Attitudes About Intimate Partner Violence and Alcohol Consumption

Abstract

This mixed methods study analyzed individual attitudes regarding how the gender of an aggressor, levels of aggression (i.e., slapping, punching, or threatening with a weapon), and alcohol consumption (i.e., one beer, three beers, or six beers) are associated with attitudes about (a) the use of violence in intimate partner violence (IPV) in a romantic relationship and (b) the influence of alcohol on the violent act. Individuals (n = 546) participated in an online survey using multiple segment factorial vignettes, which allowed participants to respond to the actions of characters in a hypothetical scenario rather than how they might have reacted in a similar scenario. Regarding the use of IPV, 512 believed the violent act should not have occurred. Logistic regressions revealed participants (a) were significantly less likely to say alcohol influenced a male in comparison to a female, (b) were significantly more likely to respond that the perpetrator’s behavior was influenced by having drunk three or six beers compared with just one, and (c) were not significantly more or less likely to say the alcohol influenced the type of violence used. Analyses of qualitative responses (a) reinforced beliefs that violence (generally) and IPV (specifically) were not acceptable and (b) showed that beliefs about the influence of alcohol included attitudes regarding alcohol enhancing emotions and/or clouding judgment, perpetrators being in control regardless of alcohol intake, alcohol not being used as an excuse for violence, alcohol affecting people differently, and alcohol results in people showing their true selves. In addition, participants tended to downplay alcohol-related female-perpetrated aggressions. The results of this study help to better understand attitudes about IPV and the role that alcohol plays in violent relationships. Information derived from this study can be used in informational and intervention workshops which address IPV.

Keywords

violence alcohol and drugs perceptions of domestic violence domestic violence violent offenders women offenders

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a social concern. Nearly one in four women and one in seven men have experienced physical IPV, and roughly half of all women and men have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner (Black et al., 2011). Both women and men can become psychologically or physically abusive in relationships; however, it has been theorized that men and women perpetrate violence against intimate partners for different reasons (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). Both genders may use violence as a means of communication or conflict resolution, but little to no physical harm is likely to occur with this type of violence (i.e., situational couple violence [SCV]; Johnson, 2011]. Violence is also used as a control tactic and can cause extreme physical harm or death, especially when men use this type of violence (i.e., coercive controlling violence [CCV] or intimate terrorism; Johnson, 2011]. The present study examines individual attitudes about IPV in a romantic relationship and the influence of alcohol on the violent act.

Alcohol and Violence in Relationships

Alcohol serves as a central nervous system depressant (i.e., decreases brain functioning; Victor & Adams, 1953). Alcohol myopia theory holds that alcohol enables individuals to only focus on the immediate circumstances and restricts an individual’s ability to process information (Steele & Josephs, 1988). Therefore, this decrease in brain functioning after the consumption of alcohol has implications for decision making. An individual who is impaired by alcohol may not necessarily think through the consequences of acting aggressively to a partner, making IPV more likely. Indeed, positive associations between alcohol use and IPV exist (e.g., Lipsky et al., 2005; Low et al., 2017).

Individuals consume more alcohol when they believe drinking is normative (Maddock & Glanz, 2005; Witte et al., 2015). A meta-analysis by Stith et al. (2004) found that risk factors for physical IPV included perpetrators holding attitudes that approved of alcohol use and IPV. Livingston (2011) found communities that had a higher density of establishments serving alcohol (e.g., bar, liquor store) also had higher rates of domestic violence. Low et al. (2017) found that young adults from low to middle socioeconomic status groups who refrained from alcohol and marijuana use were less likely to have experienced IPV than those who used one or both. Conversely, a partner’s heavy drinking has been associated with a greater likelihood of perpetrating IPV (Lipsky et al., 2005).

Roughly four in 10 victims of IPV have reported that their partner was under the influence of alcohol or drugs during an instance of relationship abuse (Catalano, 2007). This statistic suggests that alcohol consumption is an important part of the context in which IPV occurs. Indeed, as individuals consume more alcohol, their likelihood of perpetrating IPV increases, with a stronger correlation for men (Thompson & Kingree, 2006). Understanding prevailing attitudes about alcohol use and IPV could be helpful to educators and clinicians who work to prevent violence or treat persons affected by violence.

