Sexual Violence Perpetration Within Intimate Relationships: An I 3 Model Analysis of the Effects of Sexual Violence Victimization and Psychological Flexibility

Abstract

The I³ Model posits that intimate partner violence (IPV) is determined by the relative strength of instigatory, impellance, and inhibitory factors. Although much research has examined nonsexual IPV, few studies have used the I³ Model to examine sexual IPV. This study investigated the effects of sexual IPV victimization (an impellor) and psychological flexibility (an inhibitor) on sexual IPV perpetration within a dyadic framework. Participants nested within 617 intimate couples completed measures of psychological flexibility and sexual IPV perpetration and victimization. Results showed that Actor IPV victimization was positively and Actor psychological flexibility was negatively associated with Actor IPV perpetration. Among those who experienced low levels of IPV victimization, psychological flexibility inhibited IPV perpetration. This inhibiting effect did not extend to Actors who experienced high levels of IPV victimization. Findings highlight the complex interactions between I³ factors and support continued dyadic examination of IPV perpetration etiology.

Keywords

domestic violence intimate partner violence sexual violence actor–partner interdependence model

The study of sexual violence has proliferated since the 1950s (Hamby, 2014), and there has been a recent peak in the evaluation of sexual violence prevention programming (DeGue et al., 2014). However, research on sexual intimate partner violence (IPV), a term that refers to sexual violence that occurs within the context of a romantic relationship, lags far behind research on other forms of IPV. Indeed, extant literature on IPV has been criticized by scholars for overemphasizing physical assault (Hamby, 2014; Hamby & Turner, 2013) and often failing to examine or consider sexual violence. Conversely, a host of empirical evidence that examines determinants and mechanisms of sexual violence often fails to identify whether self-reported sexual violence occurred in the context of an intimate relationship (e.g., Conley et al., 2017; Flack et al., 2015). Thus, etiological models of sexual IPV remain relatively underdeveloped. To address the aforementioned weaknesses, this study investigated the independent and interactive effects of evidence-based risk (i.e., sexual IPV victimization) and protective (i.e., psychological flexibility) factors on the frequency of sexual IPV perpetration. These specific risk and protective factors were selected for two reasons. First, the idea of victimization leading to perpetration, especially among women, is not typically considered in the realm of sexual violence. Second, psychological flexibility is a relatively new construct and compared with other inhibiting factors of violence, research on psychological flexibility lags far behind.

Theoretical Background

This study utilized the I³ Model, a process-oriented metatheory that aids in the prediction of IPV perpetration by weighing the relative strength of three factors: instigators, impellors, and inhibitors (Finkel, 2007, 2014; Finkel & Eckhardt, 2013; Finkel & Hall, 2017; Slotter & Finkel, 2011). Instigating triggers are factors that produce an urge to behave aggressively (e.g., provocation). These factors provide the initial momentum toward an aggressive action that creates the opportunity for an aggressive response. Thus, without instigation, aggression will not occur and other I³ factors (i.e., impellors, inhibitors) are not relevant. Instigating triggers can take the form of sexually provocative situations (i.e., which elicit sexual arousal or expectations of sex) or interpersonal events (e.g., an argument). Once an instigating trigger elicits the initial momentum toward an aggressive action, the relative balance of impelling and inhibiting forces determines the likelihood of an aggressive response. An impeller (e.g., trait negative affect and trait anger) increases the likelihood of an aggressive urge. In contrast, an inhibitor (e.g., self-control) increases the likelihood that a person will have the capacity to resist the aggressive urge. Thus, inhibiting factors set the threshold beyond which aggressive urges would result in the perpetration of aggression. For example, a minor provocation (i.e., an instigating trigger) coupled with strong impelling factors and weak inhibiting factors would likely result in aggression; in contrast, a minor provocation that has weak impelling factors and strong inhibiting factors would likely not result in aggression.

Extant literature has identified myriad risk and protective factors for IPV that may be conceptualized within the organizing framework of the I³ Model. For example, many risk factors may be conceptualized as impellors, in that they increase the likelihood that an aggressive urge will result in aggression. These variables include negative affect (Norlander & Eckhardt, 2005), attachment anxiety (Finkel & Slotter, 2007), and pertinent to the current research, prior victimization (Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004). In addition, protective factors have been identified that may be conceptualized as inhibitors (or disinhibitors). These variables include executive functioning (Parrott, Swartout, Eckhardt, & Subramani, 2017), self-control (Finkel, DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, & Foshee, 2009), emotion regulation (Shorey, McNulty, Moore, & Stuart, 2015), relationship satisfaction (Stith, Green, Smith, & Ward, 2008), and pertinent to the current investigation, psychological flexibility.

Impelling Factor: Sexual IPV Victimization

One of the most robust predictors of physical and psychological IPV perpetration is IPV victimization (Okuda et al., 2015; Stith et al., 2004). Indeed, past research demonstrates that perpetration of physical and psychological IPV by both partners is not uncommon. Studies suggest that bidirectional physical IPV occurs in more than 50% of the intimate relationships (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Misra, Selwyn, & Rohling, 2012). In fact, the association between IPV perpetration and victimization is maintained even after accounting for potential violence inhibiting factors (Okuda et al., 2015).

