individuals experience the urge to physically aggress when arguing with their romantic partner (Finkel et al., 2009). However, the vast majority of individuals do not actually act with physical aggression on such urges. Inhibiting these common urges decreases both inclinations toward physical aggression (Finkel et al., 2012; Study 2) and actual acts of physical aggression in both married (Finkel et al., 2012; Studies 1 and 4) and dating couples (Finkel et al., 2012; Study 3). Furthermore, low levels of self-control are associated with physical relationship aggression perpetration in male batterers with head injuries (e.g., Marsh & Martinovich, 2006; Warnken, Rosenbaum, Fletcher, Hoge, & Adelman, 1994) and executive dysfunction (e.g., Marsh & Martinovich, 2006; Walling, Meehan, Marshall, Holtzworth-Munroe, & Taft, 2012). Collectively, this body of research supports an association between self-control and physical aggression toward intimate partners.

Self-Control and EVA

While the aforementioned body of literature provides fairly strong support for self-control as a risk factor for physical aggression among intimate partners, it is not clear whether self-control is also a risk factor for other types of intimate partner aggression, in particular EVA. However, physical aggression and EVA are correlated (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997) and have common risk/protective factors (Capaldi et al., 2012). Indeed, it is rare for a relationship to have physical aggression without EVA as well. Furthermore, EVA is often a precursor of later physical aggression (Murphy & O’Leary, 1989). Therefore, we hypothesize that self-control—which is centrally involved in the developmental of physical aggression—is also involved in the development of EVA. Our hypothesis is also supported by some previous empirical findings (Finkel & Campbell, 2001) examining the link between self-control and accommodation. Accommodation refers to the ability to inhibit a potentially destructive response and replace it with a constructive one (Finkel & Campbell, 2001). During conversations between romantic partners, especially conversations (or arguments) that involve discussing a major problem area in relationships, there are many potential instances during which one partner may, intentionally or unintentionally, say something to provoke their partner. The other partner can then respond with a destructive or constructive response. In the case that a destructive response occurs, portions of that destructive response may include EVA. Finkel and Campbell’s (2001) study found that both higher trait self-control and higher in-the-moment self-control are beneficial for accommodation in relationships. In addition, work from Vohs, Finkenauer, and Baumeister (2011) found that both dating and married couples with higher total self-control had healthier relationship outcomes than other dating and married couples, perhaps due to an enhanced ability to use accommodation within the relationship. It follows, then, that the benefits that self-control provides in allowing an individual to replace a destructive response with a constructive response may similarly lead us to expect that higher self-control would be predictive of less EVA.

Moreover, nuanced work from Crane, Testa, Derrick, and Leonard (2014) investigated the effects of self-control depletion on relationship functioning by utilizing a dyadic, daily-diary approach. Crane and colleagues found that both one’s own self-control depletion and one’s partner’s self-control depletion were important factors in predicting daily arguing between partners. As mentioned previously, arguments provide many opportunities for non-accommodative behaviors (such as EVA) to emerge. Taken together, these findings suggest that self-control might play an important role in the use of EVA.

A Need for a Dyadic Understanding

Past empirical research and theory support the association between self-control and intimate partner aggression. However, much of this research investigates intimate partner aggression at the level of the individual. These previous findings are limited as intimate partner aggression does not occur in isolation. Rather, intimate partner aggression is dyadic in nature, with each partner mutually influencing the other. Research on EVA in particular consistently demonstrates that EVA is a mutual phenomenon, being perpetrated by both males and females (see O’Leary & Slep, 2012, for a review).

The dynamic developmental systems perspective (e.g., Capaldi, Shortt, & Kim, 2005) is one theory that accommodates both self- and partner characteristics as they affect outcomes of intimate partner aggression at the dyadic level. More specifically, the dynamic developmental systems perspective emphasizes the role of characteristics of both individuals in a relationship in understanding relationship processes, including the development and resolution of conflictual situations (e.g., Capaldi & Gorman-Smith, 2003; Capaldi & Kim, 2007; Capaldi, Kim, & Shortt, 2004; Capaldi, Shortt, & Crosby, 2003; Capaldi et al., 2005). It conceptualizes intimate partner aggression to be dyadic, with both partners affecting their own as well as their partner’s outcomes. The focus of this theory, then, is on how partners influence themselves, each other, as well as the nature of the conflict as a whole. This theoretical support, combined with the previously mentioned empirical evidence, lends ample support for the study of both individuals in the dyad. Furthermore, intimate partner aggression intervention efforts are most effective when characteristics of both partners are being considered (O’Leary & Slep, 2012). Therefore, this study contributes to the literature by using a dyadic understanding of intimate partner aggression and building on best practices in methodology.

