Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Contextual Behav Sci. 2021 Jan 27;19:100–107. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.01.006

Alcohol, Trait Anger, and Psychological Flexibility: A Laboratory Investigation of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration

Jessica L Grom 1, Molly A Maloney 2, Dominic J Parrott 3, Chris I Eckhardt 4
PMCID: PMC7906286  NIHMSID: NIHMS1667135  PMID: 33643834

Abstract

The I3 Model is a meta-theoretical framework that posits intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration is the product of three interactive factors: instigators, impellors, and inhibitors. The present study examined the effects of trait anger (an impellor), psychological flexibility (a disimpellor), and alcohol intoxication (a disinhibitor) on IPV perpetration. Participants were 249 heavy drinkers (41% female) who had perpetrated IPV toward their current partner in the past year. Participants completed self-report measures of trait anger and psychological flexibility, were randomly assigned to consume an alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverage, and then engaged in the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (Taylor, 1967) ostensibly against their current partner. Analyses detected a small-to-medium effect for two separate two-way interactions. First, a significant Beverage x Psychological Flexibility interaction was detected. Consistent with the I3 Model, explication analyses revealed that alcohol intoxication predicted higher levels of IPV perpetration in those who reported low, but not high, psychological flexibility (i.e., low disimpellance). Second, although the Beverage x Trait Anger interaction was non-significant, explication analyses revealed that alcohol intoxication predicted higher levels of IPV perpetration among those who reported low, but not high, trait anger (i.e., low impellance). These results have several potential treatment implications among alcohol-consuming clients.

Keywords: Intimate Partner Aggression, Domestic Violence, Partner Abuse, Anger, Negative Affect, Psychological Flexibility, Experiential Avoidance

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant and intractable public health problem, with approximately 33% of women and 28% of men experiencing physical IPV in their lifetimes (Black et al., 2011). Estimates indicate that the consequences of IPV related to medical and criminal justice expenditures total nearly $3.6 trillion dollars across approximately 43 million victims’ lifetimes (Peterson et al., 2018). There is consensus that proximal alcohol consumption is a major contributing cause of IPV perpetration (e.g., Parrott & Eckhardt, 2018; Leonard & Quigley, 2017). Further, research has indicated that myriad variables moderate the relationship between alcohol intoxication and IPV perpetration (e.g., Cafferky, Mendez, Anderson, & Stith, 2018). Thus, development of interactional, etiological models of alcohol-related IPV is critical. The present paper addresses this need by employing the I3 Model (Finkel, 2014), a meta-theoretical framework of IPV, to examine how trait anger, psychological flexibility, and alcohol interact to predict IPV perpetration.

Meta-Theoretical Framework: The I3 Model

The I3 Model (pronounced “I cubed”; Finkel, 2007; Finkel, 2014; Finkel & Eckhardt, 2013; Finkel & Hall, 2018; Slotter & Finkel, 2011) is a meta-theoretical framework designed for generating and testing hypotheses among various factors that have proven useful for bettering our prediction of IPV perpetration and informing targeted interventions for complex risk profiles (e.g., Birkley & Eckhardt, 2015; Finkel & Eckhardt, 2013; Finkel et al., 2012; Halmos, Leone, Parrott, & Eckhardt, 2018; Maldonado, DiLillo, & Hoffman, 2014). According to the I3 Model, IPV perpetration is the product of three interactive factors: instigators, impellors, and inhibitors. Instigators are stimuli that usually potentiate IPV perpetration (e.g., provocation). Once instigation occurs, the relative balance of impelling and inhibiting factors determines the strength of an aggressive response. Impellors are factors that increase an urge to aggress (e.g., trait anger; Birkley & Eckhardt, 2015). In contrast, inhibitors are factors that increase an individual’s capacity to override the effects of instigating and impelling forces. Thus, inhibitors set the threshold beyond which instigator- and impellor-driven urges would result in the perpetration of aggressive behavior. Finally, researchers commonly expand the I3 Model to include disimpellors and disinhibitors (e.g., Finkel, 2014; Sprunger, Eckhardt, & Parrott, 2015). Compared to impellors, disimpellors (e.g., psychological flexibility; Shorey et al., 2014) are factors that reduce the salience of instigators or otherwise interfere with the strengthening of an urge to engage in aggression (Finkel, 2014). Meanwhile, compared to inhibitors, disinhibitors (e.g., alcohol use) reduce the threshold beyond which instigator- and impellor-driven urges would result in aggression because they reduce a person’s ability to override the weight of an impelling force (Finkel, 2014).

