Can Emerging Adults’ Dating Psychological Aggression be Explained by Family-of-Origin Psychological Aggression,Emotion Dysregulation,and Drinking?

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) impacts the lives of millions of individuals; nearly 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men report experiencing IPV during their lifetime. Previous studies frequently cite family-of-origin aggression as a risk factor for later experiences with IPV. Research with adults who engage in IPV finds an association with childhood exposure to family violence, but the strength of that association may vary. Psychological aggression often pre-dates more severe IPV and college students are a particular risk group for IPV. Additionally, previous literature has revealed gender differences in response to childhood experiences of family violence. As such, the current study sought to identify factors that explain and moderate risk for dating psychological aggression (DPA) in college adults, and sex differences in those associations. Participants (464 women, 142 men), who were in a current romantic relationship lasting at least 3 months, completed measures of past psychological aggression in the family-of-origin (PAF), current emotion dysregulation, risky drinking, and DPA perpetrated in current dating relationships. Emotion dysregulation mediated the relationship between PAF and current DPA; however, differences among specific types of PAF and sex were noted. Results support an intergenerational transmission of PAF and suggest that parent–child sex dyads influence this process. The findings also provide evidence that higher levels of drinking are associated with increased emotion dysregulation. These results contrast with the alcohol expectancy for stress relief and support public messaging that alcohol use does not relieve stress. Clinical and research implications for prevention of the intergenerational transmission of aggression are discussed.

Keywords

intimate partner violence family violence emotion regulation risky drinking transmission intergenerational

Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects the health of millions, at great economic and social cost resulting from injuries, lost productivity, and legal proceedings (Peterson et al., 2018). IPV includes any form of physical violence, sexual coercion, psychological aggression, and stalking behaviors by a current or former partner or spouse (Breiding et al., 2015). In the United States, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men report experiencing IPV during their lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). Research demonstrates important reasons for examining less physically injurious forms of abuse (Oswalt et al., 2018). Specifically, emotional abuse is one of the most common forms of relationship violence among undergraduate students (Oswalt et al., 2018). Furthermore, psychological aggression is one of the best and consistent risk markers for aggression that is progressively more severe and becomes physically injurious (Baker & Stith, 2008; Rothman et al., 2020). There are also several negative physical and mental health consequences for survivors of victims of psychological aggression, including increased alcohol use (Shorey et al., 2011), depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and somatic complaints (Kaura & Lohman, 2007).

One oft-cited risk factor for IPV involves childhood exposure to family violence (i.e., interparental violence and child-directed aggression; Cannon et al., 2009; Haj-Yahia et al., 2019; Kimber et al., 2018; Wood & Sommers, 2011). Research with adults who engage in IPV finds an association with childhood exposure to family violence, but the strength of that association may vary, with some studies reporting a weak-to-moderate link and others finding a strong association (Ernst et al., 2006; Forke et al., 2019; Wood & Sommers, 2011). The extent of risk attributed to family-of-origin aggression exposure, may vary depending on study design and operational definitions used. For example, retrospective studies note varying degrees of overlap between childhood exposure to family violence and adult outcomes in IPV (see Wood & Sommers, 2011, for a review). Recent meta-analyses document small-to-medium effect sizes for the relation between childhood exposure and IPV in adolescence and adulthood (Goncy, 2020; Goncy et al., 2020). Such findings suggest that other factors may help explain the intergenerational continuity or discontinuity of aggression in intimate relationships.

Intimate Partner Violence and Family-of-Origin Aggression

Researchers have studied the relation between childhood exposure to family-of-origin aggression (i.e., parents’ IPV and child-directed aggression) and later IPV perpetration extensively, referring to it as the intergenerational transmission or continuity of violence (Elmquist et al., 2016; Gover et al., 2008; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2004). Studies investigating transmission of violence across generations have found that child witnesses of IPV face a greater than 1.5 times elevated risk for engaging in IPV themselves (Ernst et al., 2006). Similarly, child-directed aggression increases the likelihood for continuing the cycle of relationship aggression (Wood & Sommers, 2011).

Childhood experience of family violence has been associated with greater internalizing, externalizing, and somatic symptoms (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997); executive function/regulation difficulties (e.g., Harding et al., 2013; Katz et al., 2007), and alcohol-related problems (Caetano et al., 2003) in adulthood (see Sinnamon, 2019, for a review). Each of these outcomes may, in turn, augment or moderate the risk of repeating cycles of violence. For example, the emotional security hypothesis suggests that family conflict fosters children’s insecurity and difficulty regulating emotions (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Davies et al., 2016). Research supports that children with emotion regulation difficulties face a greater risk of continuing the cycle of violence in adult relationships (Oliveros & Coleman, 2019; Warshaw et al., 2009).

Previous literature has revealed gender differences in response to childhood experiences of family violence (Wood & Sommers, 2011). Studies evaluating outcomes in children witnessing IPV have noted that men engaged in more externalizing behaviors (i.e., aggression to friends and others), while women developed more internalizing responses (i.e., depression, PTSD; Wood & Sommers, 2011). Simultaneously, other studies found that women engaged in dating aggression at higher rates than men (e.g., Bliton et al., 2016; Hines & Saudino, 2003). With regard to the gender of the perpetrator (mother vs. father), research sometimes finds that gender does not moderate a child’s outcome (Hébert et al., 2019), while other times gender does impact a child’s outcome (Niu et al., 2018). Overall, further research is necessary to elucidate gender differences in the interpersonal outcomes seen in people with childhood exposure to family violence.

Although it is considered a risk factor, studies also find that exposure to family aggression is neither necessary nor sufficient for someone to engage in IPV (Elmquist et al., 2016; Mihalic & Elliot, 1997; Wareham et al., 2009), turning the focus to factors that may mediate or moderate risk. Research has examined different prospective mediating factors that may explain the relation between exposure to family aggression and IPV perpetration, including substance use, impulsivity, depression, and anxiety (Cunradi et al., 2012; Haden et al., 1997; Mair et al., 2012; White & Widom, 2003).