Perceptions of Alcohol Consumption and IPV

The context of how IPV is viewed, and the beliefs held about how victims should manage IPV, are particularly salient factors to consider, especially when the perpetrator has consumed alcohol. Attitudes about alcohol consumption and IPV matter, as those who endorse marital aggression (e.g., those who hold more traditional views of marriage and masculinity) and view alcohol as an excuse for poor behavior are more likely to perpetrate IPV (Field et al., 2004).

Prior research has indicated that individuals believe alcohol “causes” aggressive behavior (Quigley & Leonard, 2006). Using an experimental design, Witte et al. (2015) had participants watch a video where a perpetrator became increasingly psychologically abusive to a significant other. The researchers manipulated information about the perpetrator’s alcohol consumption. Half of participants were told that the perpetrator had consumed alcohol before the video took place, and the other half the participants received no information on the alcohol consumption of the perpetrator before watching the video. Witte and colleagues (2015) found that individuals perceived psychological aggression toward an intimate partner as more normative and less abusive when the perpetrator in the video had been consuming alcohol. Physical aggression was viewed as non-normative and abusive regardless of the perpetrator’s alcohol consumption.

Perceptions of Gender, Alcohol Consumption, and IPV

Men’s and women’s use of IPV and alcohol consumption may be perceived differently. IPV perpetrated by women tends to be viewed as less normative than IPV perpetrated by men (Kuijpers et al., 2021). Other studies have shown that women tend to be more violent than men in the context of a heterosexual relationship (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). However, this study also notes that the violence perpetrated by women tends to have less severe physical consequences than violence perpetrated by men. These studies exemplify how the role of gender in IPV is complex. Indeed, individuals tend to view IPV perpetrated by women as less serious and not as threatening compared with IPV perpetrated by men (Walker et al., 2018). Therefore, the role that gender plays when examining perceptions of IPV may depend on a number of factors.

When examining relationship aggressions which took place in a public setting, individuals viewed aggression as less appropriate when the aggression was more severe and when perpetrated by males (Ermer et al., 2021). Participants’ attitudes about why the violent act was unacceptable included that aggression was never okay, was a result of poor communication, or was justified if provoked. Participants also pointed out the gendered double standard of aggression which excuses or downplays women’s violence in relationships. The current study extends the Ermer et al. (2021) study by including the role of alcohol consumption in an act of relationship aggression in a private setting.

Current Study

Social constructionism will be used to understand how individuals make sense of aggressions which occur after alcohol consumption by a perpetrator. The goal of social constructionism is to uncover the social meaning with which individuals describe their world (Gergen, 1994). Beliefs about gender, alcohol consumption, and IPV are socially constructed. The present study’s design enables participants to provide an explanation for their beliefs about how alcohol influenced violent behaviors and allows us to examine how participants construct meanings associated with aggressions which occur after alcohol consumption.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The sample consisted of 546 persons who participated in an online survey. The majority of participants were female (67%), had at least some college education (82.9%), self-identified as heterosexual (94%), White (65%), and non-Latino (96%). The average age of participants was 21.75 (SD = 7.05) years. Participants were recruited from a large Midwestern university using university announcements and a Facebook advertisement that was shared on personal pages and a university department’s page. Internet access and the ability to read English were inclusion criteria. Individuals who wanted to participate clicked on a link in the advertisement. Participants who gave electronic consent were allowed to fill out the survey. Students received course credits for participation, with alternative assignments made available to students who chose not to participate. A total of 612 individuals began the survey, producing a completion rate of 89.3%. The survey, which consisted of responding to closed- and open-ended questions about a multiple segment factorial vignette (MSFV) and a set of demographic questions, took an average of 10 min to complete.

Measures

MSFV

A MSFV describes a hypothetical scenario that is presented in segments (Ganong & Coleman, 2006). After each segment, participants are asked questions about the scenario and characters in it. MSFVs have several advantages over other survey methods. Instead of asking participants to respond to generic descriptions, a MSFV gives participants realistic narratives on which to base their responses and a MSFV allows participants to explain their beliefs. Finally, a MSFV reduces the likelihood of obtaining socially desirable responses because participants are asked what the character should do rather than what they would do in a similar situation (Ganong & Coleman, 2006; Rossi & Nock, 1982).