It is worth noting that the tenets of the I3 Model overlap in some respects with principles of a contextual behavioral science framework (CBS; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Wilson, 2012). Specifically, a CBS framework aims to understand behaviors by considering the interaction of observable and non-observable characteristics related to the person and their historical and situational context. With this understanding, researchers can then predict and influence those behaviors with targeted intervention approaches. Similar to this framework, the I3 Model provides an organizational framework for the myriad individual and situational factors that facilitate and inhibit aggressive behavior. The core premise of the I3 Model is that the relative impact of these factors on aggression can vary across individuals and their contexts. Similar to a CBS framework, the ultimate goal of the I3 Model is to harness this knowledge about aggression etiology to (1) strengthen the precision by which aggressive behavior can be predicted, and (2) use that information to prevent or reduce the likelihood of aggression. The following sections provide a more detailed review of the I3 factors to be examined in the present study.

Impelling factor: Trait anger.

Trait anger is defined as the dispositional tendency to experience frequent, intense, and enduring episodes of state anger (Spielberger, Krasner, & Solomon, 1988). In a review of the anger literature, Carver and Harmon-Jones (2009) concluded that anger is an “approach-related affect,” such that it motivates efforts to remove or impair the source of anger. Further, these efforts are often automatic and non-conscious; state anger is inherently related to aggression-related motor impulses as well as cognitive prototypes of aggressive responding (e.g., cognitive-neoassociation theory; Berkowitz, 1990; Berkowitz, 2012). Trait anger increases urges towards aggression through these impulses and prototypes. Collectively, this literature indicates that trait anger increases an urge toward IPV perpetration rather than reducing a person’s ability to override the weight of an impelling force (Crane & Testa, 2014; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004). Thus, the present study conceptualized trait anger as an impellor rather than a disinhibtor.

Not surprisingly, a recent meta-analysis provides empirical support for a moderate effect of trait anger on IPV perpetration (Birkley &Eckhardt, 2015). This finding is consistent with tenets of the I3 Model, which stipulate that IPV perpetration is ultimately determined by the relative balance of all factors. Findings such as these underscore the need to consider how trait anger may interact with other I3 factors to predict when individuals will surpass their “threshold” for violence perpetration.

Disimpelling factor: Psychological flexibility.

Psychological flexibility refers to “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). It is a transdiagnostic construct that is theoretically related to other well-established factors which are negatively associated with IPV perpetration, including self-control (Finkel, DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, & Foshee, 2009) and emotion regulation (Halmos et al., 2018; Lee, Rodriguez, Edwards, & Neal, 2020; Shorey, McNulty, Moore, & Stuart, 2015). High levels of psychological flexibility are associated with being in contact with the present moment and moving in the direction of chosen values and goals in spite of negative internal experiences (Bond et al., 2011; Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006; Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010). Accordingly, high levels of psychological flexibility are associated with fewer instances of maladaptive behavior (Gloster, Meyer, & Lieb, 2017) and greater instances of adaptive behavior (Bond & Bunce, 2003; McCracken, 1998). On the other hand, low levels of psychological flexibility are associated with attempts to avoid negative internal experiences (Hayes et al., 2006). Research has demonstrated that low psychological flexibility is associated with higher levels of aggressive behavior (Tull, Jakupcak, Paulson, & Gratz, 2007), poor relationship functioning (Reddy, Meis, Erbes, Polusny, & Compton, 2011), and higher rates of psychological, physical, and sexual IPV perpetration (Shorey et al., 2014).

Psychological flexibility is theorized to be directly modifiable through intervention (Bond et al., 2011; Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette, & Strosahl, 1996; Hayes et al., 2006). Specifically, a core focus of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; Hayes, Strohsahl, & Wilson, 1999) is to decrease maladaptive behavior by increasing psychological flexibility. Consistent with this, research indicates that ACT is effective in reducing recidivism among IPV perpetrators; in as much as ACT is promoting higher levels of psychological flexibility, these data indicate that psychological flexibility is associated with lower levels of IPV perpetration (Zarling, Bannon, & Berta, 2019; Zarling, Lawrence & Marchman, 2015).

