Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Addict Behav. 2020 May 4;34(7):793–803. doi: 10.1037/adb0000592

Alcohol-related relationship dissatisfaction: A putative mechanism for intimate partner aggression

Konrad Bresin 1, Dominic J Parrott 2, Olivia S Subramani 3, Christopher I Eckhardt 4
PMCID: PMC7609462  NIHMSID: NIHMS1583564  PMID: 32364398

Abstract

Decades of research has identified alcohol use as a contributing cause of intimate partner aggression (IPA) perpetration; however, there have been fewer studies that seek to identify mediators of the relation between alcohol use and IPA perpetration. Building on research showing a positive association between problematic drinking and relationship dissatisfaction and relationship dissatisfaction and IPA, we examined whether relationship dissatisfaction accounted for the relation between problematic drinking and IPA perpetration in couples using statistical modeling that accounted for the interdependence between partners. Our results showed that (1) actor problematic drinking was related to actor psychological and physical IPA perpetration and that this relation was partially explained by actor relationship dissatisfaction, (2) partner problematic drinking was related to actor physical and psychological IPA perpetration and that this relation was partially explained by actor relationship dissatisfaction, and (3) partner problematic drinking was related to actor psychological IPA perpetration and that this relation was partially explained by partner relationship dissatisfaction. Together, our results highlight that when partner interdependence is considered, relationship dissatisfaction could be a potential mechanism of the alcohol-IPA association and provide some evidence for different pathways for psychological and physical aggression.

Keywords: Violence, Heavy Drinking, Actor-Partner Modeling, Martial Distress, Couples

Intimate partner aggression (IPA) is a prevalent and significant public health problem (e.g., Black et al., 2010; Jose & O’Leary, 2009). There are numerous factors at multiple levels that contribute to IPA perpetration (Dahlberg & Krug, 2006). One factor that has been shown by decades of research to be a contributing cause of IPA perpetration at the individual and couple level is alcohol use (e.g., Leonard & Quigley, 2017). Laboratory studies show that intoxicated participants are more aggressive toward their partner than sober participants (e.g., Watkins, DiLillo, & Maldonado, 2015). Longitudinal research shows that heavy drinking prospectively predicts IPA perpetration in married couples (Leonard & Senchak, 1996). Finally, intervention research has found that reducing alcohol consumption leads to a reduction in IPA perpetration (e.g., O’Farrell et al. 2004; Schumm et al., 2014). Despite the large body of evidence linking alcohol use to IPA perpetration, there have been fewer studies that seek to identify mediators of the relation between alcohol use and IPA perpetration. Identifying factors that account for the relation between alcohol on IPA perpetration can help improve etiological models and identify targets for intervention. Of the studies that have examined indirect effects of alcohol on IPA perpetration, none have done so in a way that models the interrelatedness of both members of the couple. To address this gap in the literature, the goal of this project was to examine whether relationship dissatisfaction accounted for the relation between problematic drinking and IPA perpetration in couples using statistical modeling that accounted for the interdependence between partners. We tested our hypotheses in a sample of couples where at least one member was a heavy drinker and who reported recent IPA perpetration (i.e., members of a vulnerable group at-risk for alcohol-facilitated IPA perpetration).

Relationship Dissatisfaction as a Possible Explanation of the Alcohol-IPA Link

Leonard and Quigley (2017) reviewed 30 years of research on the relation between alcohol use and IPA perpetration and concluded that alcohol meets epidemiological criteria for being a causal factor in IPA perpetration.1 The authors further argue that research should focus on identifying factors that exacerbate or attenuate the link between alcohol use and IPA perpetration. Building on this, we argue that it is also important to identify what accounts for the relation between alcohol use and IPA perpetration. Identifying the mechanisms through which alcohol causes IPA perpetration allows for the development of mechanistic models, which can be helpful in identifying targets for treatment (Kazdin, 2007). One important step in identifying mechanisms is to identify factors that statistically account for the relation among variables (i.e., statistical mediation). These factors then can be examined in longitudinal studies and experiments to further understand their role in IPA perpetration. There are several possible factors that could explain the link between alcohol use and IPA perpetration (e.g., attention allocation; Parrott & Eckhardt, 2018). The present study focused on relationship dissatisfaction because it has been linked to both alcohol use and IPA perpetration.

Prior research has found a medium-sized positive cross-sectional correlation between alcohol use and relationship dissatisfaction (DiBello et al., 2017; Lewis et al. 2017; see Marshal, 2003 for a review, and Spencer, Stith, & Cafferky, 2019 for a meta-analysis). Longitudinal research has also found a positive association between alcohol use and relationship dissatisfaction. For instance, Locke and Newcomb (2003) found that alcohol involvement in young adulthood (~26 years old) has a small positive correlation with relationship dissatisfaction in adulthood relationships (> 36 years old). Similar results have been found within relationships over the first few years of marriage (e.g., Homish & Leonard, 2007). Conversely, a longitudinal study found that decreases in drinking for men in heterosexual couples during pregnancy were related to decreased relationship dissatisfaction for both partners (Mellingen, Torsheim, & Thuen, 2013). Together, this research supports a temporal link between alcohol use and relationship dissatisfaction. Problematic drinking has also been linked to distal outcomes of relationship dissatisfaction (e.g., divorce; Collins, Ellickson, & Klien, 2007). This research aligns with evidence-based interventions for couples, such as Alcohol Behavioral Couples Therapy (Epstein & McCrady, 1998), which assume that reducing heavy alcohol use will enhance overall relationship functioning by reducing relationship dissatisfaction.