As such, the current study will examine the extent to which retrospective reports of psychological aggression in the family-of-origin (PAF) can explain current ratings of psychological aggression against a dating partner (dating psychological aggression or DPA) and assess to what degree the risk may be amplified by emotion dysregulation and risky drinking. Moreover, the current study will examine the gender differences among those relationships.

Emotion Regulation as a Mediator

Children develop capacities for emotion regulation (ER), a process of understanding, experiencing, and expressing one’s emotions, through their interactions, starting with the parent–child relationship (Buckholdt et al., 2014). Attachment theory suggests that a stable pattern of meeting children’s needs helps them cultivate a healthy/secure connection to their primary attachment figure (e.g., parent; Bowlby, 1983). When parents mentalize, meaning they accurately interpret their child’s mental states, they can name children’s emotions and by doing so they serve as external regulators, soothing/validating children’s emotions, helping them learn those steps to regulate their own emotions (Brumariu, 2015). Longitudinal community research finds significant indirect effects between parent psychopathology and child emotion regulation, via supportive reactions to child emotion, especially by mothers (Godleski et al., 2020).

The Socialization of Emotion Model (Eisenberg et al., 1998) suggests emotional development is guided directly by parents’ response to children’s emotions and indirectly by parents’ emotional well-being, with interparental conflict providing models for social learning. Consistent with this, emotion dysregulation has been linked to higher risk of aggression (Maldonado et al., 2014) and IPV (Shorey et al., 2011) in emerging adults across gender. Indeed, previous research has found emotion dysregulation to mediate the relation between experiences of family violence and reports of internalizing (e.g., depression and anxiety) and externalizing symptoms (e.g., aggression; Harding et al., 2013).

Additional research suggests that the ability to regulate negative emotions may help lessen IPV perpetration, in particular for reactive aggression, less so for proactive aggression (Chase et al., 2001). Impulse control difficulties and lack of emotional clarity (i.e., understanding one’s emotions and their causes) are facets of emotion regulation that each predict significantly IPV perpetration in both men and women (Bliton et al., 2016; Watkins et al., 2016). In addition, the risk for child emotional and behavioral dysregulation (e.g., aggression) is amplified by father’s alcohol use problems (Godleski et al., 2020).

Risky Drinking

Alcohol use has been prominently linked to violence in both laboratory and naturalistic settings (Foran & O’Leary, 2008a), and perpetrators of IPV report higher rates of alcohol use (McKinney et al., 2010). Specifically, levels of aggression are associated more strongly with measures of severe problem drinking (i.e., dependence and consequences) than with quantity of drinking (i.e., consumption; Foran & O’Leary, 2008a). However, some studies find aggression is predicted similarly by measures of problem drinking and alcohol consumption (i.e., quantity and binge/heavy drinking; Foran & O’Leary, 2008a). This may suggest individual characteristics affect to what extent drinking will lead to IPV. This implies that understanding the influence of drinking on IPV requires assessing different features of drinking.

Studies gauging risk factors for IPV perpetration have found that individuals with alcohol use disorders are at higher risk for IPV perpetration (Watkins et al., 2016), such that patterns of abuse/dependence, binge/heavy drinking, and problem drinking are more strongly related to aggression than basic consumption (i.e., quantity or frequency). Specifically, heavy alcohol use has been linked to physical and psychological IPV (Coker et al., 2002). Furthermore, IPV perpetration, impulsivity, and drinking problems have been associated with a history of childhood experiences of violence (Schafer et al., 2004).

Although current literature demonstrates an empirical link between alcohol use and IPV perpetration, the mechanisms for this relation need further investigation (Cafferky et al., 2016). Emotion dysregulation constitute a potential pathway in the relation between alcohol use and IPV perpetration, with some studies suggesting impulsivity may moderate alcohol-related aggression (Schumacher et al., 2013; Tharp et al., 2013). Whereas alcohol intoxication increases impulsivity, trait appraisal (an ER strategy that involves searching for alternative interpretations of emotional events) may buffer aggressive behavior by allowing individuals to consider their partner’s perspectives (Watkins et al., 2015). Several models implicate emotion regulation as a primary motive for alcohol use. Some of these models include the tension reduction hypothesis (Conger, 1956), the stress response dampening theory (Levenson et al., 1980), the stress and negative affect model (Colder & Chassin, 1993), the motivational model of alcohol use (Cooper et al., 1995; Cox & Klinger, 1988), the self-medication model (Khantzian, 1997), and the affective processing model (Berking et al., 2011). These models imply that emotion regulation skills are pertinent in the development of alcohol use disorders.

The multiple threshold model of IPV suggests that alcohol use may impact individuals’ aggressive behaviors differently depending on individual characteristics, relationship characteristics, situational factors, or any combination of the three (Fals-Stewart et al., 2005). For example, a previous study evaluating the relation between alcohol use and IPV found that both anger-control and jealousy problems increase risk for aggressive behaviors (Foran & O’Leary, 2008b). Given these findings, it is relevant to evaluate the role of alcohol on IPV in the context of childhood exposure to family violence and emotion dysregulation.

Current Study

Extant research examines the individual effects of emotion regulation difficulties (Bevan & Higgins, 2002; Cascardi & Jouriles, 2018; Siegel, 2013) and alcohol abuse (Bevan & Higgins, 2002; Foran & O’Leary, 2008a) on the intergenerational transmission of IPV. Studies have yet to explore the joint effects of emotion dysregulation and alcohol consumption, or how they may interact in explaining dating aggression. Measuring potential covariates is critical to understanding maintenance factors for the intergenerational transmission of aggression (Oliveros & Coleman, 2019). The current study advanced the literature by examining the impact of childhood exposure to psychological aggression (PA) in the family in a model that considers the role of emotion dysregulation and risky drinking, as well as their interaction, in explaining current ratings of psychological aggression in dating relationships (DPA). The current study examined trait emotion dysregulation, which is the way that it is examined in at least one study of our literature review (Berking et al., 2011).