Indeed, recent research is beginning to move toward considering the dyadic effects of intimate partner aggression (see also the aforementioned empirical work by Crane et al., 2014). For example, a recent study lends support for the association between self-control depletion and aggression by collecting and analyzing data from both partners (Watkins et al., 2015). Watkins and colleagues’ research provides evidence for the importance of self-control in intimate partner aggression, and importantly, for the dyadic processes behind it. Watkins’ research provides empirical evidence for the importance of examining self-control and aggression within a dyadic framework by using white noise blasts following a conflict as an analogous measure of physical aggression. Our study builds upon this research in two ways. First, we extend Watkins’ research by examining the subtype of EVA. Second, we do this by using an observational assessment of EVA during actual couple conflict resolution.

Contribution of Current Study

In summary, the current study examines the association between self-control and EVA within a dyadic framework (as guided by the developmental systems perspective) during couple conflict resolution. Guided by previous research on self-control and aggression (Denson et al., 2012; DeWall et al., 2011; Finkel, 2007, 2013), we hypothesize that one’s own self-control affects one’s own perpetration of EVA. Furthermore, as guided by the dynamic developmental systems perspective, we hypothesize that partner self-control also affects EVA perpetration. Specifically, we hypothesize that there is a negative relationship between self-control and perpetrating EVA for both one’s self and one’s dating partner. In addition, we examined if the proposed associations were similar across two different methodologies (observational, self-report). Finally, we conducted exploratory analyses to investigate the potential interaction effects between actor and partner self-control, as this could provide further insight into risk within the dyadic context (Chow, Claxton, & van Dulmen, 2015).

Method

Participants

The current investigation used data from the Transitions Into Adulthood and Romantic Relationships Study (van Dulmen, Mata, & Klipfel, 2012). Participants included 120 dating couples, of which at least one member of the couple was a student from a large Midwestern university. This member of the couple was recruited through an undergraduate research pool to fulfill a research requirement for their undergraduate psychology course. To be eligible for the study, the participant needed to be between the ages of 18 and 25 and had to have been involved in a heterosexual romantic relationship for at least 4 months. Homosexual couples (n = 4) and couples who were not observationally coded due to technical difficulties (n = 3) were excluded from the current study. The remaining sample consisted of 113 couples (M_age = 19.78, 88% Caucasian, 52% dating for longer than 1 year). The participant received course credit for the initial assessment, and their romantic partners received monetary compensation of US$25. The Kent State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the study (IRB 07-226).

Procedure

As part of a larger study, all participants completed a battery of assessments to assess continuity and change in romantic relationships. Included in this study were measures of self-control, self-reported EVA in dating relationships, issues in the current romantic relationship, and a general demographic questionnaire. After completing the surveys, couples completed the revised Markman–Cox Couple Interaction Observation Procedure (Cox, 1991). During this part of the assessment, couples reviewed a list of possible romantic relationship problems they had previously filled out individually. The couples then had 4 min to come to an agreement on what the biggest problem area in their relationship was. They then had 10 min to come up with a compromise or solution to the problem. Following that portion, the couples were given 4 min to decide what they agree upon most in their relationships from the same list. Finally, the couples were given 10 min to plan a hypothetical all-expenses paid 3-day vacation to the destination of their choice. This entire interaction was video recorded for subsequent observational coding of EVA. The battery of assessments and the observational component were both completed during the initial assessment.

Measures

Self-control

Grasmick et al.’s Low Self-Control Scale (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993) was used to assess self-control. This is a 24-item scale that includes questions such as “I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think” and “I like to test myself every now and then by doing something a little risky.” This scale has been shown to be both reliable and valid in the past, and also demonstrated good reliability in our study (α = .83). Items are assessed on a 4-point Likert-type scale, with higher scores reflecting less self-control. However, for ease of interpretation, we reverse scored this measure, so that higher scores reflect higher self-control. A total self-control score was derived by averaging all the items.