Prior research has also established a link between relationship dissatisfaction and IPA perpetration. For instance, a meta-analysis across 32 studies found a medium-sized positive cross-sectional correlation (r = .27; Stith et al., 2008). Several studies have also found a longitudinal link between relationship dissatisfaction and IPA perpetration (e.g., Ackerman, 2012; Ulloa & Hammett, 2015; for a review see Caldwell et al., 2012), although most of these studies have examined how IPA perpetration is associated with later relationship dissatisfaction. There are theoretical and empirical reasons to think that relationship dissatisfaction may play a role in IPA perpetration. Empirically, research on behavioral couple’s therapy for alcohol use has found that improvements in relationship adjustment explain the relation between decrease in alcohol use and IPA perpetration (O’Farrel et al., 2004). In line with I3 (Finkel & Hall, 2018), it is possible that the experience of dissatisfaction with one’s partner could override inhibiting factors (e.g., empathy, concern for consequences) that may allow IPA to occur. In line with the cognitive-neoassociation theory of aggression (Berkowitz, 2012), it is also possible that relationship dissatisfaction elicits negative affect, which may subsequently activate partner-directed anger and aggressive cognitions that collectively increase the likelihood of aggression. These possibilities are not mutually exclusive as Berkowitz’s theory has been integrated into I3 (e.g., Parrott & Eckhardt, 2018). Together, this may suggest that there are bi-directional relations between relationship dissatisfaction and IPA perpetration.

Building on these cross-sectional and longitudinal associations, we propose a model where relationship dissatisfaction is a mechanism that partially explains how alcohol use causes IPA perpetration. This model builds upon Rodriguez, Neighbors, and Knee’s (2014) alcohol in marriage model. Rodriguez et al. (2014) posit that problematic drinking has effects on marital distress broadly defined. Specifically, they propose that negative interactions and failed attempts at regulating drinking explain the link between problematic drinking and various marital distress outcomes (e.g., marital adjustment, relationship dissatisfaction, IPA, divorce). Similar to Rodriguez et al. (2014), we posit that problematic drinking increases relationship dissatisfaction. Building on their model and other research (e.g., Stith et al., 2008), we further proposed that increased dissatisfaction can lead to perpetration of psychological and physical IPA. Thus, by separating marital distress into its elemental units, we can enhance our mechanistic understanding of problematic drinking on relationship outcomes.

The Importance of Modeling Couple Interdependence

By definition, IPA involves two people; however, much of the research on IPA has only collected data from one partner (e.g., Dibello et al., 2017) or modeled the data in a way that does not account for the interdependence between partners (e.g., Whisman et al., 2006; for a review see Eckhardt, Parrott, & Crane, 2019). Although these studies have been helpful in developing etiological models, they have led to theories that focus on individual-level factors, leaving an incomplete picture of IPA. As identified by Eckhardt et al. (2019; also see Rodriguez et al., 2014), the likelihood that one partner (i.e., Partner A) will aggress against another partner (i.e., Partner B) is a function the characteristics of Partner A and Partner B and how Partner A’s characteristics affect Partner B and vice versa.

Actor-partner interdependence modeling (APIM) is a framework for understanding effects from statistical models where interdependence is modeled (Cook & Kenny, 2005). APIM distinguishes actor effects from partner effects. Actor effects occur when one partner’s factor (e.g., Partner A’s alcohol use) influences their own outcome (e.g., Partner A’s IPA perpetration). Partner effects occur when one partner’s factor (e.g., Partner A’s alcohol use) influences their partner’s outcome (e.g., Partner B’s IPA perpetration). Actor effects are equivalent to only collecting data from one partner, and partner effects are novel to collecting and modeling interdependence. Applied to our model, this would suggest that one partner’s drinking might influence the other partner’s relationship dissatisfaction, which may also affect IPA perpetration for either partner. Indeed, prior research has established actor and partner effects of alcohol use on IPA perpetration (e.g., Leone, Crane, Parrott, & Eckhardt, 2016; Quigley et al., 2018). One study of undergraduate couples did not find actor or partner effects for problematic alcohol use on relationship dissatisfaction (Rodriguez, Øverup, & Neighbors, 2013). These results diverge from other studies and may be due to the undergraduate sample, which may have limited relationship commitment (e.g., Pistole & Vocaturo, 1999). A literature search revealed no studies that examined indirect effects of problematic drinking on IPA through relationship dissatisfaction using the APIM framework.

The APIM framework allows for the examination of several different indirect effects (Rodriguez et al., 2014), which are displayed in the panels of Figure 1.2 First, actor problematic drinking could have an indirect effect on actor IPA perpetration through actor relationship dissatisfaction (Panel A). This would mean that Partner A’s drinking might increase their own dissatisfaction in the relationship, which might, in turn, lead to IPA perpetration against Partner B. Second, actor problematic drinking could have an indirect effect on actor IPA perpetration through partner relationship dissatisfaction (Panel B). That is, Partner A’s drinking could increase Partner B’s dissatisfaction with the relationship, which could create conflict that increases the likelihood of IPA perpetration against Partner B. Third, partner problematic drinking could have an indirect effect on actor IPA perpetration through actor relationship dissatisfaction (Panel C), meaning that Partner B’s drinking could increase Partner A’s IPA perpetration because it increases Partner A’s relationship dissatisfaction. Finally, partner problematic drinking could have an indirect effect on actor IPA perpetration through partner relationship dissatisfaction (Panel D). In this situation, Partner B’s drinking behavior could increase Partner B’s dissatisfaction, which might increase the likelihood that Partner A will perpetrate IPA toward Partner B.

Figure 1. Possible Patterns of Actor-Partner Mediation Model for Psychological Intimate Partner Aggression Note.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Solid Line Boxes = Actor Variables; Dotted Line Boxes = Partner Variables.

Current Study

The goal of the present study was to examine whether relationship dissatisfaction accounted for the relation between problematic drinking and IPA perpetration in couples using statistical modeling that accounted for the interdependence between partners. Based on prior research (e.g., Quigley et al., 2018; Spencer et al., 2019; Stith et al. 2007), our primary hypothesis posited that actor problematic drinking would be related to actor IPA perpetration and that this relation would be partially explained by actor relationship dissatisfaction. Given the dearth of prior studies on the topic, we explored other putative mechanisms by which relationship dissatisfaction may account for the link between problematic drinking and IPA perpetration (see Figure 1). We also explored whether there were differences between psychological and physical IPA perpetration. To enhance our ability to generalize these results to at-risk populations, we examined our hypotheses in a sample of couples in whom at least one partner reported heavy drinking and IPA perpetration in the past year.