Specifically, the following hypotheses were tested: Hypothesis 1 stated that PAF (i.e., interparental and child-directed PA) would explain emerging adults’ DPA. Hypothesis 2 stated that overall emotion dysregulation would mediate the relation between exposure to interparental PA, child-directed PA, and current DPA. Hypothesis 3 stated that risky drinking would strengthen the effect of emotion dysregulation on DPA, such that higher risky drinking would increase DPA in those with greater emotion dysregulation (i.e., a 2-way interaction where risky drinking was expected to elevate the negative effects of emotion dysregulation). See Figure 1 for the conceptual model. Finally, the current study explored potential differences among the relations for different parent–child sex dyads. Although differences in parent–child dyads are not observed consistently (Wood & Sommers, 2011), maternal PA was expected to have stronger explanatory power in general (Appel & Holden, 1998; Romero-Martínez et al., 2014), and based on gender socialization, risk of IPV perpetration was expected to be higher among same-sex parent–child dyads.

Figure 1.

Building the conceptual model. Note. This figure depicts the conceptual model for the relation between the variables of interest.

Method

Participants

This was an archival study; the participants were part of a larger study about cognitive and affective pathways. The current sample contained 610 participants recruited from a large Southeastern university who ranged in age from 18–37 (M = 19.56, SD = 1.94) and self-identified as female (n = 464), male (n = 142), or intersex (n = 1). Upon review of the gender variable, there was only one participant who was not cisgender (i.e., gender identity corresponds with birth sex). For the current analyses, sex was used as the grouping variable, with enough data to form a female group and a male group. Although our study includes one 37-year-old participant, all participants were undergraduate college students, mainly in their early 20s, and are thus referred to as emerging adults (Arnett, 2007). A majority of the sample reported their race to be Caucasian (73.0%), followed by African American (25.4%), Asian (2.3%), Hispanic (1.8%), American Indian/Alaska Native (1.3%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (0.8%), or Other (0.8%). A majority of the sample (98.5%) reported being in a heterosexual romantic relationship.

Measures

Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): The CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996) is a 32-item self-report measure of prevalence and frequency of aggression between intimate partners. It includes subscales for negotiation, physical assault, psychological aggression, sexual coercion, and injury. The measure’s original development and validation (Straus et al., 1996) proposes that the instructions inquiring about the previous year may be modified to ask about another referent period when the annual prevalence rate is not the primary interest, such as the current study that aims to capture recalled occurrence of low base-rate behaviors. As such, participants were instructed to think about the year when they recalled the most conflict between their caregivers. Items are scored on an 8-point scale: 1 (once), 2 (twice), 3 (3–5 times), 4 (6–10 times), 5 (11–20 times), 6 (more than 20 times), 7 (yes, but not that year), and 8 (never). The CTS2 has demonstrated good psychometrics, with internal consistency of the scales ranging from .79 to .95, plus good construct and discriminant validity (Straus et al., 1996). For the current study, the 16-item (8 referring to father and 8 to mother) psychological aggression scale, which has strong test-retest stability (r = .69; Vega & O’Leary, 2007), was used to assess participants’ exposure to interparental PA. Alpha coefficients for the psychological aggression subscale were .92 and .88 for sons and daughters, respectively.

Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTSPC): The CTSPC (Straus et al., 1998) is a 22-item self-report scale that measures the frequency and types of behavior used by parents during conflict with children. Participants were instructed to think about the year when they recalled the most conflict with each parent, and subsequently rated each parent on an 8-point scale (same as CTS2). Good psychometrics have been demonstrated (Straus et al., 1998), and previous studies have found internal reliability ranging from .79 to .86 (Liu, 2017; Mikolajczak et al., 2018). Although there is no test-retest validity for the CTSPC in the literature, this measure is based on the CTS, which has strong test-retest validity and other researchers have provided support for the reliability and convergence of scores (Cotter et al., 2018). For the current study, ten items are used as a measure of participants’ experience of child-directed aggression (5 referring to father and five to mother). Alpha coefficients for the psychological aggression subscale were .83 and .79 for sons and daughters, respectively.

Abuse within Intimate Relationships Scale (AIRS): The AIRS (Borjesson et al., 2003) consists of 26-items that measure frequency of emotional abuse (e.g., sneered at my partner), deception (e.g., kept secrets from my partner), verbal abuse (e.g., given my partner the silent treatment), as well as overt and restrictive violence. Items are scored on an 8-point scale: 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (1–2 times a month), 3 (3–4 times a month), 4 (1–2 times a week), 5 (3–4 times a week), 6 (once a day), and 7 (more than once a day). The AIRS has exhibited good reliability, with internal consistency ranging from .73 to .92 (Borjesson et al., 2003; Oliveros & Coleman, 2019). In the current study, emotional abuse, deception, and verbal abuse items were used to measure DPA perpetration. Internal consistency was .88 for sons and .93 for daughters.

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS): The DERS (Gratz & Roemer, 2004) is a 36-item scale that measures emotion dysregulation in the following areas: Nonacceptance (e.g., when I am upset, I feel ashamed with myself for feeling that way), goal-directed behavior (e.g., I have difficulty getting work done), impulsivity (e.g., I feel out of control), emotional awareness (e.g., I am attentive to my feelings), strategy (e.g., nothing I can do to make myself feel better), and clarity (e.g., I have difficulty making sense out of my feelings). Participants respond on a 5-point scale (1 = almost never; 5 = almost always). Scores range from 0 to 180, with higher scores indicating more emotion dysregulation. The DERS total score represents a reliable global index of overall emotion dysregulation, based on physiological and neural indices of ER (Gratz et al., 2006; John & Eng, 2014). Research supports its high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .81–.93 (Gratz & Roemer, 2004; Oliveros & Coleman, 2019), whereas discriminant validity evidence of the DERS subscales is limited (Garofalo & Neumann, 2018; John & Eng, 2014). As such, only the DERS total score was used in the present study as an index of emotion dysregulation. Internal consistency was .77 for sons and .82 for daughters.