Participants in our study were presented with a two-segment vignette in which an individual perpetrated a violent act against another person. Three independent variables were randomly manipulated in the vignette: (a) genders of the perpetrator and the victim (i.e., male perpetrator/female victim or female perpetrator/male victim); (b) types of violence perpetrated (i.e., slapped, punched, or threatened with a weapon); and (c) number of alcoholic beverages consumed (i.e., one beer, three beers, six beers). This resulted in 18 conditions (i.e., two [gender of the perpetrator] × three [type of violence] × three [number of beers]), one of which was presented to a respondent.

In the first segment, participants read about the assault, for example, Charlie (male or [female]) and Taylor (female [or male]) get into a heated argument at home. Charlie gets angry and threatens to use a weapon against (or punches or slaps) Taylor. The genders and levels of aggression were randomly assigned. The participant was asked “Do you think Charlie should have done that?” The responses to these questions were forced choice with options of “yes,” “no,” or “it depends,” which was followed by a text box where participants were asked to explain their answer to the above question.

The second segment was then displayed (an examples with variables in italics):

Charlie and Taylor had been drinking before their argument. They both had one (or three or six) beers. The next day, Charlie blames the alcohol for his [her] behavior and promises never to threaten to use a weapon against (or slap or punch) Taylor again.

The participant was then asked, “Do you think the alcohol influenced Charlie’s behavior?” The responses to these questions were forced choice with options of “yes,” “no,” or “it depends.” This question was followed by a request to provide the reasons for their answer in a text box.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and a multinomial logistic regression using SPSS. Race (non-White = 1, White = 0) and gender (1 = male, 0 = female) of respondents were included in the multinomial logistic regression. Qualitative data were analyzed using NVIVO and multiple coders. The first round of coding consisted of open coding, which used the participants’ own words to develop a rudimentary coding structure. Two coders compared their open codes and developed a final codebook. Three coders then used the codebook to reanalyze all responses. Codes were then compared and disagreements in coding were discussed until a consensus was reached.

Results

Segment One: Attitudes Toward IPV

Results from the first segment showed little variance existed in attitudes toward IPV among the participants. Therefore, descriptive statistics are presented for this vignette. Of the 532 respondents, 512 reported “no” to the question regarding “do you think Charlie (the perpetrator) should have done that (i.e., slapped, punched, or threatened with a weapon)?” The qualitative data helped clarify why participants overwhelmingly thought that Charlie should not have slapped, punched, or threatened Taylor with a weapon. Three main themes emerged from responses: (a) violence should never be used, (b) violence does not solve problems, and (c) relationships should be free from violence (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Most Frequent Themes in Response to the Open-Ended Questions.

Question 1: Should Charlie Have Done That?	n
1. Violence should never be used	316
2. Violence does not solve problems	85
3. Relationships should be free from violence	69
4. Charlie likely used violence due to high emotions (e.g. anger)	46
5. Violence is only acceptable if it is used in self-defense	36
6. Charlie could hurt or injure Taylor	32
7. One act of violence is likely to escalate and get worse	27
8. The level or intensity of the violence matters	23
Question 2: Do You Think the Alcohol Influenced Charlie’s Behavior?	n
1. Alcohol enhances emotions and/or clouds judgment	242
2. Perpetrators should be in control regardless of alcohol intake	182
3. Alcohol consumption does not excuse violence	152
4. Alcohol affects people differently	85
5. People who have been drinking show their true selves	85
6. Alcohol intensifies emotions	57
7. Violence is never okay, even or especially when drinking	45

Violence should never be used

Approximately half (n = 316; 264 women, 50 men, two did not mark gender) of the participants responded that violence should never be used. This theme appeared frequently in every manipulation type. One person who was assigned the male perpetrator/slap vignette stated, “Physical violence is unacceptable period.” Another person who had the female perpetrator/threaten with a weapon vignette stated, “There is never a reason to use force on someone.” This theme was unique from the others since the responses were broad and participants were not referencing the relationship directly.