Method

Participants

Participants were 1,180 men and women in 590 opposite-sex couples.3 Couples were recruited from the community in two U.S. cities though online and print advertisements. Participants needed to meet several inclusion criteria: dating for at least 1 month, be at least 21 years old, and identify English as their native language. Couples were excluded if either partner reported serious head injuries, a condition in which alcohol is medically contraindicated, or a desire to seek treatment for alcohol use. At least one partner also needed to report two additional inclusion criteria. First, they needed to report regular heavy drinking, as defined by consuming an average of 5 or more drinks for men or 4 or more for women per occasion twice per month over the last year. Second, they needed to report recent perpetration of IPA, as defined by reporting psychological or physical IPA perpetration toward their current partner in the last year. IPA was assessed via the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus et al., 1996), which was completed by both members of the couple about their behavior and their partner’s behavior. IPA criteria could be met by participant self-report or partner-report. IPA only needed to be reported by one member of the couple. Eligibility criteria were assessed in separate phone interviews with each member of the couple.

The mean age for participants was 32.41 (SD = 10.30). Ninety-five percent of participants reported their ethnicity as non-Hispanic/non-Latinx. In terms of race, 63.29% of participants were Black or African American, 27.44% were White, 7.72% were more than one race, and 2% reported another racial identity. Participants reported completing an average of 14.04 years of school (SD = 2.76, min = 5, max = 34). Couples had been together for an average of 51.196 months (SD = 56.97 ~ 4.33 years). Fifteen percent of the couples were married.

These data were drawn from a larger investigation on the effects of acute alcohol intoxication on IPA perpetration (Subramani, Parrott, & Eckhardt, 2017). Other publications have also used these data to test other research questions (e.g., Halmos, Leone, Parrott, & Eckhardt, 2018; Parrott et al., 2017). The hypotheses tested in this paper are distinct from other publications based on this dataset. Specifically, no prior studies using these data have examined whether relationship dissatisfaction accounts for variance in the problematic drinking-IPA relation. This study was approved by the universities’ institutional review board.

Measures

Problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking was assessed with the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT; Babor, Biddle-Higgins, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2000). The AUDIT is a 10-item Likert-type scale. Participants rate items that index the amount of drinking and problems associated with drinking (e.g., “How often during the last year have you found that you were not able to stop drinking once you had started?”) on a 0–4 scale. Higher scores indicate a more severe pattern problematic drinking (Babor et al.: α = .86; sample: α = .85). Each member of the couple reported on their own drinking. As shown in prior research (e.g., Peng et al., 2012), women (M = 7.61, SD = 5.92) reported significantly less problematic drinking than men (M = 9.27, SD = 6.35), t(1178) = −4.46 p < .001, d = −.27. Forty-two percent of the sample had a score of 8 or higher on the AUDIT, which indicates hazardous drinking according to the World Health Organization recommended cutoff (Babor et al., 2001). Moreover, 8.64% of men and 5.93% of women scored greater than 20 on the AUDIT, which indicates alcohol dependence (Babor et al., 2001). Despite recruiting couples where at least one partner was a heavy drinker, the variance of the AUDIT was in line with prior studies (Abdala et al. 2016; Rodriguez et al., 2016), which reduces concerns about restriction of range.

Relationship dissatisfaction.

Relationship dissatisfaction was measured by the relationship satisfaction subscale of the Investment Model Scale (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). This subscale includes 5 items such as “I feel satisfied with my relationship” that participants rate on an 9-point scale from 0 = do not agree to 8 = agree completely. This scale was reverse scored so that higher scores indicate more dissatisfaction (Rusbult et al., α = .92; sample α = .91). Each member of the couple reported on their own relationship dissatisfaction. Women (M = 1.87, SD = 1.84) and Men (M = 1.84, SD = 1.67) did not significantly differ on relationship dissatisfaction, t(1178) = −.29, p = .799, d = −.02.

Intimate Partner Aggression.

Psychological and physical IPA perpetration were assessed with the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus et al., 1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale is a 78-item scale that assesses IPA. Participants rate items on a 7-point scale (0 = never to 6 = more than 20 times) to indicate how often they have perpetrated or experienced behaviors in the last year. 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 ‘3– 5’ times in the past year, a score of ‘4’ would be assigned. The psychological scale is 8 items (sample item = “I insulted or swore at my partner”; Straus et al. α = .72; sample α = .81), and the physical aggression scale was 12 items (sample item = “I punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt”; Straus et al. α = .86; sample α = .74). Consistent with prior research, (e.g., Archer, 2000) women reported perpetrating significantly more psychological (M = 21.29, SD = 28.33; t[1178] = 2.63, p = .009) and physical (M = 4.79, SD = 17.71; t[1178] = 2.29, p = .021) aggression than men (psychological: M = 17.01, SD = 24.17; physical: M = 2.94, SD = 8.50). Both effects were small in size (psychological: d = .15; physical: d = .13). Although only one member of the couple needed to report IPA, in 80% of couples, both members reported psychological IPA perpetration, and in 44% of couples, both members reported physical IPA perpetration. Correlations among the study variables are in Table 1.

Table 1.