Self-reported EVA perpetration

The Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; Wolfe et al., 2001) is a 70-item scale with six subscales that assess threatening behavior, physical abuse, sexual abuse, relational aggression, emotional and verbal abuse, and positive strategies within the past year. Four items were drawn from the 10-item Emotional and Verbal Abuse scale to match the observationally coded constructs discussed below (α = .82). Items include “I said things just to make him/her angry,” “I insulted him/her with put-downs,” “I blamed him/her for the problem,” and “I brought up something bad that he/she had done in the past.” Items were assessed on a 4-point Likert-type scale, with greater numbers indicating higher frequency (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often).

Observationally assessed EVA

A coding scheme adapted from the Emotional and Verbal Abuse subscale of the CADRI was used to assess observed EVA (van Dulmen et al., 2012; interrater reliability rs ranging from .59-.81) during the observational task. Four items were excluded because they were unlikely to occur during the assessment or because of their subjective nature (threatening to end the relationship, ridiculing one’s partner in front of others, keeping track of who one’s partner was with, and keeping track of where one’s partner was) and two were excluded due to low variability (doing something to make one’s partner jealous, accusing one’s partner of flirting). The final coding scheme included the following four constructs: saying something to make one’s partner angry, insulting one’s partner with put-downs, blaming one’s partner for a problem, and bringing up something bad that one’s partner did in the past. The frequency of each behavior was rated on a 4-point scale, with higher scores indicating a greater frequency of occurrence (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often). Seven undergraduate and graduate research assistants were trained on coding during group meetings using practice tapes. Once research assistants reached 80% agreement or higher, they began to code the tapes in pairs. Disagreements between coders were settled during conference meetings with the other coders. Each tape was coded by at least two coders. Internal consistency was adequate for both females (α = .61) and males (α = .62).

Data Analysis Plan

Given the nature of the relationship between romantic partners, we used a statistical technique that takes into account the interdependence of dyadic couples. Kenny’s Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) framework (see Figure 1) is able to take into account the way in which one’s own characteristics affect one’s own outcome (actor effects), as well as the way in which one’s own characteristics affect their partner’s outcome (partner effects; Kenny, 1996; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Furthermore, the APIM models the non-independence of the dyadic data. As recommended by Kenny and colleagues, we report unstandardized coefficients (Kenny et al., 2006).

Figure 1.

Actor–partner interdependence model of self-control predicting observed and self-reported perpetration of EVA.

Results

Significant bivariate correlations (Table 1) ranged from r = −.35 (female self-control and female-observed EVA) to r = .52 (female-observed EVA and male-observed EVA). There were also moderate associations between female and male self-reported EVA (r = .44, p < .001). Female self-control was not significantly associated with male self-control. We controlled for length of relationship as well as relationship satisfaction in all models. Length of relationship was not associated with female or male observationally assessed EVA but was associated with both female (b = 0.22, p < .001) and male (b = 0.24, p < .01) self-reported EVA. Relationship satisfaction was negatively associated with female (b = −0.30, p < .01) and male (b = −0.26, p < .05) observationally assessed EVA as well as female (b = −0.61, p < .001) and male (b = −0.33, p < .05) self-reported EVA.

Table 1.

Observed EVA, Self-Reported Perpetration of EVA, and Self-Control (N = 113).

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Female-observed EVA	—
2. Male-observed EVA	.52***	—
3. Female self-reported EVA	.25**	.26**	—
4. Male self-reported EVA	.31***	.30**	.44***	—
5. Female self-control	−.35***	−.34***	−.22*	−.07	—
6. Male self-control	−.11	−.05	−.22*	−.23*	−.01	—
M	2.08	1.92	2.02	1.91	2.90	2.85
SD	0.57	0.63	0.73	0.79	0.35	0.38
α	.61	.62	.81	.83	.83	.81

Note. For sake of presentation, controls (length of relationship and relationship satisfaction) are omitted from the table. EVA = emotional and verbal aggression.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Does One’s Own Self-Control Predict EVA?

Our hypothesis that one’s own self-control would be negatively associated with EVA was partially confirmed (Table 2). For females, self-control predicted observed EVA (b = −0.50, p < .001) and self-reported EVA (b = −0.31, p < .05). For males, self-control predicted self-reported EVA (b = −0.41, p < .01) but not observed EVA (b = −0.01, p > .05).¹

Table 2.

Summary of Actor–Partner Interdependence Model Logistic for Self-Control Predicting Observed and Self-Reported Perpetration of EVA (N = 113), Controlling for Length of Relationship and Relationship Satisfaction.