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): The AUDIT (Saunders et al., 1993) is a 10-item questionnaire created to screen for risky and harmful alcohol consumption. The items inquire about the domains of (risky daily) alcohol consumption (e.g., how often do you have a drink containing alcohol?), (abnormal) drinking behavior (e.g., how often during the last year have you found that you were not able to stop drinking once you had started?), and alcohol-related problems (e.g., have you or someone else been injured as a result of your drinking?). Items are scored from 1 (never) to 5 (daily or almost daily). Scores of 8 or more are predictive of hazardous and harmful alcohol use (Saunders et al., 1993). The AUDIT has exhibited high internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha of .93 (Saunders et al., 1993). The current study used the global score, which achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of .95 in the current sample.

Procedure

Planned Analyses

Kline (2015) suggests that a sample size of 100 is considered fair and 200 or more is considered good for path analysis. Upon approval by the university institutional review board (IRB), path analyses were performed using AMOS 27.0 (Arbuckle, 2014). Observed variables included exposure to inter-parental PA (i.e., ratings of mother-to-father and father-to-mother PA), child-directed PA (i.e., ratings of father-to-child and mother-to-child PA), risky drinking, and overall emotion dysregulation. All observed variables were centered, and interaction terms (ER by Risky Drinking) were computed (see Figure 2 all observed variables in analysis). The path analysis examined the extent to which (H1) each type and combination of PAF explained current DPA, (H2) if emotion dysregulation mediated that process, and (H3) how risky drinking impacted the strength or direction of that process (see Figure 2). Finally, the model elucidated sex dyad effects by generating path coefficients for PA by mothers and fathers and using Multiple Group Analysis (MGA). Specifically, following Hayes (2013) recommendations for MGA, moderation by sex was examined by using pairwise parameter comparison to test the statistical difference between the coefficients (“b”) along paths in the model for male and female participants (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

AMOS path analysis with results. Note. This figure depicts the path analysis model with results for males and females. Only significant paths are labeled. PA = Psychological Aggression. DPA = Dating Psychological Aggression.

Results

Descriptive statistics are provided in Table 1. Although the sample in this study was non-clinical, there was considerable variability in participants’ ratings of PA, emotion dysregulation, and risky drinking. Ratings for interparental PA ranged from 0 to 200 and child-directed PA ranged from 0 to 125, indicating that the full range of each measure is reflected in our current sample. The mean scores (see Table 1) reflect that this is a low frequency behavior. Nonetheless, 75.2% of participants reported witnessing interparental PA and 83.7% of participants reported being the target of parents’ PA. ER scores ranged from 37 to 163, which reflects most of the possible range of scores on this measure (DERS maximum = 180). Although there are no clinical cutoffs on the DERS, 57% of participants reported scores in the second tercile, which would reflect that at least 20 out of the 36 items were endorsed as a difficulty most of the time. Ratings for DPA ranged from 0 to 105, representing 58% of the possible range of scores (AIRS maximum score = 112). However, 89.3% of participants reported DPA. Risky drinking scores ranged from 1 to 29, and 29.4% of males and 36.9% of females were above the clinical cutoff score of 8, indicating hazardous and harmful alcohol use.

Table 1.

Mean, SD, and T-test for Ratings by Males and Females.

	Males	Females	t-test
Father-to-mother psychological aggression	16.56 (30.86)	19.40 (31.20)	ns
Mother-to-father psychological aggression	15.50 (31.04)	17.26 (29.59)	ns
Father-to-child psychological aggression	13.06 (21.65)	11.38 (20.41)	ns
Mother-to-child psychological aggression	16.91 (31.86)	19.81 (24.45)	ns
Emotion dysregulation	83.64 (20.22)	87.64 (20.41)	ns
Risky drinking	7.48 (5.86)	5.14 (4.46)	2.84*
Dating psychological aggression	13.83 (13.07)	14.81 (14.87)	ns

Note. Psychological aggression was scored as follows: once = 1, twice = 2, 3-5 times = 4, 6-10 times = 8, 11-20 times = 15, more than 20 times = 25.

*p < .01.

Correlational analyses, as shown in Table 2, revealed that variables referring to interparental PA were positively correlated with participants’ current DPA. Similarly, parent-to-child PA also correlated with increased emotion dysregulation in participants. Interparental PA correlated more strongly with DPA perpetrated by sons than daughters. Certain types of PAF were correlated with increased risky drinking; specifically, father-to-mother PA was positively correlated with risky drinking in all participants. Father-to-daughter PA was positively related with risky drinking. Emotion dysregulation and risky drinking were both positively associated with DPA in daughters, whereas only risky drinking was positively associated with DPA in sons.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Father-to-mother psychological aggression	--------	.72	.49	.40	ns	.28	.45
2. Mother-to-father psychological aggression	.57	--------	.45	.51	ns	ns	.47
3. Father-to-child psychological aggression	.59	.28	--------	.50	ns	ns	.38
4. Mother-to-child psychological aggression	.38	.56	.39	--------	ns	ns	.46
5. Emotion dysregulation	.23	.18	.36	.27	--------	ns	ns
6. Risky drinking	.15	ns	.25	.14	.13	--------	.59
7. Dating psychological aggression	.08	.15	.17	.10	.32	.27	--------

Note. Sons/Daughters are above/below the diagonal. All p-values are <.05 unless labeled “ns.”

All hypotheses were tested using the structural model shown in Figure 2. Hypothesis 1 predicted that PAF (i.e., interparental and child-directed PA) would explain emerging adults’ DPA. Although this hypothesis was not supported by the results as shown in Table 3, path analyses revealed a more complex relation between the variables. Specifically, hypothesis 2, that emotion dysregulation would mediate the relation between exposure to PAF and current DPA, was partially supported. As shown in Table 3, emotion dysregulation mediated the relation between PAF and DPA specifically for paternal child-directed PA. Fathers’ child-directed PA had an indirect effect through emotion dysregulation on DPA for daughters, but not sons. In other words, ratings of fathers’ child-directed PA predicted daughters’ higher ratings of DPA perpetration through emotion dysregulation.

Table 3.

Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects on Current Dating Psychological Aggression.