Correlations (and 95% Confidence Intervals) Among Study Measures

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Men
1. Problematic Drinking —
2. Dissatisfaction .18 —
[10, .25]
3. Psychological IP A .34 .40 —
[.27, .40] [.33, .47]
4. Physical IPA .23 .26 .58 —
[15, .30] [18, .33] [.53, .63]
Women
5. Problematic Drinking .40 .11 .24 .15 —
[.33, .46] [.03, .18] [.16 .31] [.07, .23]
6. Dissatisfaction .12 .40 .28 .16 .16 —
[.04, .20] [.33, .46] [.19, .35] [.08, .24] [.08, .24]
7. Psychological IPA .21 .23 .33 .22 .28 .43 —
[.13, .28] [.15, .31] [.26, .40] [.14, .30] [.20, .35] [.36, .50]
8. Physical IPA .17 .17 .20 .20 .16 .24 .58
[.09, .24] [.09, .24] [.12, .27] [.12, .27] [.08, .24] [.16, .32] [.53, .64]
Open in a new tab

Note. Dissatisfaction = Relationship Dissatisfaction; IPA = Intimate Partner Aggression.

Procedure

Participants arrived at the laboratory with their partner. They were escorted to private rooms to provide consent. Participants then 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 completing the questionnaires, participants were compensated for their time and dismissed.

Data Analytic Plan

Data were analyzed using a structural equation modeling approach to actor-partner interdependence modeling in the lavaan package in R (Oberski, 2014). As shown in the mediational model in Figure 1, actor IPA perpetration was modeled as a function of direct effects of actor and partner problematic drinking and indirect effects of actor and partner problematic drinking through actor and partner relationship dissatisfaction. Modeling was conducted such that each participant was an actor and a partner within their couple (i.e., a male participant is an actor for his IPA and a partner for the female’s IPA and vice versa). Dyads were partially distinguishable in that the intercepts differed for men and women (as noted by group differences reported above), but the slopes were constrained to be equal for men and women (i.e., bACTOR, Woman = bACTOR, Man and bPARTNER, Woman = bPARTNER, Man; Kashy, & Donnellan, 2012). This means that the relation between variables was the same for men and women even though they differed on their average level. Slopes for actor and partner effects, however, were allowed to differ (bACTOR ≠ bPARTNER). Thus, actor to actor effects are equivalent to partner to partner effects and partner to actor effects are equivalent to actor to partner effects.

The indirect effect was calculated as the product of the a path (predictor variable to mediator) and b path (mediator to criterion variable). Confidence intervals were obtained by a bootstrap technique with 5,000 resamples. This method has been recommended as best practice for testing indirect effects by several authors (e.g., Hayes, 2009; Preacher, 2015). Bootstrapping standard errors addressed the non-normality of IPA (psychological: skew = 2.42, kurtosis = 7.64; physical IPA: skew = 11.59, kurtosis = 201.34; Lai, 2018). We report unstandardized betas and 95% confidence intervals, as these are used in calculating indirect effects, we also report standardized betas as a standardized measure of effect size.

To examine the robustness of our results, we conducted several post-hoc analyses. First, we examined alternative mediation models. Because of how indirect effects are calculated, this meant testing models with different mediators. Thus, we tested a model with problematic drinking as the mediator and a separate model with IPA perpetration as the mediator. Second, we examined the effect of including covariates such as site and relationship length. Testing the covariates separate from the main analysis allowed us to follow best practices of reporting results with and without covariates (Simmons et al., 2011). In the Supplemental Material, we also conducted supplemental analyses looking at whether the concordance of drinking within the couple is related to relationship dissatisfaction.

Results

Main Analyses: Psychological IPA perpetration

The model was fully saturated (see Figure 2), so fit statistics were not available. In terms of actor effects, there was a significant positive relation between actor problematic drinking and actor relationship dissatisfaction (b = .04, 95% CI [.02, .06], β = .16). There was also a significant positive relation between actor relationship dissatisfaction and actor psychological IPA perpetration (b = 5.13, 95% CI [4.17, 6.09], β = .35). Of particular interest, and consistent with our primary hypothesis, there was a significant indirect effect of actor problematic drinking on actor psychological IPA perpetration through actor relationship dissatisfaction (ab = .21, 95% CI [.11, .32]). This corresponds with Panel A in Figure 1. There remained, however, a significant direct effect of actor problematic drinking on actor psychological IPA perpetration (b = .88, 95% CI [.62, 1.16], β = .29). Together, these results can be interpreted to indicate that part of the relation between actor problematic drinking and actor psychological IPA is explained by actor relationship dissatisfaction.

Figure 2. Actor-Partner Mediation Model for Psychological Intimate Partner Aggression.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Note. All parameters are unstandardized betas. Numbers in parentheses are 95% Confidence Intervals. All participants serve as actors and partners. Slopes were constrained to be equal across for men and women (i.e., bACTOR, Woman = bACTOR, Man and bPARTNER, Woman = bPARTNER, Man). Thus, partner to partner effects are equivalent to actor to actor effects and actor to partner effects are equivalent to partner to actor effects). These redundant paths are not displayed. Variances and covariances are not presented. Grey lines are non-significant paths.

In terms of partner effects, there was a significant effect of partner problematic drinking on actor relationship dissatisfaction (b = .02, 95% CI [.001, .03], β = .06). There was also a significant positive relation between partner relationship dissatisfaction and actor psychological IPA perpetration (b = 1.14, 95% CI [.29, 1.99], β = .09). There were two significant indirect effects involving partner effects. Consistent with Panel C in Figure 1, there was an indirect effect of partner drinking on actor psychological IPA perpetration through actor relationship dissatisfaction (ab = .09, 95% CI [.01, .17]). Consistent with Panel D in Figure 1, there was also a significant indirect effect of partner problematic drinking on actor IPA perpetration through partner relationship dissatisfaction (ab = .05, 95% CI [.01, .09]). The indirect effect of actor problematic drinking on actor psychological IPA through partner relationship dissatisfaction was not significant (ab = .02, 95% CI [.00, .05]; Panel B Figure 1). The direct effect of partner problematic drinking on actor psychological IPA perpetration was also significant (b = .37, 95% CI [.04, .71], β = .09).

Robustness analyses.

