Alcohol Misuse and Women’s Use of Aggression in Intimate Relationships: The Mediating Role of Motivations for Using Aggression

Abstract

The relationship between alcohol misuse and women’s use of intimate partner violence (IPV) aggression has been well studied; however, there has been no research to date on women’s self-reported motivations for use of IPV aggression (e.g., self-defense, control) as an underlying mechanism explaining this link. Accordingly, this study aims to examine whether the effects of alcohol misuse on IPV aggression vary as a function of women’s motivations for using aggression. Participants were 412 ethnically diverse community women, between the ages of 18 and 65, in intimate relationships characterized by bidirectional IPV. The Motives and Reasons for IPV Scale was used to assess women’s reasons for using IPV aggression. Results revealed that the tough guise motive (i.e., wanting to appear tough, intimidating, and willing to harm one’s partner) explained the relationship between alcohol misuse and physical and sexual IPV aggression. Findings suggest the utility of incorporating the assessment of women’s motivations for IPV aggression in an effort to provide better informed intervention addressing the underlying reasons women use IPV aggression.

Keywords

intimate partner violence motives female aggression Motives and Reasons for Intimate Partner Violence Scale alcohol misuse

According to a U.S. Department of Justice Special Report (Catalano, 2013), domestic violence accounted for 21% of all violent crime between 1993 and 2011, with intimate partner violence (IPV) accounting for the greatest percentage of violence victimization. Women are disproportionately affected by IPV victimization, where approximately 35% of women report experiencing physical, psychological, and/or sexual victimization by an intimate partner in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). IPV victimization is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes for women (Coker et al., 2000; Pico-Alfonso et al., 2006; Weiss et al., 2017). One such outcome is the use of aggression within intimate relationships. Meta-analytic reviews highlight the bidirectional nature of IPV (Archer, 2000, 2002), such that victimization is strongly associated with aggressive behavior for both women and men. Much of the literature on women’s use of IPV aggression highlights self-defense as a primary motivation (Caldwell et al., 2009; Stuart et al., 2006; Swan & Snow, 2003). However, a growing body of evidence identifies additional motives for women’s use of IPV aggression, such as expressing negative emotions, control, jealousy, and retaliation (Caldwell et al., 2009; Stuart et al., 2006; Swan & Snow, 2003). These findings underscore the need for further studying IPV-victimized women’s use of IPV aggression.

Alcohol misuse is an important factor shown to influence IPV aggression for women (Caetano et al., 2005; McKinney et al., 2010; Stuart et al., 2006). Theories of how alcohol misuse might lead to aggression typically reference alcohol intoxication’s disruptive effect on cognitive processing. For example, Steele and Josephs (1990) developed the alcohol myopia model, which posits that alcohol intoxication increases the risk of aggression because it reduces information processing by narrowing one’s attention to focusing on the dominant, easily accessible, and immediate situational aspects, rather than more subtle, cognitively taxing factors or options (e.g., identifying alternatives). In other words, provocative events result in highly negative emotionally charged situations, and alcohol intoxication limits the brain’s ability to readily utilize adaptive or prosocial options, and instead overattends to means that are easily accessible because they require less cognitive demand (e.g., yelling back). For example, if an individual is intoxicated and their partner raises their voice and yells, the individual may be more likely to focus on the resulting intense negative emotions or overattend to known patterns (e.g., yelling always leads to hitting), which may more easily facilitate the use of aggression (Bushman & Cooper, 1990).

In line with this theoretical framework, alcohol misuse is significantly positively associated with the occurrence, frequency, and severity of women’s use of IPV aggression (Schumm et al., 2009; Stuart et al., 2006, 2013; Testa et al., 2003; Weiss et al., 2014). For example, Stuart and colleagues (2006) examined risk factors for aggression among women arrested for IPV, and found that alcohol misuse contributed to physical and psychological IPV aggression, even after adjusting for antisociality, anger, relationship discord, and physical and psychological IPV victimization. Another study by Stuart and colleagues (2013) found that on drinking (vs. nondrinking) days, women were more than 10 times more likely to engage in IPV aggression. Moreover, this study found evidence for a dose–response effect, where each additional drink consumed increased a woman’s odds of IPV aggression by 17% to 20%. Providing additional support for the role of alcohol misuse in IPV aggression, a third study found that women who successfully remitted from alcohol use following treatment had significantly lower levels of IPV aggression 1 to 2 years posttreatment (Schumm et al., 2009). Although the link between alcohol misuse and IPV aggression is well established, there is a paucity of research examining mechanisms that may underlie this association.