Collectively, this literature suggests that psychological flexibility functions as a disimpellor by reducing the intensity and salience of the instigator and “short-circuiting” the proclivity to aggress. Thus, individuals high in psychological flexibility may be more likely to interpret any particular provocation much differently than the instigator intended. This likely functions as a counterweight to other impelling factors. Importantly, a disimpellor is somewhat different than an inhibitory process; whereas inhibitors set the threshold beyond which instigator- and impellor-driven urges would result in the perpetration of aggressive behavior, disimepllors attenuate the generation of an aggressive urge in the first place. Thus, the present study conceptualized psychological flexibility as a disimpellor rather than an inhibitor.

Disinhibiting factor: Alcohol intoxication.

Extensive research literature has demonstrated that acute alcohol use acts as a disinhibiting influence by weakening the drinker’s inhibitory capacity (Parrott & Eckhardt, 2018). The most established explanation for this effect is advanced by Alcohol Myopia Theory (AMT; Josephs & Steele, 1990). AMT posits that alcohol narrows attention, such that individuals are only able to process the most recent and salient cues in their environment. An instigating factor, such as provocation, likely grabs most people’s attention. When sober, inhibitory capacity likely prevents aggressive urges from facilitating aggressive behavior; however, when intoxicated, inhibitory capacity is compromised. As a result, intoxicated individuals may be less able to shift their attention away from this aggression-promoting cue and toward a less salient inhibitory cue (e.g., thoughts of the potential physical or legal consequences of getting in a fight). To the extent that the most salient cues in a couple’s conflict are typically those which instigate (rather than inhibit) aggression, the result is an increased likelihood of aggression. Indeed, literature indicates there is a moderate association between alcohol intoxication and IPV perpetration (Cafferky et al., 2018; Eckhardt, Parrott, & Massa, 2021).

Integrative Summary

The reviewed literature provides the basis for how an instigator (i.e., provocation), an impellor (i.e., trait anger), a disimpellor (i.e., psychological flexibility), and a disinhibitor (i.e., acute alcohol use) interact to facilitate IPV. Consistent with relevant theory (e.g., Berkowitz, 1990), provocation increases the urge to aggress by activating a cognitive-affective network characterized by hostile thoughts and angry affect. This urge to aggress, and consequently the likelihood of aggression, is amplified among individuals who are high in trait anger. Even among such high-risk individuals, aggression will not occur if they possess other traits that counterbalance this impellance and/or reduce the salience of instigatory cues (i.e., high in psychological flexibility). However, acute alcohol consumption will weaken inhibitory capacity generally (i.e., lower the threshold by which urges will cause aggression) and, importantly, weaken the ability of a disimpellor to reduce the salience of the instigator. These effects occur via the narrowing of attention to these the highly salient provoking cues and an aggression-promoting cognitive-affective state (Giancola, Josephs, Parrott, & Duke, 2010)(Parrott & Eckhardt, 2018). For example, research indicates that participants who were intoxicated and low in anger control (i.e., low inhibition) perpetrated more aggression toward a stranger when they were provoked (i.e., high instigation) and had greater levels of trait anger (i.e., high impellance) compared to those who had low levels of trait anger (Parrott & Giancola, 2004). However, no prior research has examined the association among alcohol consumption, trait anger, and psychological flexibility in the prediction of IPV perpetration, specifically. Given the clear relationship between alcohol use and IPV perpetration (e.g., Leonard & Quigley, 2017), simultaneous examination of variables that may exacerbate (i.e., alcohol intoxication and trait anger) or inhibit (i.e., psychological flexibility) alcohol’s effect on IPV perpetration is needed.

The Present Research

The present study investigated the independent and interactive effects of trait anger, psychological flexibility, and alcohol intoxication on IPV perpetration among provoked individuals in a laboratory-based setting. Several hypotheses were advanced. First, main effects were hypothesized, such that psychological flexibility would be negatively associated with IPV perpetration whereas trait anger and alcohol intoxication would be positively associated with IPV perpetration (Hypothesis 1). Second, a three-way interaction between trait anger, psychological flexibility, and alcohol intoxication was hypothesized, such that those who are high in trait anger, low in psychological flexibility, and intoxicated would perpetrate the highest levels of IPV in the laboratory (Hypothesis 2).

