Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Mar 18.
Published in final edited form as: Curr Psychol. 2022 Nov 11;42(33):28937–28940. doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-03999-8

Socioeconomic Status and Intimate Partner Aggression: A Serial Mediation of Impulsivity and Anger

Julia Friederike Hammett 1, Kelly Cue Davis 1
PMCID: PMC10948116  NIHMSID: NIHMS1928733  PMID: 38501040

Abstract

Understanding the mechanisms underlying the association between lower socioeconomic status (SES) and Intimate Partner Aggression (IPA) is necessary for decreasing risk for IPA among lower-SES individuals. As limited control over one’s external environment impacts individuals’ ability to internally control their emotional states, the present study examined impulsivity and anger as serial mediators in the association from SES to IPA perpetration. Structural equation modeling analyses (N = 430 men, Mage = 24.66, 66.8% White) showed direct effects from lower SES to higher physical and sexual IPA. Additionally, there was a marginally significant indirect effect from SES to psychological IPA via higher impulsivity and anger. These findings may inform the development of interventions, showing that self-regulatory skills training may help lower psychological aggression. To address physical and sexual IPA, efforts that directly target the detriments of lower SES – via financial, housing, or educational support programs – may be indicated.

Keywords: Anger, impulsivity, intimate partner aggression, socioeconomic status

Intimate partner aggression (IPA) is a costly concern (WHO, 2014) overrepresented among individuals with lower socioeconomic status (SES; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Understanding the mechanisms through which SES increases IPA perpetration is crucial so interventions can target these factors. Having limited control over one’s external environment due to reduced access to material resources (Troy et al., 2017) may impact individuals’ ability to control internal emotional states. Difficulties with self-regulatory processes, in turn, may be tied to impulsivity which could lead to anger. Both impulsivity and anger are known correlates of aggressive behavior (Hsieh & Chen, 2017), thereby making these processes viable mechanisms explaining the negative association between SES and IPA. Whereas mediation via impulsivity and anger would encourage self-regulation and anger management training to lower IPA, direct associations from SES to IPA would support the use of structural interventions targeting socioeconomic disadvantage. To our knowledge, impulsivity and anger have not yet been tested as serial mediators between SES and IPA perpetration. Thus, the present study tests the hypothesis that lower SES increases individuals’ impulsivity and anger, being associated with greater risk for psychological, physical, and sexual IPA perpetration.

Method

Participants and Procedures

This study was part of a larger project (see Gulati et al., 2021) on heterosexual men, who provided data at baseline (N = 636) and over a 3-month follow-up period (N = 562). All study procedures were approved by the University’s Human Subjects Division. We focus on the 430 men (Mage = 24.66, SD = 2.74; Range 21–30; 66.8% White) who reported engaging in sexual intercourse at least once during the follow-up period (to assess sexual IPA).

Measures

Socioeconomic status.

Because SES is a multifaceted concept (Kraus et al., 2012), we assessed four variables at baseline: household income (1 [less than $10,999/year] to 7 [more than $61,000/year]); educational attainment (1 [grade or junior high school] to 7 [graduate degree]); parents’ educational attainment (1 [less than 9th grade] to 10 [professional school degree]); and “While you were growing up, compared to your peers, how would you rate your family’s overall financial well-being?” (1 [poor] to 5 [well-off]).

Impulsivity and anger.

Impulsivity was assessed at baseline via 19 items from the Eysenck Personality Scale – Impulsiveness Subscale (Eysenck et al., 1985), with possible values ranging from 0 to 19 (α = .80). Anger was assessed at baseline via 7 items from the Aggression Questionnaire – Anger Subscale (Buss & Perry, 1992), with possible values ranging from 7 to 49 (α = .77).

Intimate partner aggression.

Psychological and physical IPA during the past year were assessed at baseline via 8 and 9 items from subscales of the Dating Relationship Violence Questionnaire (Swahn et al., 2008), with possible values ranging from 0 to 40 (α = .75) and 0 to 45 (α = .67), respectively. Sexual IPA was assessed via count of completed rapes during the 3-month follow-up period. A modified Timeline Followback (Sobell & Sobell, 1992) was utilized to assess days on which participants reported having sexual intercourse. For each sexual event, five questions modified from the Sexual Aggression Survey (Abbey et al., 2005) assessed whether participants engaged in tactics to make their partner have sex when she did not want to. If any of these tactics were used, the event was considered a completed rape. These events were summed over the 90-day follow-up period to create a total sexual IPA score.

Analytic Approach

After checking for missing data, linearity, and outliers, Structural Equation Modeling in Mplus Version 8 was used. We utilized a negative binomial distribution to account for non-normality in the count and positively skewed outcomes. Our model included a latent SES variable as the predictor, impulsivity and anger as serial mediators, and psychological, physical, and sexual IPA as outcomes (see Figure 1). The data of the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Results of Structural Equation Model Examining Direct and Indirect Effects of Socioeconomic Status to Psychological, Physical, and Sexual Intimate Partner Aggression via Impulsivity and Anger.

Abbreviations: P1 = Parent 1, P2 = Parent 2, SES = Socioeconomic status.

Note. All variables except for sexual IPA were assessed at baseline. Sexual IPA was assessed at the 3-month follow-up.

Standardized coefficients are reported. Model fit: AIC=15777.16, BIC=15910.72, Adjusted BIC=15806.00, Loglikelihood H0 Value = −7855.58.