Variable	Direct		Indirect via Emotion Dysregulation		Total
Variable	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
Father-to-mother psychological aggression	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Mother-to-father psychological aggression	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	.17
Father-to-child psychological aggression	ns	ns	ns	.05^a	ns	.18
Mother-to-child psychological aggression	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Emotion dysregulation	ns	.23	n/a	n/a	ns	.23
Risky drinking	.52	.33	n/a	n/a	.52	.33

Note. All p-values are less than .05 unless labeled “ns.”

^aSignificant pairwise parameter comparisons indicating significant gender difference. Father-to-child psychological aggression → Emotion dysregulation stronger for females than males, Z = 2.31, p < .05.

Hypothesis 3 stated that risky drinking may strengthen the effect of emotion dysregulation on DPA, such that the association between emotion dysregulation and DPA would be strongest for those with higher ratings of risky drinking. This hypothesis was partially supported, such that risky drinking affected the relation between emotion dysregulation and DPA in females only. As shown in Figure 3, higher risky drinking increased the risk for DPA in females across all levels of emotion dysregulation. The combination of low risky drinking and low emotion dysregulation resulted in especially low DPA. Risky drinking, even for those with low emotion dysregulation, was associated with higher levels of DPA. In fact, when risky drinking was high and emotion dysregulation was low, DPA was higher than when risky drinking was low and emotion dysregulation was high.

Figure 3.

Effect of the interaction between emotion dysregulation and risky drinking on dating psychological aggression in females. Note. This figure depicts the simple slopes for the interaction between emotion dysregulation and risky drinking on dating psychological aggression in females.

Exploratory analyses were conducted by comparing male and female path coefficients along paths involved in mediation (i.e., PAF to emotion dysregulation as well as emotion dysregulation to DPA). As shown in Table 3, males and females significantly differed when examining paternal child-directed PA to emotion dysregulation path only. The female path coefficient (b = .31) was significantly stronger than the male path coefficient (b = ns), suggesting moderated mediation (Z = 2.31, p < .05). That is, the indirect effect of paternal child-directed PAF on DPA perpetrated by participant is conditional on participant sex.

Discussion

The current study investigated the associations among PAF, current emotion dysregulation, and current DPA. This study also examined the role of risky drinking and sex differences in those associations. The current findings support the intergenerational transmission of PAF, suggesting important mediator and moderator variables as they influence associations in parent–child sex dyads. Although correlational analyses demonstrated that paternal and maternal PAF positively correlated with DPA in both males and females, path analysis suggests PAF does not explain DPA directly. Rather, PAF appears to increase risk of DPA indirectly by way of its worsening emotion dysregulation, but with important conditions.

Specifically, emotion dysregulation mediated the relation between PAF and DPA only in the case of father–daughter psychological aggression, suggesting that sex dyad matters in understanding this process. For females, greater DPA was predicted by fathers’ child-directed psychological aggression, and this relation was mediated by emotion dysregulation. It is possible that child-directed aggression by fathers presents a specific risk for daughters’ emotion dysregulation, which then explains greater levels of DPA for female emerging adults.

Indeed, when comparing the model for males and females, the path from fathers’ child-directed aggression to emotion dysregulation was significantly stronger for daughters, indicating that the indirect effect of paternal PAF on DPA is conditional on participant sex (i.e., moderated mediation). For instance, as reported earlier, both maternal and paternal PAF were positively correlated with emotion dysregulation in daughters. In contrast, sons’ emotion dysregulation was correlated with paternal interparental aggression only. It appears that fathers’ PAF may affect both sons and daughters, but daughters may be particularly sensitive to mothers’ PAF. These findings are contrary to prior research findings that father’s aggressive behavior predicts emotion dysregulation more strongly for sons than daughters (Chang et al., 2003; Lackey, 2003; Oliveros & Coleman, 2019). It is important to note that these prior studies examined intimate partner aggression in general, whereas the current study examines psychological aggression specifically.

Notably, the current study showed that risky drinking moderated the relation between emotion dysregulation and DPA for females, but not males. This contrasts prior research that identified two types of emotion regulation (i.e., rumination and reappraisal) and risky drinking each have similar associations with intimate partner aggression across sex (Watkins, et al., 2015). Given that the current pathway applies for psychological aggression and may not apply to other types of aggression in dating relationships, it is possible that the influence of emotion regulation and risky drinking varies according to sex and type of aggression.

Implications

Given the known increased use of alcohol in college students, the finding that risky drinking increases risk for DPA even in those with lower emotion dysregulation highlights the importance of prioritizing programs that prevent and curtail risky drinking. Educational programs abound on college campuses regarding the effects of risky drinking, so the current findings would justify incorporating the impact on dating relationships as a motivating factor to moderate/reduce drinking. One positive alcohol expectancy that may increase drinking is stress relief (Ickes et al., 2015), but the current findings provide further evidence that higher levels of drinking are not associated with improved emotion regulation (Dvorak et al., 2014). Further, colleges spend substantial time and funds on education and events to help with reducing stress (e.g., wellness programs). The current findings support public messaging that alcohol use does not relieve stress, and in fact, can worsen relationship-related stress.

In the context of informing future research, the current study suggests that the Socialization of Emotion model may be supported when observing the effect of PAF on DPA through emotion dysregulation. Emotion dysregulation may elevate the effect of father-to-child PAF on DPA perpetration in females. This contrasts with research supporting same-sex modeling as a mechanism for inter-generational transmission of aggression. Studies examining the current variables frequently observe the influence of alcohol on males in clinical samples (Schumacher et al., 2013; Tharp et al., 2013); as such, it is possible that non-clinical samples demonstrate different relations between the variables. Future research may benefit from examining the effects of opposite-sex modeling in non-clinical populations, potentially differentiating mechanisms involved in physical and psychological aggression.

Limitations

There are several limitations to note in the current study. Because this is a correlational study utilizing cross-sectional data, the results cannot explain directionality of the relations between the variables or infer causation.