Eighty-eight respondents specifically wrote that there was no justification for using violence. This subtheme appeared in approximately one fourth of every manipulation type. For example, “There is never a good enough reason to punch a girl” wrote a person who received the male perpetrator/punch vignette. Another participant, assigned to the male perpetrator/threaten with a weapon vignette wrote, “Threatening to use a weapon is concerning and in no way shape or form okay.” These quotes emphasize the belief that there is no reason that legitimizes violence. This theme provided context for why violence should not be used: there is simply no reason when violence would be justified and violence cannot be rationalized under any circumstances.

It is important to note that 39 participants did comment that violence was an acceptable reaction only if done in self-defense or if it were justified. As one individual who received the male perpetrator/slap vignette wrote, “You shouldn’t put your hands on people that don’t put their hands on you.” Another who received the female perpetrator/punch vignette wrote, “It is never okay to hit someone unless you are defending yourself.” Reasons for why violence might be justified varied. Violence after cheating was addressed more than once, as this person who had the female perpetrator/slap vignette justified, “Depends what the argument was about. If he cheated on her then i think its okay but if it was for a small argument then its not okay.” This type of justification occurred almost exclusively for female perpetrated violence, “it depends on situation, sometimes if the guy did very bad thing, the girl have the reason to slap the man.” Uncontrolled emotions were also cited as a reason to perhaps use violence, as seen in this quote from someone who received the female perpetrator/slap vignette, “Depending on what the situation was then maybe that was the only way to show her frustration, and it also depends on the relationship between the two.” Overwhelmingly, though, participants did not believe the use of violence was warranted.

Violence does not solve problems

This theme highlights the belief that violence is not an acceptable form of conflict resolution. Participants (n = 85; 64 women, 20 men, one did not mark gender) emphasized that there are better solutions than violence to resolving arguments. A person who received the female perpetrator/threaten with a weapon vignette wrote, “Threatening someone wouldn’t solve the issue at hand.” Another person with the same vignette wrote, “What problems does inflicting pain on another solve? Plus, this gives Taylor ammunition for future arguments. Like, ‘Remember that time you were going to bash me over the head with a blender.’ Argument won.” Participants’ responses for this theme tended to stress the importance of better solutions to problems than resorting to violence.

Relationships should be free from violence

This theme emphasized that relationships should not be violent. Participants (n = 69; 59 women, nine men, one transgender) believed that violence in relationships is unhealthy and should not be tolerated. “Slapping is not a good way to treat your significant other,” wrote a participant with the female perpetrator/slap vignette. Another person who had the female perpetrator/punch vignette wrote, “I punched my bf [boyfriend] one night in the face. It was terrible. We broke up immediately, and he’s forgiven me now but it scared him. I was too drunk and have had a bad year emotionally. Charlie can lightly play fight but a real punch ruins any relations with others.” These quotes showcase the belief that relationships should be free from violence. This theme differs from “violence should never be used” because participants were directly stating violence should not be tolerated in romantic relationships.

Segment Two: Attitudes Toward Alcohol and IPV

A multinomial logistic regression was conducted to assess the likelihood of whether participants thought alcohol (i.e., one beer, three beers, six beers) influenced the perpetrator’s (i.e., male, female) behavior (i.e., threatened with a weapon, slapped, punched). The reference groups for this analysis were “no” (i.e., in response to the question asked), “female,” “slap,” and “one beer.” Race and gender of respondents were included in the analysis as covariates, however, neither had significant associations with whether participants thought alcohol influenced the perpetrator’s behavior (see Table 2). As shown in Table 2, participants who responded “yes” or “it depends” had a significantly lower likelihood to say alcohol influenced a male perpetrator in comparison to a female perpetrator. They also had a significantly greater likelihood of responding that the perpetrator’s behavior was influenced by having drunk three or six beers compared with just one. Participants did not have a significantly greater or lower likelihood to say the alcohol influenced the type of violence used.

Table 2.

Odds Ratios of Views Regarding Alcohol Consumption and IPV (n = 521).