Women’s motivations for using IPV aggression may clarify the relation between alcohol misuse and IPV aggression. Although self-defense is the most commonly cited reason for women’s use of aggression (Bair-Merritt et al., 2010; Swan et al., 2008), it does not fully account for all of the variability in women’s use of aggression in intimate relationships (Caldwell et al., 2009). Caldwell and colleagues (2009) highlight five motives for women’s use of aggression in intimate relationships: (a) expression of negative emotions (i.e., to show anger), (b) self-defense (i.e., to protect oneself from aggressive partner), (c) control (e.g., to get a partner to do something), (d) jealousy (e.g., believing your partner to be unfaithful), and (e) tough guise (i.e., to intimidate or scare). These five motives for aggression are both reactive (i.e., self-defense in response to a perceived threat) and proactive (i.e., goal directed to dominate, control, or threaten). Caldwell et al. examined the relation between these self-reported motives and IPV aggression in women. They found that all five motives were significant correlates of women’s use of IPV aggression, even after accounting for IPV victimization.

It is possible that some motivations for using IPV aggression are more prominent in the context of alcohol misuse, or that the negative cognitive effects of alcohol intoxication impair the use of other motives (Eckhardt et al., 2015). For example, motives such as negative emotion expression, self-defense, and tough guise are characterized as more immediate, automatic responses to negative or hostile IPV situations. Conversely, control and jealousy may involve more cognitive processing, as these are characterized as intentional acts that may require more strategy and initiative (Swan et al., 2008). Negative emotion expression, self-defense, and tough guise motives may become more prominent during alcohol intoxication because they may require less cognitive demands, or necessitate higher order functions such as inhibiting responses (e.g., not hitting a partner), becoming more easily accessible, and ultimately facilitating IPV aggression (Eckhardt et al., 2015; Finkel & Eckhardt, 2013; Giancola et al., 2009). Furthermore, alcohol misuse is also positively related to IPV victimization in women (Leonard, 2005), thus, it is possible that motives intended to protect women from further victimization (i.e., self-defense, tough guise) underlie their use of aggression during victimization. Research that clarifies these motives is key to understanding the link between alcohol misuse and aggression.

Notably, much of the research examining women’s use of IPV aggression has not differentiated among the types of aggression, or has almost exclusively focused on physical aggression perpetration in particular. However, there is evidence that motives, correlates, and consequences differ when examining IPV aggression as physical, psychological, or sexual. For example, Caldwell and colleagues (2009) found a negative relationship between women using aggression for self-defense and use of psychological aggression, suggesting that women seldom use psychological aggression in relationships that require higher levels of self-defense strategies, potentially from fear of escalating their partner’s violence. Similarly, although women are significantly more likely to be victims of sexual aggression, research has found some women use sexual aggression against their intimate partners to intimidate their partners (Caldwell et al., 2009; Swan et al., 2008). Despite these nuanced differences between types of aggression and motivations for their use, there is a significant lack of research on the unique effects of women’s use of psychological and sexual aggression within bidirectional IPV relationships. Thus, it is critical that research examines these different types of aggression by women.

Accordingly, this study aims to examine whether the effects of alcohol misuse on IPV aggression (i.e., physical, psychological, and sexual) vary as a function of women’s motivations for using aggression (i.e., negative emotion expression, self-defense, control, jealousy, tough guise), after controlling for women’s victimization. Consistent with the alcohol myopia model (Steele & Josephs, 1990), it was hypothesized that negative emotion expression, self-defense, and tough guise motives would mediate the relation between alcohol misuse and IPV aggression.

Method

Participants

The sample was comprised of 412 community women in intimate relationships characterized by bidirectional violence. In terms of racial/ethnic background, 36.4% of participants self-identified as African American (n = 150), 36.4% of women identified as Latina (n = 150), and 27.2% as White (n = 112). The average age of participants was 36.67 years (SD = 8.93 years), with a range of 18 to 65 years. Most women (66.1%) were unemployed for more than a month prior to the study; 20.3% worked part time and 14.3% worked full time. Mean level of education was 12.44 years (SD = 2.24 years); 28.4% of the women did not complete high school, 41.1% completed a high school degree or equivalent, 23.2% had some education beyond high school, and 8.1% had an advanced degree. Forty-three percent of women reported a yearly family income of less than US$10,000, whereas 28.4% reported between US$10,000 and US$19,999, 17.2% between US$20,000 and US$29,999, and 12.1% earned more than US$30,000 per year. A little less than half (43.0%) of the sample was unmarried and cohabitating with their partners, 24.2% were married, 26.3% were in a dating relationship but lived apart, and 7.2% had ended their relationships (although they still saw their former partners at least once a week). Mean years in the current relationship was 8.02 (SD = 6.91 years; range = 4 months to 20+ years), and 77.0% of the women were mothers and had an average of 2.4 children (SD = 0.08).

Procedures

All procedures were reviewed and approved by Yale University’s institutional review board. Participants were recruited from a northeastern city by placing English and Spanish-language brochures and posters in various locations throughout the city, including medical clinics, stores, churches, libraries, restaurants, and laundromats. A short telephone screening was conducted with participants to assess whether they met criteria for inclusion in the study. Questions on the screen included demographic items and physical aggression items from the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2; Straus et al., 2003). The general purpose of this study was to examine bidirectional aggression among women in heterosexual relationships (but not lesbian and bisexual IPV relationships because same-sex relationship dynamics may differ from heterosexual relationships; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000); therefore, participants had to be in heterosexual relationships and had used at least one act of physical aggression against a current male partner, and been victimized by the partner, in the last 6 months. Participants who met study criteria were invited to participate in individual face-to-face interviews with a female interviewer of the same race/ethnicity as the participant. Latina participants were interviewed by a bilingual/bicultural interviewer and had the option of being interviewed in Spanish. Seventy-four of the 150 Latina participants completed the interview in Spanish. Following informed consent, participants completed a 2-hr semistructured, computer-assisted interview administered by trained research associates or postdoctoral fellows in private offices to protect participants’ safety and confidentiality. Upon completion of the interview, participants were debriefed and compensated US$45 for their time.