There are considerably less dyadic data on sexual IPV perpetration. Of the few studies in this area, research suggests that approximately 20% of the intimate relationships are characterized by both partners perpetrating sexual IPV (Hines & Saudino, 2003). Although the rates of victimization and perpetration of sexual IPV within a relationship are lower than other forms of IPV (e.g., physical and psychological), they underscore the fact that there are couples in which both partners are perpetrators and victims of sexual IPV. Similar to the relation between physical and psychological IPV victimization and perpetration, the association between sexual IPV victimization and perpetration is clearly robust. Extant studies indicate a large and positive correlation (e.g., r’s range from .46 to .78) between the perpetration and victimization of sexual IPV (Hines & Saudino, 2003; Próspero & Kim, 2009). Collectively, these data suggest that previous experiences of sexual IPV victimization may impel subsequent sexual IPV perpetration. However, it remains unclear how sexual IPV victimization interacts with other factors in the I³ Model to predict sexual IPV perpetration. This study aimed to test directly this hypothesis.

Inhibiting Factor: Psychological Flexibility

Myriad studies indicate that factors which promote adaptive regulatory processes, such as executive functioning (Parrott et al., 2017), self-control (Finkel et al., 2009) or emotion regulation (Shorey et al., 2015), mitigate the likelihood that impelling factors lead to physical and psychological IPV perpetration. In line with this work, recent theory and research have increasingly considered psychological flexibility to be a robust predictor of effective self-regulation (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010). Psychological flexibility is a transdiagnostic construct that indicates the ability to alter behavior and thoughts based on one’s desired goals while being mindful of one’s current surroundings and situation (Bond et al., 2011; Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006). Researchers posit that psychological flexibility is “reflected by how a person (1) adapts to fluctuating situational demands, (2) reconfigures mental resources, (3) shifts perspective, and (4) balances competing desires, needs, and life domains” (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010, p. 866). Importantly, low levels of psychological flexibility, or psychological inflexibility, have also been referred to as experiential avoidance (Bond et al., 2011; Shorey et al., 2014). Psychological flexibility is typically measured with the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II; Bond et al., 2011), and studies indicate that high levels of psychological flexibility confer resilience against a range of adverse mental and physical health outcomes (Gloster, Meyer, & Lieb, 2017; Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010). Consistent with this literature, one study has shown that psychological flexibility is inversely related to physical, psychological, and sexual IPV perpetration (Shorey et al., 2014). Outside of this study, however, we are unaware of any research that examined the relation between psychological flexibility and sexual IPV perpetration. That stated, the existent data suggest that psychological flexibility may inhibit sexual IPV perpetration. This study aimed to test directly the hypothesis that psychological flexibility inhibits sexual IPV perpetration.

Dyadic Framework

Research has identified numerous risk factors and etiological models for sexual violence perpetration toward intimate partners (Lisco, Parrott, & Tharp, 2012; Malamuth, Linz, Heavey, Barnes, & Acker, 1995; Malamuth, Sockloskie, Koss, & Tanaka, 1991; Shorey et al., 2014). However, no study to date has examined risk factors for sexual IPV perpetration within the dyadic context. In research on nonsexual forms of IPV, it is increasingly common to study IPV etiology (e.g., Parrott et al., 2017; Petit, Knee, & Rodriguez, 2017; Testa & Derrick, 2014) using the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) analytic framework (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006; Kenny & Cook, 1999). Relative to an analysis of only one partner’s characteristics, this approach more accurately models IPV perpetration risk by considering the interpersonal nature of relationship; specifically, it provides the unique ability to examine potential effects of both partners’ characteristics (i.e., both impelling and inhibiting factors) on IPV perpetration while accounting for the other partner’s characteristics and IPV perpetration. Analyses based upon the APIM framework assume nonindependence of data, such that each participant’s outcome may be influenced by the participant’s own behavior (Actor) as well as his or her partner’s behavior (Partner) and is, therefore, uniquely well suited for data from romantic couples. Indeed, by accounting for actor–partner effects in this study, the true contribution of an impelling (i.e., sexual IPV victimization) relative to inhibiting (i.e., psychological flexibility) factors to sexual IPV perpetration may be more accurately estimated.

This Study

Using the organizing framework of the I³ Model, this study investigated dyadically (i.e., via APIM) the independent and interactive effects of both partners’ sexual IPV victimization (an impellor) and psychological flexibility (an inhibitor) on the frequency of sexual IPV perpetration. This study also targeted couples who are at high risk for IPV. Specifically, research indicates that both relationship conflict (e.g., Jewkes, 2002) and heavy drinking (Leonard & Quigley, 2017) are positively associated with IPV perpetration. In this way, hypotheses could be tested within a high-risk sample for whom intervention development can have the greatest impact. Based on the reviewed literature, several hypotheses were advanced.

First, given the established link between IPV victimization and IPV perpetration (e.g., Okuda et al., 2015; Próspero & Kim, 2009), it was hypothesized that Actor sexual IPV victimization would be positively associated with Actor sexual IPV perpetration. Second, previous research has shown that psychological flexibility is negatively associated with IPV perpetration (Shorey et al., 2014). Thus, it was hypothesized that Actor psychological flexibility would be negatively associated with Actor sexual IPV perpetration. Third, perpetration can be predicted by weighing the relative strength of impelling and inhibiting factors (Finkel, 2007; Slotter & Finkel, 2011). To this end, the effect of IPV victimization on IPV perpetration is robust (e.g., large effect sizes) and oftentimes sustained even after accounting for myriad inhibitory factors (Stith et al., 2004). Given this literature, the relative weight of sexual IPV victimization is likely too high (i.e., too strong of an impellor) to be offset by the relative weight of psychological flexibility. Thus, it was hypothesized that Actor psychological flexibility would be negatively associated Actor sexual IPV perpetration among Actors with low, but not high, levels of sexual IPV victimization.