Variables	Did Alcohol Consumption Influence Charlie’s Behavior?^a
	Yes			It Depends
	B	SE B	OR	B	SE B	OR
Male respondent^b	−0.06	0.33	0.85	−0.19	0.30	0.82
Non-White respondent^c	−0.04	0.28	0.88	0.32	0.27	1.37
Male perpetrator^b	−0.51	0.23	0.60*	−0.65	0.24	0.52**
Punch^d	−0.20	0.29	0.82	0.09	0.29	1.09
Threaten to use weapon^3d	0.05	0.28	1.05	0.12	0.30	1.13
Three beers^e	2.42	0.32	11.19**	1.38	0.28	2.28**
Six beers^e	3.22	0.33	24.92**	1.56	0.31	2.58**
Constant	–1.61			–1.06
χ²	153.70
df	14

Note. Race and gender of respondents served as controls. IPV = intimate partner violence; OR = odds ratio.

Reference group is “no.” ^bReference group is female. ^cReference group is White. ^dReference group is slap. ^eReference group is one beer.

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

The qualitative data helped clarify participants’ thoughts on the influence of alcohol on the perpetrator’s behavior. Five main themes emerged: (a) Alcohol enhances emotions and/or clouds judgment; (b) perpetrators should be in control regardless of alcohol intake; (c) alcohol consumption does not excuse violence; (d) alcohol affects people differently; and (e) people who have been drinking show their true selves (see Table 1).

Alcohol enhances emotions and/or clouds judgment

This theme reflects participants’ (n = 245; 195 women, 45 men, one transgender) beliefs that alcohol influences emotions, cognition, and behaviors. “Alcohol can greatly change someone’s behavior” wrote a participant who had the female perpetrator/punch/three beers vignette. Two types of responses exemplified this theme. First, participants were reporting that alcohol can enhance certain moods or behaviors. A person who had the female perpetrator/threaten with a weapon/three beers vignette wrote, “Alcohol can make you more irrational and aggressive.” Second, participants were reporting that alcohol can cloud a person’s judgment, as this participant who received the male perpetrator/slap/six beers wrote, “Alcohol lowers your inhibitions and depending on your metabolism can mess with your emotions and physical responses.” These quotes reflect the beliefs that alcohol may have influenced Charlie’s behaviors.

Perpetrators should still be in control regardless of alcohol intake

Participants (n = 184; 141 women, 41 men, two did not mark gender) believed the alcohol affected the perpetrator but that they were still responsible for their actions. For example, a person who received the female perpetrator/punch/three beers vignette wrote, “Three beers is not enough to make someone throw punches. They should still be able to control themselves.” Most (n = 115) who referenced this theme had received a vignette where Charlie had only drunk one beer, “One beer should not have contributed to the slap. There was something else that triggered the slap.” However, this theme also included participants (n = 67) who received vignettes in which Charlie had three or six beers. One person wrote, “If he was completely wasted off these six beers (highly unlikely) then I guess the alcohol could have influenced his threats. But most likely he was still pretty with it, and this is unacceptable behavior.” These quotes reflect the belief that alcohol should not have influenced Charlie’s behaviors because s/he could and should have remained in control.

Alcohol consumption does not excuse violence

A participant who received the male perpetrator/punch/three beers vignette wrote, “Blaming alcohol for your own actions is never a good excuse.” Participants (n = 155; 123 women, 28 men, two transgender) believed that, whether or not the alcohol influenced the perpetrator’s behavior, it should not be used to excuse or overlook violent behavior. This theme included two subthemes: (a) alcohol cannot be blamed for causing violence, a participant who had the male perpetrator/punch/six beers wrote, “Certainly inhibiting substances can influence behavior. Can it be ‘blamed’? No. Was it a factor? Maybe.” (b) Charlie (the fictional character in the vignette) created a rationalization for the violent behavior based on the amount of alcohol they consumed and this was not accepted by many, one of which wrote, “She could be using that as her scapegoat but depending on if she has a tolerance at all it really shouldn’t have made a huge effect on her.” Together, these quotes are all related in that they show the belief that alcohol is not an acceptable excuse for violent behavior.