Measures

Alcohol misuse

The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT; Saunders et al., 1993) is a 10-item self-report measure that assesses alcohol consumption, drinking behaviors, adverse reactions to drinking, and alcohol-related problems. Each item is scored from 0 to 4 points and summed for a total possible score ranging from 0 to 40 points. A score of 7 or higher is associated with alcohol misuse in women (Babor et al., 2001), and 22% of women in the sample were above this cutoff score. Cronbach’s alpha in the current study was .90.

Motivations for aggression

The Motives and Reasons for IPV Scale (Caldwell et al., 2009; Swan & Sullivan, 2002) was used to assess women’s reasons for using IPV aggression. Participants were asked, “In your relationship with (name of partner), how often in the last six months did you use violence, such as slapping, hitting, etc. for the following reasons?” Participants were asked to respond based on their general involvement in IPV aggression, which could capture use of aggression with more than one intimate partner. The measure is comprised of five subscales: Expression of Negative Emotions (five items), Self-Defense (five items), Control (six items), Jealousy (two items), and Tough Guise (eight items). Possible responses for each item are never (0), sometimes (1), often (2), and almost always (3). Scores for each item are summed for a total possible score ranging from 0 to 78 points. Higher scores indicate greater relevance of that motivation. Cronbach’s alphas in the current study were .82, .86, .78, .73, and .82 for the expression of Negative Emotions, Self-Defense, Control, Jealousy, and Tough Guise subscales, respectively.

Intimate partner aggression and victimization

Aggression and victimization were assessed using the CTS-2 (Straus et al., 1996) and the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss et al., 1987). All CTS-2 and SES items were worded to assess the participants’ own aggressive behavior (IPV aggression) and the aggressive behavior of their partners toward them (victimization) during the past 6 months. The response scale for all items was never (0), once in the past 6 months (1), twice in the past 6 months (2), 3 to 5 times in the past 6 months (3), 6 to 10 times in the past 6 months (4), more than 10 times in the past 6 months (5), or not in the past 6 months but it happened before (6). The sixth option was recoded to zero, because this study specifically examined IPV aggression and victimization in the past 6 months.

The CTS-2 is the most frequently used survey of IPV aggression and victimization (Straus et al., 1996). Respective CTS-2 items were summed into Physical Aggression (12 items) and Psychological Aggression (21 items) subscales. Sexual aggression was measured using 10 items of the SES, which assesses unwanted sexual contact, sexual coercion, attempted rape, and rape (Koss et al., 1987). CTS-2 response options were used. Cronbach’s alphas in the current study were .87, .80, and .92 for the physical, psychological, and sexual IPV aggression scales, respectively. To control for IPV victimization in analyses, CTS-2 items assessing physical, psychological, and sexual victimization were summed to create a single total score (α = .89).

Data Analytic Plan

Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24.0. As recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), all study variables were assessed for adherence to general linear model (GLM) assumptions, and descriptive statistics were examined. Next, Pearson product–moment correlations were conducted to examine the zero-order relations between the primary study variables (i.e., alcohol misuse, motivations for IPV aggression, and aggression and victimization). To address the question of how women’s motivations for aggression may explicate the relation between alcohol misuse and use of IPV aggression, a series of mediation analyses (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) were conducted using PROCESS SPSS macro, a robust regression methodology, as recommended by Hayes (2012). The PROCESS procedures use ordinary least squares regression and bootstrapping methodology, which confers more statistical power than standard approaches to statistical inference and does not rely on distributional assumptions. Bootstrapping was done with 1,000 random samples generated from the observed covariance matrix to estimate bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and significance values. Given that the motivations for IPV aggression are not mutually exclusive categories, all motives were simultaneously entered into the model to account for their potential overlap. Separate models analyzed the mediating role of motivations for IPV aggression between alcohol misuse and physical, psychological, and sexual IPV aggression. IPV victimization was controlled for in all mediation analyses given a robust association with IPV aggression (Archer, 2000).

Results

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for alcohol misuse, motives for aggression, and IPV victimization and aggression are presented in Tables 1 and 2. GLM assumptions were met for the primary variables, except for sexual aggression perpetration (skewness = 4.03, kurtosis = 18.73). PROCESS is robust against variables with nonnormal properties (Hayes, 2012). Nonetheless, analyses were rerun using a log10 transformed sexual aggression perpetration variable. Model results did not differ in strength or direction when using the nontransformed and transformed variables. Thus, we report results using the nontransformed variable.

Table 1.