Method

The distinct set of hypotheses tested herein used data that were drawn from a larger investigation on the effects of acute alcohol intoxication on IPV (Subramani, Parrott, & Eckhardt, 2017). Thus, couples were required to meet eligibility criteria for an alcohol administration study (see below). Although other publications have utilized these data (e.g., Halmos, Leone, Parrott, & Eckhardt, 2018; Parrott et al., 2017), the present hypotheses are novel and the analytic plan was developed specifically to address these aims. We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, and all measures in the study.

Participants

Participants were 1,234 individuals nested within 617 intimate couples recruited from two cities in the midwestern and southeastern United States through online and print advertisements. Data collection was stopped once the prespecified target sample size for the laboratory-based portion of the parent project was reached. To be eligible, couples had to be dating for at least 1 month, be at least 21 years of age, and identify English as their native language. Because the larger investigation involved alcohol administration, couples were also excluded if either partner reported serious head injuries, a condition in which alcohol is medically contraindicated, or a desire to seek treatment for alcohol or drug use. At least one partner was required to meet two additional eligibility criteria. First, this individual had to report consumption of an average of at least five (for men) or four (for women) alcoholic beverages per drinking episode at least twice per month during the past year (e.g., considered a person who drinks heavily). Second, this individual had to be identified as having perpetrated psychological or physical IPV toward their current partner via self- or partner-report on the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). Thus, the sample was composed of at least one partner who was at high risk for IPV and, more generally, limited to only those couples characterized by a high level of relationship conflict and heavy drinking.

Couples were screened separately by telephone to assess eligibility, which was then verified in a more comprehensive in-person laboratory assessment. Data for 17 of the 617 couples were excluded from this study due to missing data on relevant questionnaires (n = 11), identifying as nonheterosexual (n = 4), cognitive difficulties during participation (n = 1), and highly discrepant relationship length that reduced confidence in the validity of the couple’s data (n = 1). Removal of these couples resulted in a final sample of 600 heterosexual couples (N = 1,200).

Half of the participants included in the analyses reported that they were married or cohabitating with a partner (50.4%) with fewer participants who identified as single (40.9%), divorced (5.8%), or separated (2.7%). Participants primarily identified as African American (63.5%) or White (27.4%), which is relatively consistent with the demographics inherent to the two cities from which participants were recruited. Participants were, on average, 32.3 (SD = 10.3) years old with 14.1 (SD = 2.7) years of education. The average reported relationship length was 4.3 (SD = 4.7) years. Approximately 57.7% of the participants were recruited at Site 1 with the rest recruited at Site 2. This study was approved by each university’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures

CTS-2

The CTS-2 is a 78-item self-report instrument that measures a range of behaviors that occur during disagreements within intimate relationships (Straus et al., 1996). Participants are instructed to indicate on a 7-point scale how many times they have perpetrated or experienced the listed behaviors over the past 12 months. Responses may range from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times). Frequency scores are calculated by adding the midpoints of the score range for each item to form a total score. For example, if a participant indicates a response of “three to five” times in the past year, a score of “4” would be assigned. This study assessed sexual IPV using the 14-item sexual coercion subscale, which assesses both minor and severe forms of sexual coercion perpetration and victimization. Thus, a given participant’s sexual IPV perpetration score would indicate that his or her partner experienced sexual IPV victimization. For this study, participants were directed to report on their current romantic relationship.

Research has shown that there is a low to moderate concordance in partner’s reports about incidents of IPV (e.g., Archer, 1999; Cunradi, Bersamin, & Ames, 2009; Schafer, Caetano, & Clark, 1998). Thus, relying on only one partner’s report could result in not capturing the true occurrence of sexual IPV within the relationship. To address this weakness, studies have utilized both partners’ reports (e.g., an IPV incident occurred as long as one partner reported it; Cleary Bradley, Drummey, Gottman, & Gottman, 2014; Straus, 1990). To provide a conservative estimate of sexual coercion perpetration, the participant’s total sexual IPV perpetration score was compared with his or her partner’s corresponding victimization score, and sexual IPV perpetration was operationalized as the higher of the two scores. Sexual IPV perpetration within the current sample disproportionately represented minor, rather than severe, acts (Table 1). To provide a conservative estimate of sexual IPV victimization, the participant’s total sexual IPV victimization score was compared with his or her partner’s corresponding perpetration score, and sexual IPV victimization was operationalized as the higher of the two scores. Thus, Actor sexual IPV perpetration scores were identical to Partner sexual IPV victimization scores. Although research has indicated that males are more likely to perpetrate sexual violence compared with women (Black et al., 2011), the percentages of each type of sexual IPV perpetration that occurred were relatively similar across genders (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Item Responses and Directionality of Sexual IPV Perpetration Among Individuals and Dyads (N = 600).

	Male (%)	Female (%)	Dyad (%)	χ ²	df	p
Minor Sexual Coercion Items from the CTS2
Made my partner have sex without a condom	54.7	55.8		0.17	1	.684
Insisted on sex when my partner did not want to (but did not use physical force)	49.3	37.5		17.10	1	<.001
Insisted my partner have oral or anal sex (but did not use physical force)	25.8	16.8		14.48	1	<.001
Severe Sexual Coercion Items from the CTS2
Used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon) to make my partner have oral or anal sex	2.8	2.0		0.88	1	.347
Used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon) to make my partner have sex	2.5	2.3		0.04	1	.851
Used threats to make my partner have oral or anal sex	1.7	1.3		0.23	1	.635
Used threats to make your partner have sex?	4.5	4.5		0.00	1	1.00
Directionality of Sexual Coercion within Dyads
Male-to-female			9.5
Female-to-male			4.7
Bidirectional			65.8
Neither			20.0

Note. Item responses constitute a composite of both partners such that a participant may be classified as affirming an item if either or both partners reported that the participant engaged in the behavior one or more times. IPV = intimate partner violence; CTS2 = Revised Conflict Tactics Scale.

Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test

This 10-item Likert-type scale assesses hazardous and harmful patterns of alcohol consumption (Babor, Biddle-Higgins, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001). Participants rate items on a 0 to 4 scale, with higher scores indicative of greater problematic drinking. Sample items include “How often during the past year have you needed a first drink in the morning to get yourself going after a heavy drinking session?” and “How often during the last year have you had a feeling of guilt or remorse after drinking?” The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) has high test–retest reliability and internal consistency across a range of samples (Babor et al., 2001; Reinert & Allen, 2007), which is consistent with the current sample (α = .85). In this study, both members of the couple reported on their own alcohol use. Participants with an AUDIT score of eight or greater were classified as problematic drinkers. Participants with AUDIT scores lower than eight were classified as non-problematic drinkers. Because we oversampled for participants who drink heavily and problematic drinking is a risk factor for IPV perpetration (Leonard & Quigley, 2017), we measured problematic drinking so that it could be included as a covariate in all analyses.

Acceptance and Action Questionnaire

The AAQ-II is a seven-item self-report instrument that measures psychological flexibility (Bond et al., 2011). Participants rate items on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never true) to 7 (always true). Items were reverse scored and summed, such that higher scores indicate greater levels of psychological flexibility. Sample items include “Worries get in the way of my success” and “My painful memories prevent me from having a fulfilling life.” The AAQ-II has a high internal consistency (α = .84), which is consistent with the current sample (α = .89), good test–retest reliabilities (i.e., .81 and .79 at 3, and 12 months, respectively), and strong evidence of predictive, discriminant, and convergent validity (Bond et al., 2011).

Procedures

Upon the couple’s arrival to the laboratory, each participant was led to a private testing room. After providing informed consent, participants completed the questionnaire battery on a computer using MediaLab 2014 software (Jarvis, 2014). The experimenter provided instructions on how to operate the computer program and answered any questions during the session. After completion of the questionnaire battery, participants were compensated and thanked for their time.

Results

Data Analytic Method

We used generalized multilevel modeling (MLM), an optimal method for use with hierarchically nested data such as individuals within couples, to estimate APIM (Kenny et al., 2006) assessing study hypotheses. Individual data at Level 1 were nested within couples at Level 2 in a two-level multivariate model. Within this framework, we were able to evaluate the influence of both Actor (e.g., the effect of the participant’s own psychological flexibility on his or her own sexual IPV perpetration) and Partner (e.g., the effect of the partner’s psychological flexibility on the participant’s sexual IPV perpetration) effects. To account for the right-skewed distribution of the sexual IPV perpetration frequency outcome variable, we utilized a Poisson distribution with a log link function (Joe & Zhu, 2005). Participants were systematically identifiable by gender (Kenny et al., 2006), and gender interactions were evaluated in the prediction of sexual IPV perpetration. Recruitment site as well as Actor and Partner problematic drinking were included as covariates. To evaluate specific hypotheses, Actor and Partner psychological flexibility and the two-way interaction between Actor psychological flexibility and Actor sexual IPV victimization were included in the model. Gender interactions were included for exploratory purposes. Gender, recruitment site, and problematic drinking were effect coded, whereas psychological flexibility and Actor sexual IPV victimization scores were grand mean centered. The model was estimated using a Poisson distribution with a logit link function to accommodate skew in sexual IPV perpetration responses. Although the hypotheses for this study were developed prior to developing this analytic plan, our analyses are considered exploratory because they were advanced after data collection, and analysis of prespecified aims was completed.

APIM Analyses

Consistent with hypotheses, we detected main effects of Actor psychological flexibility (b = −.076, p < .001, 95% CI = [−.105, −.047]) and Actor sexual IPV victimization (b = .056, p < .001, 95% CI = [.054, .058]). These findings indicate that higher Actor psychological flexibility was associated with less frequent Actor sexual IPV perpetration and that higher Actor sexual IPV victimization was associated more frequent Actor sexual IPV perpetration (Table 2). Analyses further revealed that males perpetrated more acts of sexual IPV than females (b = .036, p = .042, 95% CI = [.001, .071]). Significant interactions were detected for Actor Psychological Flexibility × Actor sexual IPV Victimization (b = .007, p < .001, 95% CI = [.006, .008]) as well as Gender × Actor Victimization (b = −.008, p < .001, 95% CI = [−.009, −.006]) but not Gender × Actor Psychological Flexibility (b = .013, p = .357, 95% CI = [−.015, .041]).

Table 2.

Actor and Partner Effects Predicting Sexual IPV.

Parameter	b	SE	p	95% Confidence interval
Parameter	b	SE	p	Lower bound	Upper bound
Intercept	2.315	.018	<.001	2.280	2.350
Gender	0.036	.018	.042	0.001	0.071
Site	0.079	.029	.006	0.023	0.135
A Problematic Drinking	0.070	.031	.025	0.009	0.130
A Flexibility	−0.076	.015	<.001	−0.105	−0.047
P Flexibility	0.010	.012	.390	−0.013	0.033
A Victimization	0.056	.001	<.001	0.054	0.058
A Flexibility × A Victimization	0.007	.001	<.001	0.006	0.008
Gender ×
A Flexibility	0.013	.014	.357	−0.015	0.041
A Victimization	−0.008	.001	<.001	−0.009	−0.006
A Flexibility × A Victimization	−0.003	.001	<.001	−0.005	−0.002

Note. Model was estimated using a Poisson distribution with a logit link function. Gender, recruitment site, and Actor problematic drinking were effect coded. Psychological flexibility and Actor victimization variables were grand mean centered. IPV = intimate partner violence; A = Actor, P = Partner.