Predictor	Female-Observed EVA			Male-Observed EVA
Predictor	b	SE b	95% CI	b	SE b	95% CI
Female self-control	−0.50***	0.13	[−0.74, −0.25]	−0.53***	0.14	[−0.80, −0.30]
Male self-control	−0.09	0.13	[−0.34, 0.17]	−0.01	0.17	[−0.33, 0.31]
Predictor	Female Self-Reported EVA			Male Self-Reported EVA
Predictor	b	SE b	95% CI	b	SE b	95% CI
Female self-control	−0.31*	0.13	[−0.55, −0.06]	−0.08	0.22	[−0.51, 0.35]
Male self-control	−0.28^†	0.15	[−0.57, 0.003]	−0.41**	0.16	[−0.712, −0.10]

Note. For sake of presentation, controls (length of relationship and relationship satisfaction) are omitted from the table. EVA = emotional and verbal aggression; CI = confidence interval.

†

indicates p < 0.10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Testing for gender differences, analyses including equality constraints suggested that females and males did significantly differ for observed EVA (Δχ² = 5.82, p < .05) but not for self-reported EVA (Δχ² = .17, p > .05). Together, these findings suggest that the association between one’s own self-control and observed EVA was stronger for females (b = −0.50) compared with males (b = −0.01).

Does Partner Self-Control Predict EVA?

Our hypothesis that partner self-control would be associated with EVA was partially confirmed (Table 2). Females’ self-control negatively predicted their partners’ observed EVA (b = −0.53, p < .001) but not self-reported EVA (b = −0.08, p > .05). A trend emerged for male self-control negatively predicting their partners’ self-reported EVA (b = −0.28, p = .05) but not observed EVA (b = −0.09, p > .05).

Testing for gender differences, analyses suggested that females and males did significantly differ from one another for observed EVA (Δχ² = 4.80, p < .05), but not for self-reported EVA (Δχ² = .67, p > .05). Together, these findings suggest that self-control is more strongly associated with observed EVA for females (b = −0.53) compared with males (b = −0.09).

Follow-Up Analyses

Although not part of the a priori hypotheses, we conducted follow-up analyses to test for interaction effects between female and male self-control. There was no interaction between female and male levels of self-control for predicting observationally assessed EVA. However, there was a significant interaction between female and male levels of self-control for predicting male use of self-reported EVA (b = 1.38, p < .01). Follow-up simple slope analyses indicated that there was a negative association between male self-control and male self-reported EVA when female self-control was high (b = −.959, p < .001). It appears that when males have low self-control and their partners have high self-control, males are more likely to perpetrate self-reported EVA.

Discussion

This study extends previous findings on intimate partner aggression by assessing self-control of both partners in a dating relationship to examine EVA perpetration during couple conflict resolution within a dyadic framework. We found—consistent with previous research (Archer, Fernández-Fuertes, & Thanzami, 2010; Denson et al., 2012; DeWall et al., 2011; Finkel et al., 2009; Warnken et al., 1994; Watkins et al., 2015)—that self-control was negatively associated with intimate partner aggression. Importantly, our findings extend the empirical literature by highlighting the importance of examining EVA during couple conflict resolution within a dyadic framework, particularly focusing not only on one’s own self-control but also partner self-control. Our findings also suggest that the association between self-control and EVA is partially a function of whether EVA is assessed through self-report or observational methodology.

Self-Control Associated With EVA

We hypothesized, as guided by previous research (Denson et al., 2012; DeWall et al., 2011; Finkel, 2007, 2013), that self-control and EVA would be negatively associated. Overall, our findings supported this hypothesis. This finding not only confirms theoretical work on the association between self-control and intimate partner aggression (Finkel, 2007, 2013) but also extends previous work (which largely focused on physical aggression) to EVA during couple conflict resolution (a subtype of aggression not yet examined). Recognizing low self-control as a risk factor for perpetrating EVA during couple conflict resolution is an important step in not only reducing EVA but also for reducing physical aggression. EVA in marriages (before any physical aggression occurs) is predictive of later physical aggression (e.g., Murphy & O’Leary, 1989). Therefore, intervening to decrease EVA before physical aggression occurs by bolstering self-control is a promising primary prevention effort for decreasing more extreme forms of aggression. Future research should continue to examine the role of self-control in predicting multiple forms of intimate partner aggression.