Additionally, this study may be susceptible to response biases. Ratings may be constrained to the level of participant insight regarding their own behaviors due to the use of self-report measures. Nonetheless, it is important to note that self-report has been established as a valid measure of parent–child interaction, particularly in emerging adults who may be able to freely express their true points of view (Finley et al., 2008). In addition, the measure used in this study, the CTSPC, has convergent validity with behavioral observation (Cotter et al., 2018). This study also utilized retrospective reports of PAF, so the actual level of PAF that participants witnessed/experienced in the past may not be equal to their current ratings based on memory. Additionally, participants reported PAF that they experienced in the “year with the most conflict,” as opposed to PAF during their whole childhood, so the cumulative level of PAF that participants witnessed/experienced may be greater than that reported in the study. Thus, the effects may differ in future studies using observational or longitudinal designs. Notwithstanding, participants’ ratings of PAF provide a measure of their perception of the level of PAF they experienced/witnessed. Thus, current findings indicate that those perceptions can play a role in explaining DPA. Prior research also shows that DPA tends to be bidirectional (reciprocal) in nature among emerging adults (Renner & Whitney, 2012); hence, subsequent studies may benefit from investigating both participant and partner responses regarding DPA.

Finally, the current study employed convenience sampling from a Southeastern university population. Although the sample included 25.4% African American participants, it was not inclusive of all racial backgrounds across college campuses. It should also be noted that the sample in this study only represents these mechanisms in heterosexual couples. As such, the current sample may not generalize to the perceptions and preferences of all emerging adults. To advance the psychological science regarding pathways to DPA in emerging adults, future studies are encouraged to select a sample characterized by diversity in race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, geographical regions, socioeconomic status, and educational status.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Deepali M. Dhruve

Arazais D. Oliveros

Author Biographies

Deepali M. Dhruve, MS, is a student in the PhD Clinical Psychology program at Mississippi State University. Her research investigates psychological and social predictors of emotion regulation difficulties with the overarching goal of understanding and discontinuing the intergenerational transmission of trauma.

Arazais D. Oliveros, PhD, is a licensed psychologist and an Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department of Mississippi State University, Psychology Department. Her research examines cognitive and affective pathways in family violence, with the goal of understanding and preventing intergenerational transmission of abuse and trauma. She is interested in community-based partnership, cross-training, and evaluation to promote evidence-based practices in prevention and early intervention.

References

Appel

A. E.

Holden

G. W.

(1998). The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(4), 578–599.

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2014). Amos. IBM SPSS.

Arnett

J. J.

(2007). Emerging adulthood: What is it, and what is it good for? Child Development Perspectives, 1(2), 68-73.

Baker

C. R.

Stith

S. M.

(2008). Factors predicting dating violence perpetration among male and female college students. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17(2), 227–244.

Berking

Margraf

Ebert

Wupperman

Hofmann

S. G.

Junghanns

(2011). Deficits in emotion-regulation skills predict alcohol use during and after cognitive-behavioral therapy for alcohol dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(3), 307–318.

Bevan

Higgins

D. J.

(2002). Is domestic violence learned? The contribution of five forms of child maltreatment to men’s violence and adjustment. Journal of Family Violence, 17(3), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016053228021

Bliton

C. F.

Wolford-Clevenger

Zapor

Elmquist

J. A.

Brem

M. J.

Shorey

R. C.

Stuart

G. L.

(2016). Emotion dysregulation, gender, and intimate partner violence perpetration: An exploratory study in college students. Journal of Family Violence, 31(3), 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9772-0

Borjesson

W. I.

Aarons

G. A.

Dunn

M. E.

(2003). Development and confirmatory factor analysis of the abuse within intimate relationships scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(3), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502250089

Bowlby

(1983) Attachment and loss: attachment (Vol. 1). Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/588279.

10.

Breiding

M. J.

Basile

K. C.

Smith

S. G.

Black

M. C.

Mahendra

(2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements Version 2.0. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1002/oms.1210161107.

11.

Brumariu

L. E.

(2015). Parent–child attachment and emotion regulation. In Bosmans

Kerns

K. A.

(Eds.), Attachment in middle childhood: Theoretical advances and new directions in an emerging field. New directions for child and adolescent development (pp. 31–45). Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.

12.

Buckholdt

K. E.

Parra

G. R.

Jobe-Shields

(2014). Intergenerational transmission of emotion dysregulation through parental invalidation of emotions: Implications for adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 324–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9768-4.

13.

Caetano

Field

C. A.

Nelson

(2003). Association between childhood physical abuse, exposure to parental violence, and alcohol problems in adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(3), 240–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502250074

14.

Cafferky

B. M.

Mendez

Anderson

J. R.

Stith

S. M.

(2016). Substance use and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Violence, 8(1), 110–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000074

15.

Campbell

J. C.

Lewandowski

L. A.

(1997). Mental and physical health effects of intimate partner violence on women and children. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20(2), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-953X(05)70317-8

16.

Cannon

E. A.

Bonomi

A. E.

Anderson

M. L.

Rivara

F. P.

(2009). The intergenerational transmission of witnessing intimate partner violence. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(8), 706–708. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v7.23591

17.

Cascardi

Jouriles

E. N.

(2018). Mechanisms underlying the association of exposure to family of origin violence and adolescent dating violence. In Wolfe

D. A.

Temple

J. R.

(Eds.), Adolescent dating violence (pp. 159–188). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00007-4.

18.

Chang

Schwartz

Dodge

K. A.

McBride-Chang

(2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(4), 598-606.

19.

Chase

K. A.

O’Leary

K. D.

Heyman

R. E.

(2001). Categorizing partner-violent men within the reactive-proactive typology model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(3), 567–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.3.567

20.

Coker

A. L.

Davis

K. E.

Arias

Desai

Sanderson

Brandt

H. M.

Smith

P. H.

(2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(4), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749- 3797(02)00514-7

21.

Colder

C. R.

Chassin

(1993). The stress and negative affect model of adolescent alcohol use and the moderating effects of behavioral undercontrol. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 54(3), 326-333.

22.