Descriptive Data for Variables of Interest.

Variable	M	SD	Range	% Endorsed
Alcohol misuse	4.5	6.7	0–36	69
Negative emotion motive	5.5	3.2	0–15	95
Self-defense motive	4.2	3.7	0–15	83
Control motive	4.4	3.3	0–18	89
Jealousy motive	1.4	1.4	0–6	67
Tough guise motive	3.6	3.7	0–20	84
IPV physical aggression	18.1	19.2	1–104	100
IPV psychological aggression	69.2	32.1	3–185	100
IPV sexual aggression	2.6	7.0	0–50	32
IPV physical victimization	106.8	71.3	1–379	90
IPV psychological victimization	70.1	34.6	4–185	100
IPV sexual victimization	10.3	15.4	0–50	53

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Table 2.

Intercorrelations Among Alcohol Misuse, Motivations for Aggression, and IPV.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Alcohol misuse	—	.08	.14*	.02	.01	.29**	.22**	.04	.19**	.14**
2. Negative emotion motive	—	—	.50**	.69**	.41**	.57**	.51**	.45**	.16*	.31**
3. Self-defense motive	—	—	—	.37**	.24**	.43**	.37**	.25**	.12*	.52**
4. Control motive	—	—	—	—	.40**	.57**	.43**	.39**	.18**	.18**
5. Jealousy motive	—	—	—	—	—	.41**	.35**	.32**	.20**	.06
6. Tough guise motive	—	—	—	—	—	—	.55**	.34**	.34**	.26**
7. IPV physical aggression	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	.58**	.25**	.46**
8. IPV psychological aggression	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	.22**	.49**
9. IPV sexual aggression	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	.13*
10. IPV victimization	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

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

All five motives for IPV aggression were positively related to use of physical, psychological, and sexual IPV aggression. The motives of self-defense and tough guise were positively associated with alcohol misuse. Alcohol misuse was positively associated with physical and sexual IPV aggression, but not psychological IPV aggression. IPV victimization was positively related to the use of IPV aggression (physical, psychological, and sexual), the motives for IPV aggression (with the exception of jealousy), and alcohol misuse.

Next, separate analyses were conducted to examine whether the five motives for IPV aggression accounted for the relation between alcohol misuse and the use of physical, psychological, and sexual IPV aggression (separately) after controlling for IPV victimization. The model explicating the mediating role of motives for IPV aggression in the relation between alcohol misuse and IPV physical aggression is shown in Figure 1. The relation between alcohol misuse and motives for IPV aggression was only significant for tough guise, B = 1.38, SE = 0.28, t = 5.0, p < .001, and tough guise was significantly related to the use of IPV physical aggression, B = 0.26, SE = 0.11, t = 2.24, p = .03. Furthermore, the indirect effect of alcohol misuse on IPV physical aggression through the pathway of motives for IPV aggression was only significant for tough guise, B = 0.19, SE = 0.07, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.34]. The direct effect linking alcohol misuse with IPV physical aggression was significant after accounting for motives for IPV aggression, B = 0.26, SE = 0.11, t = 2.24, p = .03, suggesting that the tough guise motive partially mediated the relation between alcohol misuse and IPV physical aggression, consistent with study hypotheses.

Figure 1.

Summary of analysis explicating the role of motivations for aggression in the relation between alcohol misuse and IPV physical aggression.

The second analysis examined the mediating role of motives for IPV aggression in the relation between alcohol misuse and IPV psychological aggression (see Figure 2). Only the tough guise motive was significantly related to alcohol misuse, B = 0.14, SE = 0.03, t = 5.41, p < .001; however, the association between tough guise and IPV psychological aggression was nonsignificant, B = 0.44, SE = 0.48, t = 0.91, p = .36. In addition, the indirect effect of alcohol misuse through the pathway of the tough guise motive was nonsignificant, B = 0.06, SE = 0.08, 95% CI = [−0.09, 0.23], and the direct effect linking alcohol misuse with IPV psychological aggression after accounting for motives for IPV aggression was also nonsignificant, B = −0.17, SE = 0.20, t = −0.86, p = .39. These findings suggest that, contrary to study hypotheses, motives for IPV aggression did not mediate the association between alcohol misuse and IPV psychological aggression.

Figure 2.

Summary of analysis explicating the role of motivations for aggression in the relation between alcohol misuse and IPV psychological aggression.

Finally, the model explicating the mediating role of motives for IPV aggression in the relation between alcohol misuse and IPV sexual aggression is shown in Figure 3. The association between alcohol misuse and motives for IPV aggression was only significant for tough guise, B = 0.14, SE = 0.02, t = 5.41, p < .001. Furthermore, the tough guise motive was significantly related to the use of IPV sexual aggression, B = 0.62, SE = 0.12, t = 5.17, p < .001. Moreover, the indirect effect of alcohol misuse on IPV sexual aggression through motives for IPV aggression was only significant for tough guise, B = 0.09, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.15]. The direct effect linking alcohol misuse with IPV sexual aggression was significant after accounting for motives for IPV aggression, B = 0.12, SE = 0.05, t = 2.42, p = .02, suggesting that, partially in line with the hypotheses, the tough guise motive mediated the relation between alcohol misuse and IPV sexual aggression.