The Association Between Self-Control and EVA Is Dyadic in Nature

We hypothesized, as guided by the dynamic developmental systems perspective (Capaldi et al., 2005), that partner self-control would be negatively associated with EVA. Our hypothesis was partially confirmed, providing empirical support for the theoretical notion that studying risk factors of both partners is important in understanding EVA in intimate partner relationships.

An example of partner effects can be found in our data that demonstrate that female self-control is negatively associated with male perpetration of observed EVA. These findings suggest that researchers should begin to examine these partner effects to understand the mechanisms behind the dyadic interaction. For example, as our findings implicate, it could be the case that females who have lower levels of self-control are more likely to perpetrate EVA. This may, in turn, lead their male partners to experience more negative emotions during conflict resolution, which may cause them to perpetrate retaliatory EVA. Indeed, research findings show that when males experience negative emotions (perhaps from being victimized by their partner), they are more likely to aggress (Verona & Curtin, 2006; Watkins et al., 2015).

We also explored whether self-control in the couple context interacts. We found a significant interaction effect for self-reported EVA, such that when males have low self-control and their female partners have high self-control, males are more likely to perpetrate self-reported EVA. It may be the case that the discrepancy between partners’ self-control could serve as a unique frustration mechanism for self-reported EVA. Perhaps females who have higher levels of self-control are also better equipped to handle conflict, and this difference in abilities frustrates their male partners who have low levels of self-control, causing males to perpetrate more EVA. Together, these findings suggest that the level of self-control—and the discrepancy in levels of self-control between partners—may also affect how self-control impacts EVA. Clearly, these findings are exploratory but suggest that this might be a fruitful avenue for future research.

The findings from our study highlighting the dyadic nature of the association between self-control and EVA have significant implications for relationship education. Indeed, couples need to not just focus on one’s own behavior but also acknowledge that both partners play a role in the perpetration of EVA. By raising awareness of the dyadic effects involved in dating aggression, we can educate couples on how to de-escalate conflict. By educating couples on how their own behavior affects their partner’s actions, as well as how their partner’s behavior affects their own actions, individuals may be better able to diffuse conflict when arguments arise. In addition, individuals can be more confident to make educated decisions such as selecting future dating partners who possess higher self-control. They may also consider engaging in activities (and encouraging their partner to do the same) that bolster self-control in an effort to decrease dating aggression. In sum, the current study extends the literature by providing a dyadic perspective and highlights the importance of considering both self and partner self-control in understanding intimate partner violence.

The Association Between Self-Control and EVA Is Partially a Function of Methodology

We examined if the association between self-control and EVA extends across self-report and observational methodologies. Our results indicate that only to a degree the findings extend across these different methodologies. More specifically, we found gender differences using observational methodology that we did not find using self-report methodology. To understand these gender-specific findings, we must first take into account the nature of what survey measures and observational methodology capture in terms of assessing EVA. Observational methodology is context dependent, such that the EVA is assessed when couples are privately working together on a conflict resolution task with a common goal in mind of coming to an agreement or a compromise. This is different than self-report methodology, which assesses non-context-dependent conflict resolution by simply asking individuals to report on the frequency of EVA “during an argument.” This type of self-report methodology has much more variability associated with it in terms of the type of conflict resolution it assesses and could include a variety of interactions due to the subjective nature inherent in such a question (e.g., one-sided arguments or minor fights in the presence of others).

Taking into account the nature of the context-dependent conflict resolution assessed in observational assessment, it is possible to speculate about explanations for the gender differences we found. We found an association between female self-control and observed EVA for females. However, we did not find an association between male self-control and observed EVA for males. Therefore, males may perpetrate for reasons other than low self-control during the observational assessment. During the observational assessment, the couple is asked to sit down and work through various tasks, including talking about the biggest issue in their relationship. Quite understandably, the observational assessment may capture a more stressful conflict resolution as compared with the conflict resolution that is measured in the self-report (which may also include arguments over smaller issues, for example). Interestingly, men are more likely to respond with aggression in stressful situations as compared with women (Verona & Curtin, 2006; Verona & Kilmer, 2007). Therefore, it may be the case that men in this context-dependent situation are perpetrating EVA in response to stress. However, as we do not have data on the couple’s perceptions of stress during this interaction, we were not able to empirically test this.