Conger

J. J.

(1956). Reinforcement Theory and the dynamics of alcoholism. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 17(2), 296-305.

23.

Cooper

M. L.

Frone

M. R.

Russell

Mudar

(1995). Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: a motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 990-1005.

24.

Cotter

Proctor

K. B.

Brestan-Knight

(2018). Assessing child physical abuse: An examination of the factor structure and validity of the parent-child conflict tactics scale (CTSPC). Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 467-475.

25.

Cox

W. M.

Klinger

(1988). A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(2), 168-180.

26.

Cunradi

C. B.

Mair

Todd

Remer

(2012). Drinking context and intimate partner violence: Evidence from the california community health study of couples. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(5), 731–739.

27.

Davies

P. T.

Cummings

E. M.

(1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 387–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.116.3.387

28.

Davies

P. T.

Martin

M. J.

Sturge-Apple

M. L.

Ripple

M. T.

Cicchetti

(2016). The distinctive sequelae of children's coping with interparental conflict: Testing the reformulated emotional security theory. Developmental Psychology, 52(10), 1646–1665. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000170

29.

Dvorak

R. D.

Sargent

E. M.

Kilwein

T. M.

Stevenson

B. L.

Kuvaas

N. J.

Williams

T. J.

(2014). Alcohol use and alcohol-related consequences: Associations with emotion regulation difficulties. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 40(2), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2013.877920

30.

Eisenberg

Cumberland

Spinrad

T. L.

(1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2014.371

31.

Elmquist

J. A.

Shorey

R. C.

Labrecque

Ninnemann

Zapor

Febres

Wolford- Clevenger

Plasencia

Temple

J. R.

Stuart

G. L.

(2016). The relationship between family-of-origin violence, hostility, and intimate partner violence in men arrested for domestic violence: Testing a mediational model. Violence Against Women, 22(10), 1243–1258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215621177

32.

Ernst

A. A.

Weiss

S. J.

Enright-Smith

(2006). Child witnesses and victims in homes with adult intimate partner violence. Academic Emergency Medicine, 13(6), 696–699. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2005.12.020

33.

Fals-Stewart

Leonard

K. E.

Birchler

G. R.

(2005). The occurrence of male-to-female intimate partner violence on days of men’s drinking: The moderating effects of antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(2), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.2.239

34.

Finley

G. E.

Mira

S. D.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2008). Perceived paternal and maternal involvement: Factor structures, mean differences, and parental roles. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men As Fathers, 6(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0601.62

35.

Foran

H. M.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2008a). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1222–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.05.001

36.

Foran

H. M.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2008b). Problem drinking, jealousy, and anger control: Variables predicting physical aggression against a partner. Journal of Family Violence, 23(3), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9136-5

37.

Forke

C. M.

Myers

R. K.

Localio

A. R.

Wiebe

D. J.

Fein

J. A.

Grisso

J. A.

Catallozzi

(2019). Intimate partner violence: Childhood witnessing and subsequent experiences of college undergraduates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17–18), NP9670–NP9692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519860909

38.

Garofalo

Neumann

C. S.

(2018). Psychopathy and emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward. In Routledge international handbook of psychopathy and crime (pp. 58-79). Routledge.

39.

Godleski

S. A.

Eiden

R. D.

Shisler

Livingston

J. A.

(2020). Parent socialization of emotion in a high-risk sample. Developmental Psychology, 56(3), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000793

40.

Goncy

E. A.

Basting

E. J.

Dunn

C. B.

(2020). A meta-analysis linking parent-to-child aggression and dating abuse during adolescence and young adulthood. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 22(5), 1248–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020915602

41.

Goncy

E. A.

(2020). A meta-analysis of interparental aggression with adolescent and young adult physical and psychological dating aggression. Psychology of Violence, 10(2), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000266

42.

Gover

A. R.

Kaukinen

Fox

K. A.

(2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(12), 1667–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314330

43.

Gratz

K. L.

Roemer

(2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94

44.

Gratz

K. L.

Rosenthal

M. Z.

Tull

M. T.

Lejuez

C. W.

Gunderson

J. G.

(2006). An experimental investigation of emotion dysregulation in borderline personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(4), 850–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 843X.115.4.850

45.

Haden

C. A.

Haine

R. A.

Fivush

(1997). Developing narrative structure in parent-child reminiscing across the preschool years. Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 295–307.

46.

Haj-Yahia

M. M.

Sousa

C. A.

Lugassi

(2019). The relationship between exposure to violence in the family of origin during childhood, psychological distress, and perpetrating violence in intimate relationships among male university students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15–16), NP8347-NP8372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519843280

47.

Harding

H. G.

Morelen

Thomassin

Bradbury

Shaffer

(2013). Exposure to maternal- and paternal-perpetrated intimate partner violence, emotion regulation, and child outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 28(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012- 9487-4

48.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.

49.

Hébert

Daspe

M. È.

Lapierre

Godbout

Blais

Fernet

Lavoie

(2019). A meta-analysis of risk and protective factors for dating violence victimization: The role of family and peer interpersonal context. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 20(4), 574–590.

50.

Hines

D. A.

Saudino

K. J.

(2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised conflict tactics scales. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 197–217.

51.

Ickes

M. J.

Brown

Reeves

Zephyr

P. M. D.

(2015). Differences between undergraduate and graduate students in stress and coping strategies. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 13(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.32398/cjhp.v13i1.1810

52.

John

O. P.

Eng

(2014). Three approaches to individual differences in affect regulation: Conceptualizations, measures, and findings. In Gross

J. J.

(Eds), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp, 321–345). The Guilford Press.

53.

Katz

L. F.

Hessler

D. M.

Annest

(2007). Domestic violence, emotional competence, and child adjustment. Social Development, 16(3), 513–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9507.2007.00401.x

54.

Kaura

S. A.

Lohman

B. J.

(2007). Dating violence victimization, relationship satisfaction, mental health problems, and acceptability of violence: A comparison of men and women. Journal of Family Violence, 22(6), 367-381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9092-0.

55.