Figure 3.

Summary of analysis explicating the role of motivations for aggression in the relation between alcohol misuse and IPV sexual aggression.

Discussion

The relation between alcohol misuse and women’s use of IPV aggression has been well studied; however, there has been no research to date on women’s motivations for aggression as an underlying mechanism explaining this link. The goal of this study was to examine whether the effects of alcohol misuse on women’s IPV aggression vary as a function of their motivations for using aggression, after controlling for their IPV victimization. Consistent with past research, women’s IPV victimization was significantly positively related to their use of IPV aggression, as well as their motivations for IPV aggression, with the exception of jealousy. Furthermore, the five motives for IPV aggression were found to be significantly positively related to women’s use of IPV aggression, whereas only the self-defense and tough guise motives were related to alcohol misuse. Finally, one motive for IPV aggression—tough guise—was found to explain the relation between alcohol misuse and physical and sexual IPV aggression. These findings extend research on the alcohol misuse–IPV aggression link among IPV-victimized women, and highlight important avenues for research and practice aimed at reducing IPV aggression in this population.

More than 50% of women report using IPV aggression toward their male partners in the year prior to engaging in alcohol treatment (Drapkin et al., 2005). Furthermore, one study found that women who were heavy or hazardous drinkers and arrested for incidents of IPV aggression had significantly higher levels of IPV aggression (i.e., physical, psychological, and sexual), compared with women without alcohol misuse problems (Stuart et al., 2004). Despite the high levels of IPV aggression among women with alcohol misuse, relatively little is known about this relation in IPV-victimized women. The findings of this study extend research on underlying mechanisms related to IPV-victimized women’s use of IPV aggression, indicating that women with alcohol misuse may be more likely to use IPV aggression to appear tough or to intimidate as a means to protect themselves from their partner’s aggression.

The tough guise motive captures the intention of wanting to appear tough, intimidating, and willing to harm one’s partner (Caldwell et al., 2009; Hettrich & O’Leary, 2007; Stuart et al., 2006; Swan et al., 2008). It is a motive that is both reactive (i.e., in response to feeling threatened) and proactive (Caldwell et al., 2009); that is, it takes some mental calculation and mastery to know the means and methods that would be potentially effective in scaring or intimidating a partner (Caldwell et al., 2009; Swan & Snow, 2003). Therefore, some women may employ the tough guise strategy as a means of self-defense in response to IPV victimization, especially in the context of alcohol use. At the same time, for other women, the tough guise motive may be more related to their own tendencies to act aggressively or desire to inflict harm, not necessarily related to their own victimization (Caldwell et al., 2009). For example, Caldwell and colleagues found that among women in bidirectional IPV relationships, 44% reported using aggression against their partner to harm them, 35% to physically hurt them, and 18% to feel better after a fight. It may be that the effects of alcohol intoxication, such as decreased inhibition and/or reduced inhibitory control, result in them not being able, or wanting to, refrain from the use of IPV aggression. Caldwell et al. reported that 33% of women in their sample stated that they used IPV aggression because they were drinking or using drugs. In either case, the tough guise motive may be more readily accessible to women with alcohol misuse as it may be reactive in nature (Caldwell et al., 2009), requiring less cognitive demands to utilize in times when the effects of alcohol intoxication have already significantly reduced inhibitions toward using aggressive behavior (for a review, see Eckhardt et al., 2015) and incapacitated more prosocial behaviors (Steele & Josephs, 1990). Future research should further examine the underlying motives captured in the tough guise factor to further elucidate reasons for IPV aggression, as protective motives would call for treatment approaches that incorporate experienced victimization, compared with motives reflecting the desire to harm, which may be effectively addressed with standard anger management curriculum (Dowd, 2001; Stuart et al., 2006).

Notably, alcohol misuse was not found to be significantly associated with psychological aggression. This finding may be due to the fact that psychological aggression is used more frequently than physical or sexual aggression (Sullivan et al., 2012), and thus may be less predicted by alcohol use. Similarly, contrary to study hypotheses, motives of self-defense and expression of negative emotions did not significantly mediate the relation between alcohol misuse and IPV aggression (i.e., physical, psychological, and sexual). This may be a result of including IPV victimization as a covariate within the mediational models. Although this is a strength of the study, it may be that controlling for IPV victimization attenuated the potential role of these motivations in the use of aggression. Indeed, victimization and self-defense have conceptual overlap and IPV victimization is strongly linked to negative emotions (Caldwell et al., 2009). Although the motives of self-defense and negative emotion expression are generally associated with more reactive behavior, additional research is needed to better understand whether the functional relations of these motivations for aggression are affected by other important factors. For example, the field would benefit from future research that examines whether the functions of these motives vary in relation to sample demographics (e.g., gender, race) and clinical (e.g., negative affect) characteristics.