Although examining multiple contexts of conflict is important, observational methodology much more closely parallels the context of conflict resolution that is assessed during couple’s therapy. In addition, observational assessments are more consistent with the dynamic developmental systems perspective, such that one can observe the back-and-forth interaction between both members of the couple, and thus take a truly dyadic perspective. Observing how the association between self-control and EVA functions with this type of methodology is more externally valid compared with survey measures, and thus potentially more informative for interventions and couples therapy. The findings from our study highlight the importance of considering observational methodology as claims about predictors of EVA seem to differ as a function of EVA methodology.

It may be argued that because the entire couple interaction was coded for EVA, as opposed to just the disagreement segment, the results do not necessarily reflect the effects of self-control on observed aggression during couple conflict resolution. However, we would argue that the entire interaction does in fact assess couple behavior during a conflict resolution situation. Each task requires the couple to engage in conflict resolution skills. For example, agreeing on the biggest problem area in one’s relationship is a conflict resolution task in and of itself where both individuals must come to an agreement. Even the vacation task, where couples must decide on a location as well as daily activities for the vacation, requires these context-dependent skills. In addition, other studies that have observationally coded using the Markman–Cox procedure in conjunction with other tasks have done so across segments (i.e., Linder & Collins, 2005).

Implications for Interventions

Our research findings highlight the importance of focusing on both partners, educating each individual about the importance of both one’s own and one’s partner’s self-control in perpetrating EVA. This focus on educating both members of the couple is critical if we want to decrease dating aggression, a phenomenon that is dyadic in nature. By educating couples on how their own behavior affects their partner’s actions as well as how their partner’s behavior affects their own actions, we can move toward decreasing dating aggression.

Although previous interventions regarding dating aggression have had some positive results with regard to changing attitudes and promoting positive relationship skills at the individual level, they have largely been unsuccessful (O’Leary & Slep, 2012). This may be due to the fact that they have neglected the dyadic nature of dating aggression by not examining the characteristics of both partners involved. We advocate for future interventions guided by the dynamic developmental systems perspective that focus on risk factors of both partners.

In particular, research on risk factors such as self-control, which can be strengthened through training (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007; Finkel, 2007; Finkel et al., 2009), can inform future interventions in an innovative way. For example, mindfulness training through practices such as meditation or yoga (Friese, Messner, & Schaffner, 2012; Keng, Smoski, & Robins, 2011; Ramadoss & Bose, 2010; Tang et al., 2007) improves self-control. Self-control is considered to be part of executive functions, a part of cognition that is responsible for higher order thinking and goal-directed behavior. These cognitive abilities work together to allow individuals to consciously control their thoughts and actions (Zelazo & Müller, 2010). Interventions that focus on executive functions, such as inhibition through bolstered self-control, can be used as preventive interventions to educate dating couples, as well as to inform couples in relationships where high levels of EVA already exist.

In sum, our research advocates for the importance of considering both members of the dyad and therefore for also teaching skill sets to both partners to decrease the likelihood of the perpetration of EVA. Future interventions that work to strengthen self-control of both partners, possibly through the use of mindfulness training, are recommended to decrease instances of EVA. In addition, educating both members of the couple about the dyadic nature of conflict resolution is imperative to decreasing EVA.

Limitations

Although the results of this study extend the literature in important ways and provide several new venues for investigating dating aggression within couples, we acknowledge that there are several limitations to our study. First, while our sample was not entirely made up of college students (i.e., 21 partners were not in school), at least one member of each couple in our study was a student from a Midwestern state university. Therefore, it is not clear whether the results from this study translate to other community or at-risk samples. It is plausible that the association between self-control and EVA is stronger in high-risk samples. Whereas dating aggression on a college campus is a serious and prevalent issue, further research should be conducted that draws from a community sample to investigate whether the mechanisms between self-control and EVA differ depending on the sample. Neighborhood and community-level risk factors have begun to receive more attention as a risk factor in dating aggression (Capaldi et al., 2012). Although there are mixed results with regard to the influence of larger community contextual factors, examining these risk factors in future studies is important to better understand how one’s environment might affect their behaviors.

Second, our decision of how to conceptualize EVA was guided by items that could be measured in both the self-report and the observational assessment. An unintended consequence of this approach is that the spectrum of EVA behaviors was somewhat limited. Future research should continue to build upon the current methodology to capture a more comprehensive range of EVA features.