In the main text, we focus on the indirect effects, see the Supplemental Table 1 for additional parameter estimates. With problematic drinking as the mediator, there was one significant indirect effect. The relation between actor relationship dissatisfaction and actor psychological IPA perpetration was partially explained by actor problematic drinking (ab = .44, 95% CI [.22, .71]). With psychological IPA perpetration as the mediator all indirect effects were significant. The relation between actor relationship dissatisfaction and actor problematic drinking was partially explained by actor psychological IPA perpetration (ab = .33, 95% CI [.23, .44]) and partner psychological IPA perpetration (ab = .05, 95% CI [.01, .10]). Actor psychological IPA perpetration also partially accounted for the relation between partner problematic drinking and actor relationship dissatisfaction and actor problematic drinking (ab = .09, 95% CI [.03, .15]) and partner relationship dissatisfaction (ab = .18, 95% CI [.07, .30]). In this model, neither the direct actor effect (b = .12, 95% CI [−.13, .38], β = .03) nor partner effect (b = −.06, 95% CI [−.28, .18], β = −.02) between relationship dissatisfaction and problematic drinking were significant. Taken together, these results may suggest bidirectional effects.

Main Analyses: Physical IPA perpetration

In terms of actor effects for physical IPA perpetration (see Figure 2), there was a significant positive relation between actor problematic drinking and actor relationship dissatisfaction, which was the same size and direction as the model with psychological IPA perpetration (b = .04, 95% CI [.02, .06], β = .16). There was also a significant positive relation between actor relationship dissatisfaction and actor physical IPA perpetration (b = 1.19, 95% CI [.73, 1.70], β = .23). Moreover, and again consistent with our primary hypothesis, there was a significant indirect effect of actor problematic drinking on actor physical IPA perpetration through actor relationship dissatisfaction (ab = .05, 95% CI [.02, .08]; Panel A Figure 1). Thus, part of the relation between actor problematic drinking and actor physical IPA perpetration can be explained by actor relationship dissatisfaction. The direct effect of actor problematic drinking on actor physical IPA perpetration remained significant (b = .21, 95% CI [.10, .33], β = .07).

In terms of partner effects, there was a significant partner effect of problematic drinking on actor relationship dissatisfaction (b = .02, 95% CI [.001, .03], β = .06). Unlike when psychological IPA perpetration was the outcome, there was not a significant relation between partner relationship dissatisfaction and actor physical IPA perpetration (b = .28, 95% CI [−.06, .63], β = .06). There was one significant indirect effect involving partner effects. Consistent with Panel C in Figure 1, the relation between partner problematic drinking on actor physical IPA perpetration was partially explained by actor relationship dissatisfaction (ab = .02, 95% CI [.001, .05]). Neither of the other indirect effects were significant (actor problematic drinking on actor physical IPA perpetration through partner relationship dissatisfaction (ab = .01, 95% CI [−.003, .03]; partner problematic drinking on actor physical IPA perpetration through partner relationship dissatisfaction: ab = .01, 95% CI [−.001, .02]). The direct effect of partner problematic drinking on actor physical IPA perpetration (b = .12, 95% CI [−.01, .28], β = .05) was not significant. Thus, compared to psychological IPA perpetration, partner effects explained less variation in physical IPA perpetration.

Robustness analyses.

With problematic drinking as the mediator, there were two significant indirect effects. As in the comparable model for psychological IPA perpetration, the relation between actor relationship dissatisfaction and actor physical IPA perpetration was partially explained by actor problematic drinking (ab = .11, 95% CI [.04, .19]). Actor problematic drinking also partially explained some of the relation between partner relationship dissatisfaction and actor physical IPA perpetration (ab = .05, 95% CI [.001, .11]). With Physical IPA perpetration as the mediator, all indirect effects were significant. The relation between actor relationship dissatisfaction and actor problematic drinking was partially explained by actor psychological IPA perpetration (ab = .07, 95% CI [.02, .18]) and partner psychological IPA perpetration (ab = .07, 95% CI [.02, .16]). Actor Physical IPA perpetration also partially accounted for the relation between partner problematic drinking and actor relationship dissatisfaction (ab = .02, 95% CI [.001, .07]) and actor problematic drinking and partner relationship dissatisfaction (ab = .02, 95% CI [.001, .06]). Similar to psychological IPA perpetration, these analyses suggest that our results were robust to problematic drinking as the mediator, but also show evidence of bi-directional effects for IPA perpetration as a mediator.

Covariates.

Inclusion of covariates did not affect our parameter estimates for the indirect effects for either model (see Supplemental Table 2 for parameter estimates). As detailed in the Supplemental Material relationship length was not significantly related to study variables, but there was a significant effect of site for relationship dissatisfaction. Also, in the Supplemental Material, are analyses showing that concordance of drinking level within couple was not related to relationship dissatisfaction.

Discussion

The goal of the present study was to examine whether actor and partner relationship dissatisfaction accounted for the relation between actor and partner problematic drinking and IPA perpetration. Our primary hypothesis, based on prior research (Quigley et al., 2018; Spencer et al., 2019) and theory (Rodriguez et al. 2014), was that actor problematic drinking would be related to actor IPA perpetration and that this relation would be partially explained by actor relationship dissatisfaction. This was supported by our analyses for both psychological and physical IPA. We also explored other putative mechanisms by which relationship dissatisfaction may account for the link between problematic drinking and IPA perpetration in couples. We found that for psychological and physical IPA perpetration, actor relationship dissatisfaction also accounted for part of the relation between partner problematic drinking and actor IPA perpetration (as in Panel C in Figure 1). For psychological IPA perpetration, we also found that partner relationship dissatisfaction accounted for part of the relation between partner problematic drinking and actor physical IPA perpetration (as in Panel D of Figure 1). The size of associations among these variables were the same for men and women within couples. Our robustness analyses suggested the possibility of bi-direction effects for psychological and physical IPA perpetration. These results help add to the literature on how alcohol use is related to IPA perpetration.