Alcohol affects people differently

This theme was characterized by a questioning of how Charlie reacted to the alcohol. Participants (n = 86; 64 women, 20 men) were unsure, given the circumstances, whether or not the alcohol affected the perpetrator. A participant who received the female perpetrator/punch/one beer vignette wrote, “Depending on how she [Charlie] handles alcohol . . . but in reality they both had the same amount of alcohol and most people can handle one beer without problems.” Another participant who had the male perpetrator/threaten with a weapon/three beers vignette wrote, “It probably depends on how often Charlie drinks (how affected he was [by] the alcohol).” This theme was also characterized by participants questioning Charlie’s alcohol tolerance as one person who received the female perpetrator/threaten with a weapon/six beers vignette wrote, “It depends on Charlies tolerance for alcohol; she would’ve had at least some idea of what she was doing, if she has a high tolerance.” Participants questioned factors related to tolerance such as height, weight, amount of food eaten, and other factors, as written by a person with the female perpetrator/threaten with a weapon/three beers vignette, “variables include Charlie’s metabolic rate, levels of choline in the liver, and time elapsed during the session of drinking.” This theme shows that multiple factors related to a person’s reaction to alcohol were considered when thinking about how the alcohol may have influenced the perpetrator’s behavior.

People who have been drinking show their true selves

This theme is characterized by the belief (n = 84; 72 women, 12 men) that alcohol reveals thoughts and behaviors otherwise hidden or repressed and alcohol unearths a person’s true, uninhibited self. “Drunk actions are sober thoughts,” was written by someone who received the male perpetrator/slap/one beer vignette. Another person responded to the male perpetrator/punch/six beers vignette, “Even under the influence, you still have your true personality.” A final quote which exemplifies this theme was written in response to the female perpetrator/threaten with a weapon/three beers vignette, “It [the alcohol] may have made it easier for her to say something like that, but alcohol does not make you a completely different person. It brings out a side of you that when in control, people don’t see.” This theme shows some participants think actions while drinking reflect a person’s true character.

Discussion

Our findings highlight differences in how individuals perceive instances of IPV in a relationship other than their own. Individuals appeared to view alcohol influencing IPV when perpetrators were female rather than male, which affirms prior research regarding the dismissal of female-perpetrated violence (see Rhatigan et al., 2011). Participants also believed the violent behavior was influenced by the amount of alcohol consumed, although they did not believe that alcohol consumption was a legitimate reason to engage in violent acts or to act uninhibited.

Participants tended to downplay alcohol-related female-perpetrated aggressions. Due to differences in the genders of individuals who perpetrate SCV versus CCV, individuals may shrug off aggressions perpetrated by females as women are less likely to perpetrate severe forms of violence (Johnson, 2006). However, it should be considered that men are also at risk for hospitalizations and even death due to instances of IPV, albeit to a lesser degree than women (Hines & Douglas, 2010). Failure to acknowledge female-perpetrated IPV is problematic and individuals may be more likely to disregard female-perpetrated violence if the female was consuming alcohol, as our findings indicate.

A majority of participants viewed IPV in the context of alcohol consumption as problematic. Most participants appeared concerned with violence, regardless of the circumstances involved while others focused on problems with violence in relationships while also considering more contextual factors. These findings highlight the importance of using a situational/event perspective when examining IPV (Wilkinson & Hamerschlag, 2005). In some cases, there are other factors to consider when understanding why violence may be occurring. Participants’ emphasis on how relationships should be free from violence as it does not solve problems rationalizes violence as an important tool in the propagation of relationships. The present findings also reassert that many do not think violence solves problems. Rather, a more constructive response to problems is needed.

Alcohol appears to add an additional element of nuance when examining IPV, further highlighting the importance of taking an event perspective for contextualizing alcohol use and IPV (Wilkinson & Hamerschlag, 2005). Participants noted perceptions of alcohol such that some participants believed any alcohol consumption was problematic, whereas others questioned the amount of alcohol consumed and its’ effect on decision making. Some individuals believe people are in control when consuming alcohol, while others believe alcohol can cloud emotions, and still others felt that a “true” side may come out once alcohol lowers inhibitions. These views may be shaped by attributions individuals hold about how aggression occurs.