Although findings of the present study add to the body of research on IPV-victimized women’s motivations for IPV aggression (Bair-Merritt et al., 2010; Swan et al., 2008), they should be considered in the light of the study’s limitations. First, the cross-sectional and correlational nature of the data prevents the determination of the exact nature and direction of the relationships for the variables of interest. Future research should address this concern through prospective, longitudinal investigations. A second limitation of the study is its focus on alcohol misuse, which captures problematic patterns of alcohol use and problems stemming from alcohol use. The relationship between motives for aggression and alcohol use may vary if alcohol use is captured using different thresholds, such as alcohol consumption or diagnosed alcohol use disorder. Similarly, motivation for use of aggression could vary for women and intimate partners when alcohol and drugs are simultaneously used during incidents of IPV aggression. Future research would benefit from examining alcohol and drug use patterns for women and their intimate partners in their relation to motivation for aggression in women.

Another study limitation is its reliance on self-report measures asking participants to recall their motives for using IPV aggression weeks or months after these incidents occurred. Although this data collection approach is commonly used in research, it could be highly influenced by the memory of the reporter and their willingness to report such behaviors (Del Boca & Darkes, 2003). For instance, participants could have difficulty remembering or identifying their reasons for using IPV aggression due to degradation of memory for event details over time (Wolfer, 1999) or because of other factors such as cognitive impairment from substance use (Leigh, 2000). One cannot be sure that retrospective reporting accurately captures the true psychological processes or motives at the time of an event. Future research would benefit from studies utilizing more intensive data collection methods, such as daily data diaries, to examine motivations for IPV aggression in real time. In addition, the field would greatly benefit from the use of qualitative data to better understand women’s use of IPV aggression. Such data may further differentiate among the motives for IPV aggression, including the degree to which they are mutually exclusive versus distinct. For example, it is possible that some women employ tough guise as a proactive means of self-defense in response to IPV victimization. Another study limitation is that the sample may not be representative of all women in bidirectional IPV relationships. For example, women with high levels of fear of their intimate partner may be less likely to volunteer for a research study given concerns about risks to their safety. Finally, the present study examined motives for IPV aggression among IPV-victimized women. The focus on women is a notable strength of this study given the dearth of research on IPV perpetration in this population.

Despite these limitations, findings of the current study underscore tough guise as a potentially important underlying mechanism in the relation between alcohol misuse and IPV aggression. This study has a number of important implications for the assessment and treatment of IPV-victimized women who use aggression in their intimate relationships. First and foremost, victimization-related issues need to be addressed, given that the majority of women who use IPV aggression do so out of self-defense, which may in turn increase their vulnerability to future victimization (Stuart et al., 2006). Clinical service provision needs to aim intervention toward protection and safety of victimized women through efforts such as safety planning or facilitating women’s access to community resources such as alternative housing, with the hope that decreasing victimization will ultimately decrease women’s use of aggression, as well.

Given that the present study found a significant direct effect between alcohol misuse and IPV aggression, it is critical that substance abuse treatment target and address the unique challenges present among women in bidirectional IPV relationships. Intervention programs, agencies, and organizations that work with IPV-victimized women need to assess women for alcohol misuse to identify women who would most benefit from treatment. Currently, there is a lack of treatment intervention specifically developed for women with IPV victimization and alcohol misuse. However, a growing body of research suggests the importance and effectiveness of such programs. For example, in relapse prevention and relationship safety (RPRS; Gilbert et al., 2006), IPV-victimized women were less likely to misuse alcohol and experience physical and psychological victimization at 3-month follow-up (factors that are highly correlated with their use of aggression; Archer, 2000). Furthermore, there is preliminary research suggesting that couple-based approaches may show promise in reducing alcohol misuse in relationships characterized by bidirectional IPV by improving communication and problem solving (Weaver et al., 2015). Finally, a meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials found that behavioral couples therapy for alcohol use disorders was effective in reducing frequency of alcohol use and consequences of use (e.g., aggression), as well as increased relationship satisfaction (Powers et al., 2008). Although preliminary, these studies support the investigation of effective treatment interventions targeting decreased alcohol use in an effort to reduce IPV-victimized women’s use of aggression.

Finally, incorporating the assessment of IPV-victimized women’s motivations for IPV aggression into alcohol misuse treatment could provide important clinical information to inform treatment planning. Specifically, the results of this study provide support for the unique role of the tough guise motive in the link between women’s alcohol misuse and their use of IPV aggression. The tough guise motive captures both protective and control-based reasons for women’s use of IPV aggression that may call for different treatment techniques and approaches. Instances in which women use aggression to intentionally harm their partner in an attempt to appear tough should not be overlooked or minimized, but instead highlighted and targeted in alcohol treatment as antecedents or consequences of alcohol misuse. For example, women who use aggression to appear tough to their partner may benefit from cognitive behavioral treatment techniques that seek to identify and address the maladaptive thought patterns related to their aggressive behavior (e.g., “I feel better after fighting” or “I want to hurt him”), the role of their alcohol misuse, and their associated effects (e.g., increasing risk of victimization). Conversely, women who primarily use aggression with the intent to scare or intimidate their partners in an attempt to prevent victimization may benefit from alcohol treatment incorporating safety planning alongside coping strategies that may help them get their needs met (e.g., positive social support). Ultimately, the integration of motivations for women’s use of aggression in alcohol treatment supports interventions tailored to the unique needs of IPV-victimized women who use aggression. Such intervention efforts may decrease the likelihood of IPV aggression and alcohol misuse, which is essential to reducing IPV aggression use among IPV-victimized women.