Based on available literature (Quigley et al., 2018; Spencer et al., 2019), our primary prediction was that actor relationship dissatisfaction would partially explain the relation between actor problematic drinking and actor IPA perpetration. This prediction was supported for both psychological and physical IPA. In both cases, there was a significant indirect effect of actor problematic drinking on actor IPA perpetration through actor relationship dissatisfaction. Although these data are correlational and cross-sectional, we interpret them to support our model that actor problematic drinking increases actor relationship dissatisfaction, which increases the likelihood of actor IPA. This is in line with treatment studies showing that couples therapy for alcohol use’s effect on IPA perpetration is partially explained by relationship adjustment (O’Farrell et al., 2004). What is unclear from our data is how problematic drinking increases relationship dissatisfaction over time and how relationship dissatisfaction increases the likelihood of IPA perpetration. Problematic drinking by either partner likely increases relationship stress (e.g., not following through on relationship obligations because of drinking), which contributes to relationship dissatisfaction. Relationship dissatisfaction then can make IPA perpetration more likely by overriding factors that inhibit IPA (e.g., loving feelings) or by activating other aggressive thoughts. An expanded version of our working model could be developed and tested in further studies. It is important to note that there were still significant direct effects of actor problematic drinking on psychological and physical IPA perpetration and a direct partner effect for psychological IPA perpetration. These direct effects indicate that there are additional variables that likely explain the relation between actor problematic drinking and actor IPA perpetration (e.g., attention allocation; Parrott & Eckhardt, 2018) that should be studied in future research.

Although we did not have a priori predictions for the other possible other putative mechanisms by which relationship dissatisfaction may account for the link between problematic drinking and IPA perpetration (see Figure 1, Panels B-D), differences were observed in the mediational effects for psychological and physical IPA perpetration. As noted, actor relationship dissatisfaction partially accounted for the relation between actor problematic drinking and actor perpetration of psychological and physical IPA (Figure 1, Panel A). However, partner relationship dissatisfaction partially accounted for the relation between partner problematic drinking and actor perpetration of psychological, but not physical, IPA (Figure 1, Panel B). Together, these findings suggest that the use of physical forms of IPA requires significant relationship dissatisfaction in the perpetrator. Indeed, actor relationship dissatisfaction may indicate a higher propensity for negative affect and anger, which have received strong empirical support as precursors to general aggression (Berkowitz, 2012) and IPA (Birkley & Eckhardt, 2015; Norlander & Eckhardt, 2005). In contrast, partner relationship dissatisfaction may be sufficient to activate actor psychological IPA perpetration, as these non-physical forms of IPA may require a lower threshold. That is because psychological IPA is highly prevalent in heavy drinking couples (e.g., O’Farrell, Murphy, Neavins, & Van Hutton, 2000), it may be viewed in those couples as more normative than physical IPA and thus used even when levels of negative affect are not particularly high (e.g., when one’s partner is dissatisfied). Conversely, because physical IPA is so counter to social norms, it requires a level of negative affect that is more typically elicited in response to personal relationship dissatisfaction.

Another interesting difference between psychological and physical IPA perpetration was that there was not a significant partner effect of relationship dissatisfaction on actor physical IPA, whereas this effect was significant for actor psychological IPA. This means that in Figure 1 (Panel b), the path between partner relationship dissatisfaction and actor physical IPA was not significant. There also was not a direct effect of partner problematic drinking on actor physical IPA perpetration (see Figure 3). Together, these results show more interdependence for psychological IPA perpetration compared to physical IPA perpetration. This may suggest that physical IPA is more influenced by person-level factors (e.g., psychopathic traits; Iyican & Babcock, 2018), whereas psychological IPA is influenced by both person-level and couple-level factors (e.g., couple distress). Combined, these results suggest that different factors contribute to psychological and physical IPA, and different interactional patterns of proximal and distal factors create unique thresholds for psychological and physical IPA (Finkel & Hall, 2018).

Figure 3. Actor-Partner Mediation Model for Physical Intimate Partner Aggression.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Note. All parameters are unstandardized betas. Numbers in parentheses are 95% Confidence Intervals. All participants serve as actors and partners. Slopes were constrained to be equal across for men and women (i.e., bACTOR, Woman = bACTOR, Man and bPARTNER, Woman = bPARTNER, Man). Thus, partner to partner effects are equivalent to actor to actor effects and actor to partner effects are equivalent to partner to actor effects). These redundant paths are not displayed. Variances and covariances are not presented. Grey lines are non-significant paths.

Our results showed that models that constrained the slopes to be the same for men and women were a better fit than allowing them to vary by gender. This suggests that the association between problematic drinking, relationship dissatisfaction, and IPA perpetration is the same, or at least very similar, for men and women. We did not have any a priori predictions that the associations would differ by gender; however, given group differences in the mean level of problematic drinking and IPA perpetration, it is possible that the association could differ. Early theories of women’s IPA perpetration hypothesized that women were more likely to perpetrate IPA as a means of self-defense (e.g., Saunders, 1986). If this were true, it would suggest that different variables may account for the association between problematic drinking and IPA perpetration for women. Our results are more in line with more recent research showing similar factors contribute to men’s and women’s IPA perpetration (e.g., Schumacher & Leonard, 2005; Stuart et al., 2006).

Our robustness analyses indicted little influence of co-variates and models where problematic drinking was the mediator. This provides some evidence that our proposed model was the best fit for the data. With IPA as the mediator, however, there was evidence to support alternative mediational models. Specifically, with psychological and physical IPA perpetration as the mediator, all indirect effects were significant, suggesting that the relations between actor and partner problematic drinking and relationship dissatisfaction are accounted for by actor and partner IPA perpetration. In a causal model, this would mean that problematic drinking would have an effect on relationship dissatisfaction because of its effect on IPA perpetration. This ordering of IPA perpetration and relationship dissatisfaction fits with some prior longitudinal research showing that all IPA perpetration prospectively predicts relationship dissatisfaction (e.g., Caldwell et al., 2012). Together with our main results, this may suggest a recursive relation between psychological and physical IPA perpetration and relationship dissatisfaction, whereby relationship dissatisfaction makes IPA perpetration more likely, and IPA perpetration increases relationship dissatisfaction. Although this would need to be tested in a longitudinal study, it is similar to the bi-directional model of problematic drinking and marital distress proposed by Rodriguez et al. (2014).