These main effects and lower-order interactions were qualified by a significant Gender × Actor Psychological Flexibility × Actor Sexual IPV Victimization interaction (b = −.003, p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.005, −0.002]). Follow-up simple slope analyses revealed a significant Actor Psychological Flexibility × Actor Sexual IPV Victimization interaction among both female (b = .010, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.009, 0.012]) and male (b = .004, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.002, 0.005]) participants (Figure 1). Among females, Actor psychological flexibility was significantly and negatively associated with Actor sexual IPV perpetration at low levels of Actor sexual IPV victimization (b = −.248, p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.301, −0.194]) but significantly and positively associated with Actor perpetration at high levels of Actor sexual IPV victimization (b = .069, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.040, 0.099]). Among males, Actor psychological flexibility was significantly and negatively associated with Actor perpetration at low levels of Actor sexual IPV victimization (b = −.118, p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.181, −0.055]) but not at high levels of Actor sexual IPV victimization (b = −.008, p = .664, 95% CI = [−0.043, 0.028]). Thus, psychological flexibility was protective against sexual IPV perpetration among females and males who reported low victimization and a risk factor for sexual IPV perpetration among females who reported high victimization.

Figure 1.

Female sexual IPV perpetration as a function of female psychological flexibility and female sexual IPV victimization (top). Male sexual IPV perpetration as a function of male psychological flexibility and male sexual IPV victimization (bottom).

Alternatively, Actor sexual IPV victimization was associated consistently with Actor sexual IPV perpetration among both females and males at low (b = .051, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.049, 0.054]; b = .044, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.041, 0.047], respectively) and high (b = .076, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.072, 0.080]; b = .053, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.050, 0.055], respectively) levels of Actor psychological flexibility. Thus, strong sexual victimization effects emerged as a risk factor for perpetration among males and females regardless of psychological flexibility.

Additional analyses revealed gender differences in Actor sexual IPV perpetration at various levels of Actor psychological flexibility and Actor sexual IPV victimization. Males perpetrated greater violence than females when Actor sexual IPV victimization was low, including at low (b = .076, p = .023, 95% CI = [0.010, 0.142]) and high (b = .229, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.152, 0.306]) levels of Actor psychological flexibility. Males and females perpetrated comparable amounts of sexual IPV when Actor sexual IPV victimization was high and Actor psychological flexibility was low (b = −.035, p = .065, 95% CI = [−0.071, 0.002]). In contrast, females perpetrated greater sexual IPV than males when Actor sexual IPV victimization was high and Actor psychological flexibility was high (b = −.125, p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.167, −0.083]). Thus, male participants were more sexually aggressive than female participants at low levels of victimization and female participants were more sexually aggressive than male participants at high levels of combined victimization and psychological flexibility.

Discussion

To date, no study has applied the I³ Model to sexual IPV perpetration using the APIM analytic framework (Kenny & Cook, 1999; Kenny et al., 2006). Previous literature has established a robust association between sexual IPV victimization and perpetration (Hines & Saudino, 2003; Próspero & Kim, 2009); however, it remains unclear how sexual IPV victimization interacts dyadically with other factors in the I³ Model to predict sexual IPV perpetration. This study provides new data that begin to address this gap. Specifically, informed by the I³ Model, the independent and interactive effects of Actor sexual IPV victimization and Actor psychological flexibility on Actor sexual IPV perpetration were examined within an APIM framework. In addition, by targeting couples characterized by a high level of relationship conflict and heavy drinking, this study was able to examine these effects within a high-risk sample for whom evidence-based interventions will likely have the greatest impact. Finally, given that we included problematic drinking as a covariate in all analyses, the analysis of these actor and partner effects explains variance in sexual IPV perpetration that is not accounted for by this well-established risk factor.

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, Actor sexual IPV victimization was positively associated with Actor sexual IPV perpetration. This finding is consistent with extant literature which identifies sexual IPV victimization as a risk factor for sexual IPV perpetration (e.g., Hines & Saudino, 2003). Moreover, it aligns with previous findings which indicate that other forms of IPV victimization (e.g., physical, psychological) are associated with IPV perpetration (e.g., Okuda et al., 2015; Stith et al., 2004). Thus, in addition to physical and psychological victimization, sexual IPV victimization may be an important impelling factor that increases the likelihood of sexual IPV perpetration.

As predicted by Hypothesis 2, Actor psychological flexibility was negatively associated with Actor sexual IPV perpetration. This finding is consistent with extant literature which indicates that high levels of psychological flexibility confer resilience against a range of adverse mental and physical health outcomes (Gloster et al., 2017; Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010), including physical, psychological, and sexual IPV perpetration (Shorey et al., 2014). Collectively, these results indicate that Actor sexual IPV victimization and Actor psychological flexibility are independent correlates of sexual IPV perpetration. Importantly, the I³ Model assumes that couples in conflict have already experienced some instigating trigger (e.g., sexual arousal; Finkel, 2007; Slotter & Finkel, 2011); therefore, in this study, sexual IPV perpetration can be predicted by considering the relative presence or absence of impelling (i.e., sexual IPV victimization) and inhibiting (i.e., psychological flexibility) factors (Finkel, 2007; Slotter & Finkel, 2011). Hypothesis 3 was advanced to test directly this tenet. Consistent with this prediction, results suggest that the inhibiting effect of psychological flexibility on sexual IPV perpetration is dependent upon the presence of sexual IPV victimization. Specifically, among male and female Actors who experienced low levels of sexual IPV victimization (i.e., low impellance), psychological flexibility exerted an inhibitory effect on sexual IPV perpetration. However, this inhibiting effect did not extend to Actors who experienced high levels of sexual IPV victimization (i.e., high impellance). In fact, although gender differences were not hypothesized, the association between Actor psychological flexibility and sexual IPV perpetration was significantly more positive in females relative to males. These findings contribute to a growing literature which is beginning to elucidate how the complex interplay among I³ processes facilitates IPV perpetration (Finkel et al., 2012; Maldonado, DiLillo, & Hoffman, 2015; Slotter et al., 2012) and sheds new light on sexual IPV victimization as a powerful risk factor for sexual IPV perpetration.