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

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in Table 1. Per Figure 1, lower SES was directly related to higher physical IPA (β = −.98, p < .001) and higher sexual IPA (β = −.99, p < .001). Indirect effects from SES via impulsivity and anger to physical and sexual IPA were not statistically significant (β < −.01, p = .44 and β < −.01, p =.73). An indirect effect from SES to psychological IPA via impulsivity and anger approached significance (β = −.01, p = .06): Lower SES was related to higher impulsivity (β = −.14, p = .02), which was related to higher anger (β = .31, p < .001), which was related to higher psychological IPA (β = .88, p < .001).

Table 1.

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables (N = 430)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Household Income --
2. Education .15** --
3. Parent 1 Education .07 .28** --
4. Parent 2 Education .12* .18** .41** --
5. Relative SES .11* .19** .34** .20** --
6. Impulsivity −.06 −.12* −.06 −.09 −.04 --
7. Anger −.01 −.03 .03 .00 −.07 .31** --
8. Psychological IPA .01 −.04 .00 −.02 −.00 .10* .17** --
9. Physical IPA −.09 −.04 −.09 −.11* −.03 .01 .03 .46** --
10. Sexual IPA −.02 −.06 −.04 −.07 −.01 .08 .02 .12* .10* --
M (SD) 3.15 (2.08) 5.12 (1.09) 6.03 (2.19) 5.73 (2.26) 3.05 (0.91) 7.44 (4.16) 17.67 (6.99) 4.68 (9.14) 0.69 (3.40) 0.19 (0.91)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: SES = Socioeconomic Status, IPA = Intimate Partner Aggression, M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation

Note. All variables except for sexual IPA were assessed at baseline. Sexual IPA was assessed at the 3-month follow-up.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001

Discussion

The current results support impulsivity and anger as serial mediators in the SES-to-psychological IPA link. Additionally, we found direct effects from SES to physical and sexual IPA. These findings replicate associations between lower SES and IPA (Cunradi et al., 2002) for physical and sexual aggression and provide preliminary evidence for a pathway from lower SES to psychological IPA via impulsivity and anger.

Limitations

First, some of the correlations between IPA and our predictor variables of interest were relatively low. Second, although sexual IPA was assessed over a 3-month follow-up period, psychological and physical IPA were assessed cross-sectionally, thereby limiting interpretability of the mediational chain. Third, it remains unclear whether our results would generalize to other populations, such as individuals in committed partnerships.

Research Implications

Future research could benefit from addressing the aforementioned limitations. Additionally, future studies specifically targeting individuals or couples from lower-income communities may be useful. Although the income reported in our sample was relatively low, educational attainment was high. Furthermore, future work could identify additional mediators, such as subjective perceptions of financial strain.

Clinical and Policy Implications

Clinicians and policy makers may incorporate self-regulatory skills training into interventions for psychologically aggressive individuals. Skills training alone may not be sufficient to offset the harmful effects of lower SES on more severe types of IPA. Our results hint at the need for programs that directly target the detriments of socioeconomic disadvantage to decrease physical and sexual IPA.

Acknowledgments

Funding (R01AA017608; 2R37AA025212) was provided by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to Kelly Cue Davis.

Footnotes

Declarations

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abbey A, Parkhill MR, & Koss MP (2005). The effects of frame of reference on responses to questions about sexual assault victimization and perpetration. Psychology of Women, 29, 364–373. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00236.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Buss AH, & Perry M (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cunradi CB, Caetano R, & Schafer J (2002). Socioeconomic predictors of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 377–389. 10.1023/A:1020374617328 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Eysenck SBG, Pearson PR, Easting G, & Allsopp JF (1985). Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness, and empathy in adults. Personality & Individual Differences, 6, 613–619. 10.1016/0191-8869(85)90011-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gulati NK, Stappenbeck CA, George WH, & Davis KC (2021). Predicting rape events:the influence of intimate partner violence history, condom use resistance, and heavy drinking. Aggressive Behavior, 47(1), 69–77. 10.1002/ab.21927 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hsieh IJ, & Chen YY (2017). Determinants of aggressive behavior: Interactive effects of emotional regulation and inhibitory control. PloS One, 12, e0175651. 10.1371/journal.pone.0175651 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kraus MW, Piff PK, Mendoza-Denton R, Rheinschmidt ML, & Keltner D (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: how the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119, 546–572. 10.1037/a0028756 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Sobell LC, & Sobell MB (1992). Timeline Followback: A technique for assessing self-reported ethanol consumption. In Allen JP & Litten RZ (Eds.), Measuring Alcohol Consumption: Psychosocial and Biological Methods (pp. 41–72). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Swahn MH, Simon TR, Arias I, & Bossarte RM (2008). Measuring sex difference in violence victimization and perpetration within date and same-sex peer relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1120–1138. 10.1177/0886260508314086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Tjaden P, & Thoennes N (2000). Full report prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women. Research Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs: National Institute of Justice. [Google Scholar]
  11. Troy AS, Ford BQ, McRae K, Zarolia P, & Mauss I (2017). Change the things you can: Emotion regulation is more beneficial for people from lower than from higher socioeconomic status. Emotion, 17, 141–154. 10.1037/emo0000210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. World Health Organization (2014) Violence against women. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239

RESOURCES