Third, it is also important to note that the self-control measure used in this study assessed dispositional self-control. Therefore, we were not able to assess the role of state self-control in our study. State self-control is important to consider as it is also related to aggression, especially following provocation (Denson et al., 2012; DeWall et al., 2007). Therefore, the next step would be to disentangle the effects of state and trait self-control in relation to the use of aggression during conflict resolution. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that the previously discussed interventions might also benefit from focusing on state self-control to decrease aggression, as self-control has been conceptualized as an exhaustible resource that can be depleted, and importantly, also bolstered (Finkel et al., 2009).

Summary

In conclusion, the findings from our study extend previous research and show that the association between self-control and aggression extends to EVA during couple conflict resolution. In addition, our findings support the theoretical claims made by the dynamic developmental systems perspective, providing further empirical evidence for interactive and dyadic effects within dating couples. Furthermore, it highlights the need to use multiple methodologies to understand how the association between self-control and EVA may differ for females and males depending on methodology. This research informs future research by setting a precedent for studying both partners in the dating relationship and using multiple methods of assessment. Perhaps even more importantly, this research informs promising venues for future interventions.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was partially funded by the Center for the Treatment and Study of Traumatic Stress Summa Health Systems/Kent State University.

Notes

Author Biographies

Elizabeth A. Baker is a doctoral student at Kent State University studying interpersonal violence. She is interested in conducting research that can inform interventions as well as public policy.

Katherine M. Klipfel is a post doctoral fellow in the Pediatric Neuropsychology Department at the University of Minnesota Masonic Children’s Hospital. Her research interests focus on factors that contribute to resiliency as children and young adults face adversity with attention to the influence of aggression and injury and neurocopsychological correlates and outcomes.

Manfred H. M. van Dulmen is a professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Kent State University. His research interests are in the area of adolescent and young adult romantic relationships and measurement and methodology.

References

Archer

Fernández-Fuertes

A. A.

Thanzami

V. L.

(2010). Does cost-benefit analysis or self-control predict involvement in two forms of aggression? Aggressive Behavior, 36, 292-304.

Baker

C. R.

Stith

S. M.

(2008). Factors predicting dating violence perpetration among male and female college students. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17, 227-244.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

Tice

D. M.

(2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351-355.

Capaldi

D. M.

Crosby

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

Capaldi

D. M.

Gorman-Smith

(2003). The development of aggression in young male/female couples. In Florsheim

(Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, reserarch, and practical implications (pp. 243-278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Capaldi

D. M.

Kim

H. K.

(2007). Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 253-265.

Capaldi

D. M.

Kim

H. K.

Shortt

J. W.

(2004). Women’s involvement in aggression in young adult romantic relationships: A developmental systems model. In Putallaz

Bierman

(Eds.), Aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence among girls (pp. 223-241). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Capaldi

D. M.

Knoble

N. B.

Shortt

J. W.

Kim

H. K.

(2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231-280.

Capaldi

D. M.

Shortt

J. W.

Crosby

(2003). Physical and psychological aggression in at- risk young couples: Stability and change in young adulthood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 1-27.

10.

Capaldi

D. M.

Shortt

J. W.

Kim

H. K.

(2005). A life span developmental systems perspective on aggression toward a partner. In Pinsof

W. M.

Lebow

J. L.

(Eds.), Family psychology: The art of the science (pp. 141-167). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

11.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2010a). National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_FactSheet-a.pdf

12.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2010b). National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 summary report. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

13.

Chow

C. M.

Claxton

S. E.

van Dulmen

M. H.

(2015). Testing dyadic mechanisms the right way: A primer into moderated actor–partner interdependence model with latent variable interactions. Emerging Adulthood, 3, 421-433.

14.

Cox

M. J.

(1991). Marital and parent-child relationships study. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.

15.

Crane

C. A.

Testa

Derrick

J. L.

Leonard

K. E.

(2014). Daily associations among self- control, heavy episodic drinking, and relationship functioning: An examination of actor and partner effects. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 440-450.

16.

Denson

T. F.

Capper

M. M.

Oaten

Friese

Schofield

T. P.

(2011). Self-control training decreases aggression in response to provocation in aggressive individuals. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 252-256.

17.

Denson

T. F.

DeWall

C. N.

Finkel

E. J.

(2012). Self-control and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 20-25.

18.

DeWall

C. N.

Baumeister

R. F.

Stillman

T. F.

Gailliot

M. T.

(2007). Violence restrained: Effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 62-76.

19.

DeWall

C. N.

Finkel

E. J.

Denson

T. F.

(2011). Self-control inhibits aggression. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 458-472.

20.