Several additional findings merit discussion. Among Actors who reported low levels of sexual IPV victimization, males perpetrated more sexual IPV than females. This finding is not surprising. It is well-documented that males perpetrate more sexual IPV than females (Black et al., 2011). However, this effect disappeared, and was actually reversed, among Actors who reported high levels of sexual IPV victimization. Specifically, among Actors who reported high levels of sexual IPV victimization and low levels of psychological flexibility, males’ and females’ frequency of sexual IPV perpetration did not differ; however, among Actors who reported high levels of both sexual IPV victimization and psychological flexibility, females perpetrated more sexual IPV than males. This latter finding suggests a counterintuitive interplay of factors which increase women’s likelihood of using sexually coercive behaviors relative to men. Indeed, psychological flexibility, which reflects the ability to alter behavior and thoughts based on one’s desired goals while being mindful of one’s current surroundings and situation (Bond et al., 2011; Hayes et al., 2006), appeared to be more of a risk factor than a protective factor for sexual IPV perpetration among females who reported high levels of sexual IPV victimization. Although it is very speculative at this point, among these women in our sample, who were also involved in a relationship characterized by heavy drinking and conflict, it is possible that high levels of psychological flexibility facilitated engagement in sexually coercive behaviors as a way of adapting to their coercive and conflictual relationship environment (i.e., it is possible that shared beliefs about violence and norms in the relationship are guiding women’s behaviors). However, due to the little empirical research investigating women’s use of sexual IPV, this tentative explanation should be further explored. Regardless, overall, the results of this study suggest that individuals who do not experience sexual IPV and have high psychological flexibility are the least likely to perpetrate sexual IPV.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations in this study. First, the CTS-2 does not gather information regarding the context of IPV (Straus, 2012); thus, the assessment of sexual IPV did not include information regarding the context in which these acts occurred nor the temporal sequence between sexual IPV victimization and perpetration. To address this weakness, future research is needed that employs daily diary or ecological momentary assessment methods to assess the context in which sexual IPV occurs and to establish the temporal relation between relevant predictors of sexual IPV perpetration. These methods could also examine the extent to which levels of psychological flexibility are stable throughout the course of a conflictual relationship or change as a result of repeated sexual IPV perpetration or victimization. Such methods would also be better equipped to assess relevant proximal factors (e.g., affect, cognition, and coping strategies) which facilitate or inhibit sexual IPV perpetration. Relatedly, this line of research would provide the opportunity to compare associations between relevant predictors and both sexual and nonsexual IPV perpetration in the same sample. Indeed, such designs would provide insight into similarities and differences in the prediction of sexual and nonsexual IPV perpetration.

Second, this study evaluated survey data by using an event specific theory (i.e., I³ Model). As discussed, this study only tested two components of I³ theory. It was assumed, as described by Slotter and Finkel (2011), that some type of instigation had to occur prior to the act of sexual IPV perpetration or there would be no reason to engage in IPV. As instigation was not directly measured in this study, future work could measure the severity of instigations that occur to fully test the I³ Model of S-IPV perpetration.

Third, caution should be taken when considering the generalizability of the observed findings. This study included couples where at least one member of the couple engaged in heavy alcohol consumption and had a 1-year history of physical or psychological IPV. Couples were also required to meet other specific eligibility criteria for the parent study (which involved alcohol administration). This high-risk sample allowed for hypotheses to be tested within couples for whom intervention development can have the greatest impact. That stated, the generalizability of these effects to lower risk samples (e.g., no history of IPV, is not a person who drinks heavily) remains unclear. In addition, the average relationship length was approximately 4 years, and thus it is unknown if these results would extend to shorter-term relationships (i.e., “hook-ups” or new relationships) or longer-term relationships. Importantly, relationship length has been found to relate differentially to the correlates and putative mechanisms for IPV perpetration (Elkins, Moore, McNulty, Kivisto, & Handsel, 2013). For instance, Elkins and colleagues found that higher levels of anger predict physical and sexual IPV perpetration during the early, but not later, stages of intimate relationships. Conversely, these researchers also found that anger predicts psychological IPV perpetration during the later, but not earlier, stages of intimate relationships. Thus, relationship length may be a marker for other IPV risk factors specific to the dynamics of the relationship. In regard to this study, it is possible that relationships of shorter durations (i.e., hook-ups) do not exhibit a strong association between sexual IPV victimization and perpetration, as this association may only be present in more established relationships that are characterized by a lack of respect for sexual boundaries or general lack of sexual assault knowledge.

This study was also limited to heterosexual couples; thus, it is unknown if these results would extend to nonheterosexual relationships. Although sexual IPV victimization and levels of psychological flexibility may predict sexual IPV perpetration in both heterosexual and nonheterosexual couples, future research should also examine the additional impact of risk factors specific to nonheterosexual couples, such as sexual minority stress (Edwards, Sylaska, & Neal, 2015). Finally, the majority of sexual IPV endorsed by participants were categorized as minor types of sexual coercion. Thus, the present findings may not extend to the perpetration of more severe forms of sexual IPV.