Limitations, Strengths, and Conclusions

Our results should be considered in light of the limitations of this study. First, our data were cross-sectional, and it is therefore impossible to determine the temporal ordering. As highlighted by our robustness analyses, longitudinal studies are needed to firmly establish the temporal order and bi-directional effects. Similarly, other unmeasured or measured third variables could account for our results. Experimental designs are necessary to determine causation. Our establishment of relationship dissatisfaction as a mediator could be further tested in future experimental studies. Third, all of our measures were self-report, which can be influenced by response biases. Future studies could utilize behavioral tasks (e.g., coding of couple interactions, laboratory measures of aggression) to assess study variables multi-modally. Finally, we were focused on alcohol-related IPA perpetration. Although alcohol use is a robust predictor and causal factor in IPA perpetration and heavy drinkers are most likely to perpetrate IPA (Chermack, Fuller, & Blow, 2000), not all IPA occurs in the context of alcohol or among heavy drinkers. Our results may not generalize to IPA perpetration among those who are light drinkers or abstainers.

This study also has a number of strengths. First, we utilized a large sample of couples with recent IPA in whom at least one partner was a heavy drinker, which should allow our results to generalize to high-risk samples, where interventions will have the largest impact. Second, our sample was racially diverse, which also increases the generalizability of our results. Third, we recruited couples and modeled interdependence, which allowed us to have a deeper understanding of how problematic drinking influences IPA perpetration (cf. Eckhardt et al., 2019). Moreover, we expanded upon existent interdependence models for problematic drinking and relationship functioning (Rodriguez et al. 2014). Finally, this is among the first studies to identify mediators of the alcohol-IPA relation within an APIM framework.

Together, our results highlight a potential mechanism for how alcohol use might lead to IPA perpetration. These novel findings can help guide future research that seeks to understand the mediators and moderators of the alcohol IPA perpetration relation. IPA is a complex issue with contributing factors at the individual, couple, and community level (Dahlberg & Krug, 2006). Ultimately, research at all levels is needed to fully understand IPA perpetration and victimization. This work is necessary to help develop more effective prevention and intervention programs that can reduce the public and personal health costs of alcohol use and IPA perpetration.

Supplementary Material

Tables

Footnotes

1

Alcohol use in this context has been defined in many ways (acute intoxication, heavy drinking, alcohol use disorder). We use the term problematic drinking to denote a somewhat stable pattern of alcohol use that is associated with negative consequences. This form of drinking and associated consequences may or may not reach the level of DSM criteria for an alcohol use disorder; however, it is more than social drinking.

2

In our analyses, couples were partially distinguishable, meaning that actor and partner effects were constrained to be equal for men and women, but actor and partner effects were allowed to differ. This means that actor to actor effects are equivalent to partner to partner effects. This also means that there are equivalent indirect effects. For instance, Panel A could be Actor → Actor → Actor or Partner → Partner → Partner. To maintain consistency, we frame indirect effects with Actor IPA as the outcome.

3

An additional 25 (n = 50) couples were collected but not included in the data analysis because of being a same-sex couple (n = 8) or missing data on at least one of the study variables (n = 48).

Contributor Information

Konrad Bresin, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University.

Dominic J. Parrott, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University

Olivia S. Subramani, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University

Christopher I. Eckhardt, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University