Finkel

E. J.

(2007). Impelling and inhibiting forces in the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Review of General Psychology, 11, 193-207.

21.

Finkel

E. J.

(2013). The I3 model: Meta-theory, theory, and evidence. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1-104.

22.

Finkel

E. J.

Campbell

W. K.

(2001). Self-control and accommodation in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 263-277.

23.

Finkel

E. J.

DeWall

C. N.

Slotter

E. B.

McNulty

J. K.

Pond

R. S.

Jr. Atkins

D. C.

(2012). Using I3 theory to clarify when dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 533-549.

24.

Finkel

E. J.

DeWall

C. N.

Slotter

E. B.

Oaten

Foshee

V. A.

(2009). Self-regulatory failure and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 483-499.

25.

Friese

Messner

Schaffner

(2012). Mindfulness meditation counteracts self-control depletion. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1016-1022.

26.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

27.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

C. R.

Bursik

R. J.

Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 5-29.

28.

Heatherton

T. F.

Wagner

D. D.

(2011). Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation failure. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 132-139.

29.

Keng

S. L.

Smoski

M. J.

Robins

C. J.

(2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1041-1056.

30.

Kenny

D. A.

(1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279-294.

31.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

32.

Kruschke

J. K.

Aguinis

Joo

(2012). The time has come: Bayesian methods for data analysis in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 722-752.

33.

Lawrence

Yoon

Langer

(2009). Is psychological aggression as detrimental as physical aggression? The independent effects of psychological aggression on depression and anxiety symptoms. Violence and Victims, 24, 20-35.

34.

Linder

J. R.

Collins

W. A.

(2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical aggression and conflict management in romantic relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 252-262.

35.

Marsh

N. V.

Martinovich

W. M.

(2006). Executive dysfunction and domestic violence. Brain Injury, 20, 61-66.

36.

Murphy

O’Leary

K. D.

(1989). Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 579-582.

37.

O’Leary

K. D.

Slep

A. M. S.

(2012). Prevention of partner violence by focusing on behaviors of both young males and females. Prevention Science, 13, 329-339.

38.

Ramadoss

Bose

B. K.

(2010). Transformative life skills: Pilot study of a yoga model for reduced stress and improving self-control in vulnerable youth. International Journal of Yoga Therapy, 1, 73-78.

39.

Straight

E. S.

Harper

F. W.

Arias

(2003). The impact of partner psychological abuse on health behaviors and health status in college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1035-1054.

40.

Taft

C. T.

O’Farrell

T. J.

Torres

S. E.

Panuzio

Monson

C. M.

Murphy

C. M.

(2006). Examining the correlates of psychological aggression among a community sample of couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 581-588.

41.

Tang

Y. Y.

Wang

Fan

Feng

. . . Posner

M. I.

(2007). Short-term meditation training improves attention and self-regulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 17152-17156.

42.

van Dulmen

M. H.

Mata

A. D.

Klipfel

K. M.

(2012). Enhancing the assessment of verbal aggression through observational methodology. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 812-823.

43.

Verona

Curtin

J. J.

(2006). Gender differences in the negative affective priming of aggressive behavior. Emotion, 6, 115-124.

44.

Verona

Kilmer

(2007). Stress exposure and affective modulation of aggressive behavior in men and women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 410-421.

45.

Vohs

K. D.

Finkenauer

Baumeister

R. F.

(2011). The sum of friends’ and lovers’ self-control scores predicts relationship quality. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 138-145.

46.

Walling

S. M.

Meehan

J. C.

Marshall

A. D.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Taft

C. T.

(2012). The relationship of intimate partner aggression to head injury, executive functioning, and intelligence. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 471-485.

47.

Warnken

W. J.

Rosenbaum

Fletcher

K. E.

Hoge

S. K.

Adelman

S. A.

(1994). Head-injured males: A population at risk for relationship aggression? Violence and Victims, 9, 153-166.

48.

Watkins

L. E.

DiLillo

Hoffman

Templin

(2015). Do self-control depletion and negative emotion contribute to intimate partner aggression? A lab-based study. Psychology of Violence, 5, 35-45.

49.

Wolfe

D. A.

Scott

Reitzel-Jaffe

Wekerle

Grasley

Straatman

A. L.

(2001). Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13, 277-293.

50.

Zelazo

P. D.

Müller

(2010). Executive function in typical and atypical development. In Goswami

(Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 574-603). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.