Future work should consider bidirectional sexual IPV when identifying factors hypothesized to inhibit sexual IPV. Specifically, these data suggest that men and women in high-risk relationships are both perpetrators and victims of sexual IPV. Indeed, these data show that in our sample of high-risk men and women, there were comparable rates of sexual IPV perpetration. Although speculative, it is possible that this association is the result of individuals coping with current relationship dynamics via sexual IPV perpetration. Although our study cannot speak to the context in which these self-reported behaviors occurred, research and intervention-based efforts with this population will likely be enhanced by emphasizing risk in both men and women. In addition, these data support the development of interventions that promote psychological flexibility. Indeed, among participants with low sexual IPV victimization, psychological flexibility appeared to reduce the risk of sexual IPV perpetration. These data suggest that psychological flexibility interventions may be of limited effectiveness for individuals with sexual IPV victimization history. Future research is clearly needed to understand for whom and under what set of circumstances psychological flexibility will inhibit sexual IPV perpetration.

Conclusion

Within the IPV literature, investigations of sexual IPV are relatively uncommon. This study used an APIM framework to examine the interplay between evidence-based impelling and inhibiting factors on sexual IPV perpetration. Within an analytic framework that accounts for effects of both partners, results indicate that the impelling force of Actor sexual IPV victimization outweighed the inhibiting force of Actor psychological flexibility to predict Actor sexual IPV perpetration. These findings contribute to a growing literature on the complex interactions between I³ Model process factors and support continued examination of interactive models of IPV perpetration etiology.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The authors take responsibility for the integrity of the data, the accuracy of the data analyses, and have made every effort to avoid inflating statistically significant results.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grant R01-AA-020578 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism awarded to Dominic J. Parrott, PhD (Georgia State University), and Christopher I. Eckhardt, PhD (Purdue University). The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism did not have any involvement in this research or preparation of the manuscript.

ORCID iD

Dominic J. Parrott

References

Archer

(1999). Assessment of the reliability of the conflict tactic scales: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1263-1289. doi:10.1177/088626099014012003

Babor

T. F.

Biddle-Higgins

J. C.

Saunders

J. B.

Monteiro

M. G.

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

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

Bond

F. W.

Hayes

S. C.

Baer

R. A.

Carpenter

K. M.

Guenole

Orcutt

H. K.

Zettle

R. D.

(2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the acceptance and action questionnaire–II: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42, 676-688. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007

Cleary Bradley

R. P.

Drummey

Gottman

J. M.

Gottman

J. S.

(2014). Treating couples who mutually exhibit violence or aggression: Reducing behaviors that show a susceptibility for violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 549-558. doi:10.1007/s10896-014-9615-4

Conley

A. H.

Overstreet

C. M.

Hawn

S. E.

Kendler

K. S.

Dick

Amstadter

A. B.

(2017). Prevalence and predictors of sexual assault among a college sample. Journal of American College Health, 65, 41-49. doi:10.1080/07448481.2016.1235578

Cunradi

C. B.

Bersamin

Ames

(2009). Agreement on intimate partner violence among a sample of blue-collar couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 551-568. doi:10.1177/0886260508317189

DeGue

Valle

L. A.

Holt

M. K.

Massetti

G. M.

Matjasko

J. L.

Tharp

A. T.

(2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 346-362. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004

Edwards

K. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Neal

A. M.

(2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychology of Violence, 5, 112-121. doi:10.1037/a0038656

10.

Elkins

S. R.

Moore

T. M.

McNulty

J. L.

Kivisto

A. J.

Handsel

V. A.

(2013). Electronic diary assessment of the temporal association between proximal anger and intimate partner violence perpetration. Psychology of Violence, 3, 100-113. doi:10.1037/a0029927

11.

Finkel

E. J.

(2007). Impelling and inhibiting forces in the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Review of General Psychology, 11, 193-207. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.193

12.

Finkel

E. J.

(2014). The I3 model: Metatheory, theory, and evidence. In Olson

J. M.

Zanna

M. P.

(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 49, pp. 1-103). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

13.

Finkel

E. J.

DeWall

C. N.

Slotter

E. B.

McNulty

J. K.

Pond

R. S.

Atkins

D. C.

(2012). Using I3 theory to clarify when dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 533-549. doi:10.1037/a0025651

14.

Finkel

E. J.

DeWall

C. N.

Slotter

E. B.

Oaten

Foshee

V. A.

(2009). Self-regulatory failure and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 483-499. doi:10.1037/a0015433

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). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

16.

Finkel

E. J.

Hall

A. N.

(2017). The I3 model: A metatheoretical framework for understanding aggression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 125-130. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.013

17.

Finkel

E. J.

Slotter

E. B.

(2007). An attachment theory perspective on the perpetuation of intimate partner violence. DePaul Law Review, 56, 895-907.

18.

Flack

W. F.

Jr. Kimble

Campbell

B. E.

Hopper

A. B.

Peterca

Heller

E. J.

(2015). Sexual assault among female undergraduates during study abroad: A single campus study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 3453-3466. doi:10.1177/0886260514563833

19.

Gloster

A. T.

Meyer

A. H.

Lieb

(2017). Psychological flexibility as a malleable public health target: Evidence from a representative sample. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6, 166-171. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2017.02.003

20.

Halmos

M. B.

Leone

R. M.

Parrott

D. J.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2018). Relationship dissatisfaction, emotion regulation, and physical intimate partner aggression in heavy-drinking, conflict-prone couples: A dyadic analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260518801019

21.

Hamby

(2014). Intimate partner and sexual violence research: Scientific progress, scientific challenges, and gender. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 149-158. doi:10.1177/1524838014520723

22.