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: The research described here was supported by Grant Number 2001-WT-BX-0502 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. This research was also supported, in part, by a grant from the National Institutes of Health awarded to the second author (K23DA039327). Opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Justice.

ORCID iDs

Rebecca J. Nelson-Aguiar

Tami P. Sullivan

Author Biographies

Rebecca J. Nelson-Aguiar, MA, is a graduate student in the clinical psychology doctoral program at the University of Rhode Island. Her clinical and research interests focus on the intersection of psychology and the legal system. Specifically, she is interested in risk factors and criminogenic needs and their role in rehabilitation, substance use and abuse, multicultural research within forensic psychology, motivation for and compliance with treatment, and women’s use of aggression.

Nicole H. Weiss, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Rhode Island and director of the Study of Trauma, Risk-Taking, Emotions, and Stress Symptoms (STRESS) Lab. Her clinical and research interests focus on the role of emotion dysregulation in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and related risky, self-destructive, and health-compromising behaviors, most notably substance use and HIV/sexual risk. She is also interested in the influence of cultural and contextual factors, including race/ethnicity and gender, on the interrelations among PTSD, emotion dysregulation, and risky behaviors.

Suzanne C. Swan, PhD, is an associated professor in the Department of Psychology, Clinical–Community Program, and the Women’s and Gender Studies Program at the University of South Carolina. Her research interests are in the field of interpersonal violence and aggression, with a focus on two main areas: interventions to prevent violence, particularly among college populations, and women’s use of violence and aggression in intimate relationships.

Tami P. Sullivan, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine and the director of Family Violence Research and Programs. Her program of research focuses on individual- and system-level factors that affect the mental and physical health of women victims of intimate partner violence (IPV). At the individual level, she focuses on advancing knowledge of IPV, posttraumatic stress, substance use, and HIV/sexual risk—as well as other co-occurring problems. At the system level, she focuses on understanding the capacity of systems (e.g., criminal justice system) to meet the unique needs of IPV-exposed women.

References

Archer

(2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.651

Archer

(2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 313–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00061-1

Babor

T. F.

Higgins-Biddle

J. C.

Saunders

J. B.

Monteiro

M. G.

(2001). The alcohol use disorders identification test: Guidelines for use in primary health care. World Health Organization.

Bair-Merritt

M. H.

Shea Crowne

Thompson

D. A.

Sibinga

Trent

Campbell

(2010). Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women’s motivations. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 11(4), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838010379003

Black

Basile

Breiding

Smith

Walters

Merrick

… Stevens

(2011). National intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 summary report. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

Bushman

B. J.

Cooper

H. M.

(1990). Effects of alcohol on human aggression: An integrative research review. Psychological Bulletin, 107(3), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.341

Caetano

McGrath

Ramisetty-Mikler

Field

C. A.

(2005). Drinking, alcohol problems and the five-year recurrence and incidence of male to female and female to male partner violence. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ALC.0000150015.84381.63

Caldwell

J. E.

Swan

S. C.

Allen

C. T.

Sullivan

T. P.

Snow

D. L.

(2009). Why I hit him: Women’s reasons for intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(7), 672–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770903231783

Catalano

S. M.

(2013). Intimate partner violence—Attributes of victimization, 1993–2011. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipvav9311.pdf

10.

Coker

A. L.

Smith

P. H.

Bethea

King

M. R.

McKeown

R. E.

(2000). Physical health consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner violence. Archives of Family Medicine, 9(5), 451–457.

11.

Del Boca

F. K.

Darkes

. (2003). The validity of self-reports of alcohol consumption: State of the science and challenges for research. Addiction, 98, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1359-6357.2003.00586.x

12.

Dowd

(2001). Female perpetrators of partner aggression: Relevant issues and treatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 5, 73–104. https://doi.org/10.1300/J146v05n02_06

13.

Drapkin

McCrady

Swingle

J. M.

Epstein

E. E.

(2005). Exploring bidirectional couple violence in a clinical sample of female alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66, 213–219. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2005.66.213

14.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Parrott

D. J.

Sprunger

J. G.

(2015). Mechanisms of alcohol-facilitated intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 21(8), 939–957. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215589376

15.

Finkel

E. J.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2013). Intimate partner violence. In Simpson

J. A.

Campbell

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 452–474). Oxford University Press.

16.

Giancola

P. R.

Josephs

R. A.

Parrott

D. J.

Duke

A. A.

(2010). Alcohol myopia revisited: Clarifying aggression and other acts of disinhibition through a distorted lens. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369467

17.