Khantzian

E. J.

(1997). The self-medication hypothesis of substance use disorders: A reconsideration and recent applications. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 4(5), 231-244.

56.

Kimber

Adham

Gill

McTavish

MacMillan

H. L.

(2018). The association between child exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) and perpetration of IPV in adulthood-A systematic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 76, 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.11.007.

57.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.

58.

Lackey

(2003). Violent family heritage, the transition to adulthood, and later partner violence. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 74-98.

59.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Hankla

Stormberg

C. D.

(2004). The relationship behavior networks of young adults: A test of the intergenerational transmission of violence hypothesis. Journal of Family Violence, 19(3), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOFV.0000028074.35688.4f

60.

Levenson

R. W.

Sher

K. J.

Grossman

L. M.

Newman

Newlin

D. B.

(1980). Alcohol and stress response dampening: Pharmacological effects, expectancy, and tension reduction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89(4), 528-538.

61.

Liu

R. T.

(2017). Childhood adversities and depression in adulthood: Current findings and future directions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 24(2), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.03.040

62.

Mair

Cunradi

C. B.

Todd

(2012). Adverse childhood experiences and intimate partner violence: Testing psychosocial mediational pathways among couples. Annals of Epidemiology, 22(12), 832–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2012.09.008

63.

Maldonado

R. C.

DiLillo

Hoffman

(2014). Can college students use emotion regulation strategies to alter intimate partner aggression-risk behaviors? An examination using I3 theory. Psychology of Violence, 5(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035454

64.

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

65.

Mihalic

S. W.

Elliott

(1997). A social learning theory model of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021941816102

66.

Mikolajczak

Brianda

M. E.

Avalosse

Roskam

(2018). Consequences of parental burnout: Its specific effect on child neglect and violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 80(1), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.03.025

67.

Niu

Liu

Wang

(2018). Intergenerational transmission of harsh discipline: The moderating role of parenting stress and parent gender. Child Abuse & Neglect, 79, 1-10.

68.

Oliveros

A. D.

Coleman

A. S.

(2019). Does emotion regulation mediate the relation between family-of-origin violence and intimate partner violence? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519867146

69.

Oswalt

S. B.

Wyatt

T. J.

Ochoa

(2018). Sexual assault is just the tip of the iceberg: Relationship and sexual violence prevalence in college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 32(2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2017.1350122

70.

Peterson

Kearns

M. C.

McIntosh

W. L.

Estefan

L. F.

Nicolaidis

McCollister

K. E.

Gordon

Florence

(2018). Lifetime economic burden of intimate partner violence among US adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 55(4), 433–444.

71.

Renner

L. M.

Whitney

S. D.

(2012). Risk factors for unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among young adults. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(1), 40-52.

72.

Romero-Martínez

Figueiredo

Moya-Albiol

(2014). Childhood history of abuse and child abuse potential: The role of parent’s gender and timing of childhood abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(3), 510–516.

73.

Rothman

E. F.

Bahrami

Okeke

Mumford

(2020) Prevalence of and risk markers for dating abuse–related stalking and harassment victimization and perpetration in a nationally representative sample of US adolescents, 53(6), 0044118X2092163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X20921631

74.

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x

75.

Schafer

Caetano

Cunradi

C. B.

(2004). A path model of risk factors for intimate partner violence among couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260503260244

76.

Schumacher

J. A.

Coffey

S. F.

Leonard

K. E.

O'Jile

J. R.

Landy

N. C.

(2013). Self-regulation, daily drinking, and partner violence in alcohol treatment-seeking men. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 21(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2014.371

77.

Shorey

R. C.

Brasfield

Febres

Stuart

G. L.

(2011). An examination of the association between difficulties with emotion regulation and dating violence perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20(8), 870–885. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.956839

78.

Siegel

J. P.

(2013). Breaking the links in intergenerational violence: An emotional regulation perspective. Family Process, 52(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12023

79.

Sinnamon

G. C. B.

(2019). The pathological consequences of exposure to domestic and family violence in childhood. In Bryce

Robinson

Petherick

(Eds.), Child abuse and neglect: Forensic issues in evidence, impact and management (pp. 175–202). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815344-4.00010-6

80.

Smith

S. G.

Zhang

Basile

K. C.

Merrick

M. T.

Wang

Kresnow

Chen

(2018). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2015 data brief—updated release. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

81.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251300021002003

82.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Finkelhor

Moore

D. W.

Runyan

(1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the parent-child conflict tactics scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(4), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-017-9190-0

83.

Tharp

A. T.

Schumacher

J. A.

Samper

R. E.

McLeish

A. C.

Coffey

S. F.

(2013). Relative importance of emotional dysregulation, hostility, and impulsiveness in predicting intimate partner violence perpetrated by men in alcohol treatment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312461138

84.

Vega

E. M.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2007). Test-retest reliability of the revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2). Journal of Family Violence, 22(8), 703–708.

85.

Wareham

Boots

D. P.

Chavez

J. M.

(2009). A test of social learning and intergenerational transmission among batterers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.02.011

86.

Warshaw

Brashler

Gil

(2009). Mental health consequences of intimate partner violence. In Mitchell

Anglin

(Eds.), Intimate partner violence: A health-based perspective (pp. 147–171). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- 6171.2011.00302.x.

87.

Watkins

L. E.

DiLillo

Maldonado

R. C.

(2015). The interactive effects of emotion regulation and alcohol intoxication on lab-based intimate partner aggression. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29(3), 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.03.040

88.

Watkins

L. E.

Schumacher

J. A.

Coffey

S. F.

(2016). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between emotion dysregulation and partner violence perpetration among individuals with PTSD and alcohol dependence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2016.03.011

89.

White

H. R.

Widom

C. S.

(2003). Intimate partner violence among abused and neglected children in young adulthood: The mediating effects of early aggression, antisocial personality, hostility and alcohol problems. Aggressive Behavior, 29(4), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10074

90.

Wood

S. L.

Sommers

M. S.

(2011). Consequences of intimate partner violence on child witnesses: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 24(4), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2011.00302.x