Hamby

Turner

(2013). Measuring teen dating violence in males and females: Insights from the national survey of children’s exposure to violence. Psychology of Violence, 3, 323-339. doi:10.1037/a0029706

23.

Hayes

S. C.

Luoma

J. B.

Bond

F. W.

Masuda

Lillis

(2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1-25. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006

24.

Hines

D. A.

Saudino

K. J.

(2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised Conflict Tactics scale. Violence and Victims, 18, 197-217. doi:10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.197

25.

Jarvis

(2014). MediaLab (Version 2014) [Computer Software]. New York, NY: Empirisoft Corporation.

26.

Jewkes

(2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359,1423-1429. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08357-5

27.

Joe

Zhu

(2005). Generalized Poisson distribution: The property of mixture of Poisson and comparison with negative binomial distribution. Biometrical Journal, 47, 219-229. doi:10.1002/bimj.200410102

28.

Kashdan

T. B.

Rottenberg

(2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 865-878. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001

29.

Kenny

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433-448. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00202.x

30.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

Cook

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

31.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Misra

T. A.

Selwyn

Rohling

M. L.

(2012). Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3, 199-230. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.199

32.

Leonard

K. E.

Quigley

B. M.

(2017). Thirty years of research show alcohol to be a cause of intimate partner violence: Future research needs to identify who to treat and how to treat them. Drug and Alcohol Review, 36, 7-9. doi:10.1111/dar.12434

33.

Lisco

C. G.

Parrott

D. J.

Tharp

A. T.

(2012). The role of heavy episodic drinking and hostile sexism in men’s sexual aggression toward female intimate partners. Addictive Behaviors, 37, 1264-1270. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.010

34.

Malamuth

N. M.

Linz

Heavey

C. L.

Barnes

Acker

(1995). Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 353-369. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.353

35.

Malamuth

N. M.

Sockloskie

R. J.

Koss

M. P.

Tanaka

J. S.

(1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 670-681. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.670

36.

Maldonado

R. C.

DiLillo

Hoffman

(2015). Can college students use emotion regulation strategies to alter intimate partner aggression-risk behaviors? An examination using I3 Theory. Psychology of Violence, 5, 46-55. doi:10.1037/a0035454

37.

Norlander

Eckhardt

(2005). Anger, hostility, and male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 119-152. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2004.10.001

38.

Okuda

Olfson

Wang

Rubio

Blanco

(2015). Correlates of intimate partner violence perpetration: Results from a national epidemiologic survey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28, 49-56. doi:10.1002/jts.21986

39.

Parrott

D. J.

Swartout

K. M.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Subramani

O. S.

(2017). Deconstructing the associations between executive functioning, problematic alcohol use and intimate partner aggression: A dyadic analysis. Drug and Alcohol Review, 36, 88-96. doi:10.1111/dar.12454

40.

Petit

W. E.

Knee

C. R.

Rodriguez

L. M.

(2017). Self-determination theory and intimate partner violence: An APIM model of need fulfillment and IPV. Motivation Science, 3,119-132. doi:10.1037/mot0000054

41.

Próspero

Kim

(2009). Mutual partner violence: Mental health symptoms among female and male victims in four racial/ethnic groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 2039-2056. doi:10.1177/0886260508327705

42.

Reinert

D. F.

Allen

J. P.

(2007). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: An update of research findings. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 31, 185-199. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00295.x

43.

Schafer

Caetano

Clark

C. L.

(1998). Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1702-1704. doi:10.2105/ajph.88.11.1702

44.

Shorey

R. C.

Elmquist

Zucosky

Febres

Brasfield

Stuart

G. L.

(2014). Experiential avoidance and male dating violence perpetration: An initial investigation. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 3, 117-123. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.02.003

45.

Shorey

R. C.

McNulty

J. K.

Moore

T. M.

Stuart

G. L.

(2015). Emotion regulation moderates the association between proximal negative affect and intimate partner violence perpetration. Prevention Science, 16, 873-880. doi:10.1007/s11121-015-0568-5

46.

Slotter

E. B.

Finkel

E. J.

(2011). I3 theory: Instigating, impelling, and inhibiting factors in aggression. In Milkulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences (pp. 35-52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

47.

Slotter

E. B.

Finkel

E. J.

DeWall

C. N.

Pond

R. S.

Lambert

N. M.

Bodenhausen

G. V.

Fincham

F. D.

(2012). Putting the brakes on aggression toward a romantic partner: The inhibitory influence of relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 291-305. doi:10.1037/a0024915

48.

Stith

S. M.

Green

N. M.

Smith

D. B.

Ward

D. B.

(2008). Marital satisfaction and marital discord as risk markers for intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 149-160. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9137-4

49.

Stith

S. M.

Smith

D. B.

Penn

C. E.

Ward

D. B.

Tritt

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

50.

Straus

M. A.

(1990). New scoring methods for violence and new norms for the Conflict Tactics scales. In Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

(Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8145 families (pp. 535-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

51.

Straus

M. A.

(2012). Blaming the messenger for the bad news about partner violence by women: The methodological, theoretical, and value basis of the purported invalidity of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 538-556. doi:10.1002/bsl.2023

52.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

53.

Subramani

O. S.

Parrott

D. J.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2017). Problematic drinking mediates the association between urgency and intimate partner aggression under acute intoxication. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 41, 1602-1611. doi:10.1111/acer.13437

54.

Testa

Derrick

J. L.

(2014). A daily process examination of the temporal association between alcohol use and verbal and physical aggression in community couples. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28, 127-138. doi:10.1037/a0032988