Giancola

P. R.

Levinson

C. A.

Corman

M. D.

Godlaski

A. J.

Morris

D. H.

Phillips

J. P.

Holt

J. C.

(2009). Men and women, alcohol and aggression. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 17(3), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016385

18.

Gilbert

El-Bassel

Manuel

Golder

Sanders

(2006). An integrated relapse prevention and relationship safety intervention for women on methadone: Testing short-term effects on intimate partner violence and substance use. Violence and Victims, 21, 657–672. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.21.5.657

19.

Hayes

A. F.

(2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. University of Kansas.

20.

Hettrich

E. L.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2007). Females’ reasons for their physical aggression in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(9), 1131–1143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507303729

21.

Johnson

M. P.

Ferraro

K. J.

(2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 948–963.

22.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.

23.

Leigh

B. C.

(2000). Using daily reports to measure drinking and drinking patterns. Journal of Substance Abuse, 12(1–2), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3289(00)00040-7

24.

Leonard

K. E.

(2005). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: When can we say that heavy drinking is a contributing cause of violence?Addiction, 100(4), 422–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00994.x

25.

McKinney

C. M.

Caetano

Rodriguez

L. A.

Okoro

(2010). Does alcohol involvement increase the severity of intimate partner violence?Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 34(4), 655–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.01134.x

26.

Pico-Alfonso

M. A.

Garcia-Linares

M. I.

Celda-Navarro

Blasco-Ros

Echeburua

Martinez

(2006). The impact of physical, psychological, and sexual intimate male partner violence on women’s mental health: Depressive symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder, state anxiety, and suicide. Journal of Women’s Health, 15(5), 599–611. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2006.15.599

27.

Powers

M. B.

Vedel

Emmelkamp

P. M.

(2008). Behavioral couples therapy (BCT) for alcohol and drug use disorders: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(6), 952–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.02.002

28.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553

29.

Saunders

J. B.

Aasland

O. G.

Babor

T. F.

De la Fuente

J. R.

Grant

(1993). Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction, 88(6), 791–804.

30.

Schumm

J. A.

O’Farrell

T. J.

Murphy

C. M.

Fals-Stewart

(2009). Partner violence before and after couples-based alcoholism treatment for female alcoholic patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 1136–1146. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017389

31.

Steele

C. M.

Josephs

R. A.

(1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45, 921–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921

32.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001

33.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Warren

W. L.

(2003). The Conflict Tactics Scales handbook. Western Psychological Services.

34.

Stuart

G. L.

Moore

T. M.

Elkins

S. R.

O’Farrell

T. J.

Temple

J. R.

Ramsey

S. E.

Shorey

R. C.

(2013). The temporal association between substance use and intimate partner violence among women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(4), 681–690. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032876

35.

Stuart

G. L.

Moore

T. M.

Hellmuth

J. C.

Ramsey

S. E.

Kahler

C. W.

(2006). Reasons for intimate partner violence perpetration among arrested women. Violence Against Women, 12(7), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206290173

36.

Stuart

G. L.

Moore

T. M.

Ramsey

S. E.

Kahler

C. W.

(2004). Hazardous drinking and relationship violence perpetration and victimization in women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2004.65.46

37.

Sullivan

T. P.

Ashare

R. L.

Jaquier

Tennen

(2012). Risk factors for alcohol-related problems among victims of partner violence. Substance Use & Misuse, 47, 673-685. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2012.658132

38.

Swan

S. C.

Gambone

L. J.

Caldwell

J. E.

Sullivan

T. P.

Snow

D. L.

(2008). A review of research on women’s use of violence with male intimate partners. Violence and Victims, 23(3), 301–314.

39.

Swan

S. C.

Snow

D. L.

(2003). Behavioral and psychological differences among abused women who use violence in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 9(1), 75–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801202238431

40.

Swan

S. C.

Sullivan

T. P.

(2002). The Motivations for Violence Scale. Yale University: New Haven, Connecticut. Unpublished measure.

41.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

42.

Testa

Livingston

J. A.

Leonard

K. E.

(2003). Women’s substance use and experiences of intimate partner violence: A longitudinal investigation among a community sample. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1649–1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.040

43.

Weaver

T. L.

Gilbert

El-Bassel

Resnick

H. S.

Noursi

(2015). Identifying and intervening with substance-using women exposed to intimate partner violence: Phenomenology, comorbidities, and integrated approaches within primary care and other agency settings. Journal of Women’s Health, 24(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2014.4866

44.

Weiss

N. H.

Dixon-Gordon

K. L.

Peasant

Jaquier

Johnson

Sullivan

T. P.

(2017). A latent profile analysis of intimate partner victimization and aggression and examination of between-class differences in psychopathology symptoms and risky behaviors. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9, 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000202

45.

Weiss

N. H.

Duke

A. A.

Sullivan

T. P.

(2014). Probable posttraumatic stress disorder and women’s use of aggression in intimate relationships: The moderating role of alcohol dependence. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27(5), 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21960

46.

Wolfer

(1999). “It happens all the time”: Overcoming the limits of memory and method for chronic community violence experience. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1070-1094.