One approach to thinking about how an aggressive behavior is perceived is whether the behavior was done intentionally (i.e., internal attribution) rather than if the action was done unintentionally (i.e., external attribution; Kelley & Michela, 1980). Individuals may believe that alcohol clouds emotions if they believe aggression is caused by alcohol (i.e., an external attribution). In contrast, individuals may be more likely to believe individuals are in control when consuming alcohol or that their true side comes out after consuming alcohol if they view aggression as being caused by individuals (i.e., an internal attribution). Future research should untangle how and where individuals develop views on alcohol consumption and IPV.

Implications and Limitations

The sample population used for this study was WEIRD (i.e., Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) and consisted of mostly young adults. As such, the results from this study should be interpreted with caution and cannot be generalized to the national or international population. In addition, the results from this study were primarily derived from a Midwestern pool of participants, a region which has some of the highest drinking rates in the United States (Hughes et al., 2011). As such, these findings may differ across different regions of the United States. In addition, we should have included a measure to gauge the respondents’ personal consumption of alcohol. In hindsight, we hypothesize those who believed six beers was not a lot of alcohol were likely heavy drinkers and were used to drinking a lot. However, binge drinking is defined as four drinks or more in one sitting for women and five drinks or more in one sitting for men (National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2019).

The results of this study help to better understand attitudes about the use of violence in relationships and the role that alcohol plays in violent relationships. Information derived from this study can be used in informational and intervention workshops which address IPV. Views on alcohol consumption appear to shape reasons why individuals believe IPV may take place. Having individuals reflect upon their beliefs about how alcohol consumption affects a person may be a subtle, yet important step in addressing IPV in the context of alcohol. As the present results indicate, people may be more dismissive of IPV if an individual believes that alcohol consumption alters an individual’s personality.

Conclusion

Individual attitudes about intimate relationships indicate that relationships should not be violent and that alcohol should not be used as an excuse for violent behavior. The present study exemplifies how individuals view violence in personal relationships in the context of alcohol. Future research should continue to analyze outsiders’ beliefs about violence in relationships, as these attitudes are indicators for how people view relationships outside of their own.

Supplemental Material

supplementary_materials – Supplemental material for Attitudes About Intimate Partner Violence and Alcohol Consumption

Supplemental material, supplementary_materials for Attitudes About Intimate Partner Violence and Alcohol Consumption by Andrea L. Roach, Ashley E. Ermer, Marilyn Coleman and Lawrence Ganong in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank Heather Ryan for assisting us with data analysis as part of her undergraduate capstone course at California State University Fresno.

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.

ORCID iDs

Andrea L. Roach

Ashley E. Ermer

Author Biographies

Andrea L. Roach is an assistant professor at California State University, Fresno in the Department of Child and Family Sciences. Her research interests include intimate partner violence, family relationships, adolescence and emerging adulthood, and sexuality. She finished the Doctoral Program in Human Development and Family Science at the University of Missouri in 2016, where she focused on family relationships and domestic violence.

Ashley E. Ermer is an assistant professor in the Family Science and Human Development Department at Montclair State University. Her research focuses on examining how the social environment matters for older adults, including forgiveness in the context of health and social relationships. Her research pertains to social relationships, particularly romantic relationships and friendships, older adulthood, and wellbeing. She earned her PhD from the University of Missouri in 2017.

Marilyn Coleman is Distinguished Curators’ Professor Emerita of human development and family science and an Affiliate Faculty Emerita with women’s and gender studies at the University of Missouri-Columbia. She is a fellow in the National Council on Family Relations. Coleman’s research on stepfamilies has focused on: (a) intergenerational family responsibilities following divorce and remarriage and (b) the development and maintenance of step-relationships over time. Coleman has coauthored over 250 articles and book chapters as well as 10 books. Dr. Coleman is a past editor of the Journal of Marriage and Family.

Lawrence Ganong, PhD, is emeritus professor of Human Development and Family Science and Nursing at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He has coauthored over 290 journal articles and chapters and 10 books and has received 12 grants from public and private institutions. Ganong’s research program has focused on how postdivorce families develop and maintain satisfying and effective relationships. Ganong is a fellow in the National Council on Family Relations and the Gerontological Society of America. He has served on the Board of Directors of the National Council on Family Relations, the Council on Contemporary Families, and The Stepfamily Association of America.