References

  1. Abdala N, Li F, Shaboltas AV, Skochilov RV, & Krasnoselskikh TV (2016). History of childhood abuse, drinking motives, alcohol use, and sexual risk behavior among STD clinic patients in St Petersburg, Russia: A cross-sectional study. AIDS and Behavior, 20, 512–522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackerman JM (2012). The relevance of relationship satisfaction and continuation to the gender symmetry debate. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3579–3600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Babor TF, Biddle-Higgins JC, Saunders JB, & Monteiro MG (2001). AUDIT: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for use in primary health care. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  4. Berkowitz L (2012). A different view of anger: The cognitive- neoassociation conception of the relation of anger to aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 322–333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Birkley EL, & Eckhardt CI (2015). Anger, hostility, internalizing negative emotions, and intimate partner violence perpetration: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 37, 40–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Black DS, Sussman S, & Unger JB (2010). A further look at the intergenerational transmission of violence: Witnessing interparental violence in emerging adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1022–1042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Caldwell JE, Swan SC, & Woodbrown VD (2012). Gender differences in intimate partner violence outcomes. Psychology of Violence, 2, 42–57. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chermack ST, Fuller BE, & Blow FC (2000). Predictors of expressed partner and non-partner violence among patients in substance abuse treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 58, 43–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Collins RL, Ellickson PL, & Klein DJ (2007). The role of substance use in young adult divorce. Addiction, 102, 786–794. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cook WL, & Kenny DA (2005). The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dahlberg LL, & Krug EG (2006). Violence: A global public health problem. Ciência and Saúde Coletiva,11, 1163–1178. [Google Scholar]
  12. DiBello AM, Preddy TM, Øverup CS, & Neighbors C (2017). Understanding the context of romantic partner relational victimization: Links between relationship satisfaction, depressive symptoms, and alcohol-related problems. Psychology of Violence, 7, 543–552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eckhardt CI, Parrott DJ, & Crane CA (2019). Alcohol, conflict, and aggression in intimate relationships: A dyadic approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 1459–1475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Epstein EE, & McCrady BS (1998). Behavioral couples treatment of alcohol and drug use disorders: Current status and innovations. Clinical Psychology Review, 18(6), 689–711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Finkel EJ, & Hall AN (2018). The I3 model: A metatheoretical framework for understanding aggression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 125–130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Halmos MB, Leone RM, Parrott PJ, & Eckhardt CI (2018). Relationship dissatisfaction, emotion regulation, and physical intimate partner aggression in heavy-drinking conflict-prone couples; A dyadic analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence doi: 10.1177/0886260518801019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hayes AF (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. [Google Scholar]
  18. Homish GG, & Leonard KE (2007). Alcohol use and partner expectations among newly married couples. Substance Use & Misuse, 42(9), 1427–1441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jarvis B (2014). MediaLab (Version 2014) [Computer software]. New York, NY: Empirisoft Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  20. Jose A, & O’Leary KD (2009). Prevalence of partner aggression in representative and clinic samples In O’Leary KD & Woodin EM (Eds.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions. (pp. 15–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kashy DA, & Donnellan MB (2012). Conceptual and methodological issues in the analysis of data from dyads and groups In Deaux K & Snyder M (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 209–238). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kazdin AE (2007). Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 1–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Leonard KE, Winters JJ, Kearns-Bodkin JN, Homish GG, & Kubiak AJ (2014). Dyadic patterns of intimate partner violence in early marriage. Psychology of Violence, 4, 384–398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Leonard KE, & Quigley BM (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] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Leone RM, Crane CA, Parrott DJ, & Eckhardt CI (2016). Problematic drinking, impulsivity, and physical IPV perpetration: A dyadic analysis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 30, 356–366. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lewis RJ, Mason TB, Winstead BA, & Kelley ML (2017). Empirical investigation of a model of sexual minority specific and general risk factors for intimate partner violence among lesbian women. Psychology of Violence, 7(1), 110–119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Locke TF, & Newcomb MD (2003). Psychosocial outcomes of alcohol involvement and dysphoria in women: A 16-year prospective community study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 531–546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Iyican S, & Babcock JC (2018). The relation between the two factors of psychopathy and intimate partner aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 27, 119– 130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Marshal MP (2003). For Better or for Worse? The Effects of Alcohol Use on Marital Functioning.Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 959–997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mellingen S, Torsheim T, & Thuen F (2013). Changes in alcohol use and relationship satisfaction in Norwegian couples during pregnancy. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Norlander B, & Eckhardt C (2005). Anger, hostility, and male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 119–152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Oberski D (2014). lavaan. survey: An R package for complex survey analysis of structural equation models. Journal of Statistical Software, 57, 1–27.25400517 [Google Scholar]
  33. O’Farrell TJ, Murphy CM, Neavins TM, Van Hutton V. Verbal aggression among male alcoholic patients and their wives in the year before and two years after alcoholism treatment. Journal of Family Violence. 2000; 15:295–310. 10.1037/0022-006X.71.1.92 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Parrott DJ, Swartout KM, Eckhardt CI, & Subramani OS (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] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Pistole MC, & Vocaturo LC (1999). Attachment and commitment in college students’ romantic relationships. Journal of College Student Development, 40(6), 710–720. [Google Scholar]
  36. Preacher KJ (2015). Advances in mediation analysis: A survey and synthesis of new developments. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 825–852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Quigley BM, Levitt A, Derrick JL, Testa M, Houston RJ, & Leonard KE (2018). Alcohol, self-regulation and partner physical aggression: Actor-partner effects over a three-year time frame. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rodriguez LM, DiBello AM, & Wickham R (2016). Regulation strategies mediate associations between heavy drinking and relationship outcomes in married couples. Addictive Behaviors, 54, 64–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rodriguez LM, Neighbors C & Knee R (2014). Problematic alcohol use and martial distress: An interdependence theory perspective. Addiction Research and Theory, 22, 294–312. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rodriguez LM, Øverup CS, & Neighbors C (2013). Perceptions of partners’ problematic alcohol use affect relationship outcomes beyond partner self-reported drinking: Alcohol use in committed romantic relationships. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27, 627– 638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rusbult CE, Martz JM, & Agnew CR (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391. [Google Scholar]
  42. Saunders DG (1986). When battered women use violence: Husband-abuse or self-defense? Violence and Victims, 1, 47–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Schumacher JA, & Leonard KE (2005). Husbands’ and Wives’ Marital Adjustment, Verbal Aggression, and Physical Aggression as Longitudinal Predictors of Physical Aggression in Early Marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 28–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Schumm JA, O’Farrell TJ, Kahler CW, Murphy MM, & Muchowski P (2014). A randomized clinical trial of behavioral couples therapy versus individually based treatment for women with alcohol dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82, 993–1004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, & Simonsohn U (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Spencer CM, Stith SM, & Cafferky B (2019). Risk markers for physical intimate partner violence victimization: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 44, 8–17. [Google Scholar]
  47. Stith SM, Green NM, Smith DB, & Ward DB (2008). Marital satisfaction and marital discord as risk markers for intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 149–160. [Google Scholar]
  48. Stuart GL, Moore TM, Gordon KC, Hellmuth JC, Ramsey SE, & Kahler CW (2006). Reasons for intimate partner violence perpetration among arrested women. Violence Against Women, 12, 609–621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Straus M, Hamby S, Boney-McCoy S, & Sugarman D (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. [Google Scholar]
  50. Subramani OS, Parrott DJ, & Eckhardt CI (2017). Problematic drinking mediates the association between urgency and intimate partner aggression during acute intoxication. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 41(9), 1602–1611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Torvik FA, Røysamb E, Gustavson K, Idstad M, & Tambs K (2013). Discordant and concordant alcohol use in spouses as predictors of marital dissolution in the general population: Results from the HUNT study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 37, 877–884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ulloa EC, & Hammett JF (2015). Temporal changes in intimate partner violence and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 30(8), 1093–1102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Watkins LE, DiLillo D, & Maldonado RC (2015). The interactive effects of emotion regulation and alcohol intoxication on lab-based intimate partner aggression. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29, 653–663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Whisman MA, Uebelacker LA, & Bruce ML (2006). Longitudinal association between marital dissatisfaction and alcohol use disorders in a community sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 164–167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Tables
NIHMS1583564-supplement-Tables.docx (31.1KB, docx)

RESOURCES