References

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

Chen

Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11637

Catalano

(2007). Intimate partner violence in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipvus.pdf

Ermer

A. E.

Roach

A. L.

Coleman

Ganong

(2021). Deconstructing attitudes about intimate partner violence and bystander intervention: The roles of perpetrator gender and severity of aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), NP896–NP919. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517737556

Field

C. A.

Caetano

Nelson

(2004). Alcohol and violence related cognitive risk factors associated with the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 19(4), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOFV.0000032635.42145.66

Ganong

L. H.

Coleman

(2006). Multiple segment factorial vignettes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00264.x

Gergen

K. J.

(1994). Realities and relationships. Harvard University Press.

Hines

Douglas

(2010). Intimate terrorism by women towards men: Does it exist? Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 2(3), 36–56. https://doi.org/10.5042/jacpr.2010.0335

Hughes

Muhuri

Sathe

Spagnola

(2011). State estimates of substance use and mental disorders from the 2008-2009 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. SMA 11-4641, NSDUH Series H-40). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=257728

Johnson

M. P.

(2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1003–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206293328

10.

Johnson

M. P.

(2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.006

11.

Johnson

M. P.

Ferraro

K. J.

(2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 948–963. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00948.x

12.

Kelley

H. H.

Michela

J. L.

(1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457–501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325

13.

Kelly

J. B.

Johnson

M. P.

(2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x

14.

Kuijpers

K. F.

Blokland

A. A.

Mercer

N. C.

(2021). Gendered perceptions of intimate partner violence normality: An experimental study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3–4), NP1412–1440NP. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517746945

15.

Lipsky

Caetano

Field

C. A.

Larkin

G. L.

(2005). Is there a relationship between victim and partner alcohol use during an intimate partner violence event? Findings from an urban emergency department study of abused women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66, 407–412. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2005.66.407

16.

Livingston

(2011). A longitudinal analysis of alcohol outlet density and domestic violence. Addiction, 106, 919–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03333.x

17.

Low

Tiberio

S. S.

Shortt

J. W.

Capaldi

D. M.

Eddy

J. M.

(2017). Associations of couples’ intimate partner violence in young adulthood and substance use: A dyadic approach. Psychology of Violence, 7, 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000038

18.

Maddock

Glanz

(2005). The relationship of proximal normative beliefs and global subjective norms to college students’ alcohol consumption. Addictive Behaviors, 30(2), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.05.021

19.

National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2019). Drinking levels defined. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/moderate-binge-drinking

20.

Quigley

B. M.

Leonard

K. E.

(2006). Alcohol expectancies and intoxicated aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(5), 484–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.008

21.

Rhatigan

D. L.

Stewart

Moore

T. M.

(2011). Effects of gender and confrontation on attributions of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 64, 875–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9951-2

22.

Rossi

P. H.

Nock

S. L.

(1982). Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach. SAGE.

23.

Steele

C. M.

Josephs

R. A.

(1988). Drinking your troubles away: II. An attention-allocation model of alcohol’s effect on psychological stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(2), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.97.2.196

24.

Stith

S. M.

Smith

D. B.

Penn

C. E.

Ward

D. B.

Tritt

(2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001

25.

Thompson

M. P.

Kingree

J. B.

(2006). The roles of victim and perpetrator alcohol use in intimate partner violence outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505282283

26.

Victor

Adams

R. D.

(1953). The effect of alcohol on the nervous system. Research Publications-Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease, 32, 526–573.

27.

Walker

Ashby

Gredecki

Tarpey

(2018). Gender representations of female perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 10(3), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-02-2017-0273

28.

Wilkinson

D. L.

Hamerschlag

S. J.

(2005). Situational determinants in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(3), 333–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2004.05.001

29.

Witte

T. H.

Kopkin

M. R.

Hollis

S. D.

(2015). Is it dating violence or just “Drunken Behavior”? Judgments of intimate partner violence when the perpetrator is under the influence of alcohol. Substance Use & Misuse, 50(11), 1421–1426. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2015.1018539

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

0.02 MB