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 perpetration. The present hypotheses are novel and the analytic plan was developed specifically to address these aims.

Participants

Participants were 289 individuals nested within intimate heterosexual couples recruited from two cities in the midwestern (Site 1) and southeastern United States (Site 2) through online and print advertisements. Upon contacting the laboratory, respondents were informed that they would be required to complete a questionnaire battery (Session 1) and an experimental session on a separate day (Session 2). Interested couples were then screened separately by telephone to assess eligibility, which was then verified in a more comprehensive in-person laboratory assessment at Session 1. To be eligible, couples had to be dating for at least one month, be at least 21 years of age, 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 or drug use. Further, at least one partner who was termed the “index” partner was required to meet two additional eligibility criteria. First, this individual had to report a pattern of heavy episodic drinking, which was operationalized by 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 (National Institutes of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2007). Given that engagement in one day of heavy episodic drinking is associated with alcohol-related problems, including IPV perpetration (e.g., Leonard, 2005), this inclusion criterion ensured that participants regularly engaged in heavy episodic drinking and thus were at particularly high risk for IPV perpetration. Second, this individual had to be identified as having perpetrated at least one act of psychological or minor physical IPV toward their current partner in the past year via self- or partner-report on the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996).

Telephone and subsequent in-person screening resulted in 289 eligible couples who presented to Session 2. Upon arrival to the laboratory for Session 2, all eligibility criteria were confirmed. Following a manipulation check, data for 40 individuals were excluded for various reasons, including failure to be deceived (n = 12), not reaching the target Breath Alcohol Concentration (BrAC; n = 7), withdrawing due to partner’s objection to deception (n = 9), withdrawing due to significant relationship issues (e.g., wanting to break up) or requirement to consume alcohol (n = 2), and not completing the experiment (e.g., equipment malfunction, participant became ill due to alcohol consumption, etc., n = 10). No participants withdrew after their participation in the study.

The final sample was comprised of 249 index participants. Among this sample, 51% reported that they were married or cohabitating with their partner, with fewer participants who identified as single (41%), divorced (6%), or separated (2%). Participants primarily identified as African American (65%) or White (25%). Additionally, the sample was comprised of slightly more males (59%) than females (41%). Participants were, on average, 32.46 (SD = 10.49) years old with 13.74 (SD = 2.79) years of education. The average reported relationship length was 4.45 (SD = 4.69) years. Approximately 41% of participants were recruited at Site 1 with the rest recruited at Site 2. Participants were compensated $10 per hour of participation. This study was approved by each university’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures

State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory – 2nd edition (Spielberger, 1999).

Trait anger was measured using the Trait Anger Subscale (TAS) of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory – 2nd edition. Participants responded to 10 items assessing how often they feel anger or anger-related emotions or cognitions on a 4-point scale (1= not at all and 4 = very much so; M = 1.72, SD = 0.58). Higher scores indicate greater levels of trait anger. Items include “I am quick tempered” and “when I get mad, I say nasty things.” The TAS has a high internal consistency (α = .95-.99; Spielberger & Reheiser, 2009), which is generally consistent with the current sample (α = .86), as well as strong evidence of discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane,1983; Deffenbacher et al., 1996).

Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II (AAQ-II; Bond et al., 2011).

The AAQ-II is a 7-item measure of psychological flexibility. Participants are asked to rate each item on a 7-point scale (1 = never true and 7 = always true; M = 6.00, SD = 0.97). Items were reverse scored and summed, such that higher scores indicate greater levels of psychological flexibility. Items include “I’m afraid of my feelings” and “Worries get in the way of my success.” The AAQ-II has high internal consistency (α =.84), which is consistent with the current sample (α =.85), as well as good test-retest reliabilities (i.e., .81 and .79 at 3 and 12 months, respectively) and strong evidence of predictive and convergent validity (Bond et al., 2011).

Beverage Administration

Upon arrival to the laboratory for Session 2, participants were randomly assigned to an Alcohol (n = 122) or No-Alcohol Control (n = 127) beverage condition. Participants in the alcohol condition received a dose of 0.99 g/kg (men) or 0.90 g/kg (women) body weight of 95% alcohol USP mixed at a 1:5 ratio with Tropicana orange juice. A comparable dose has been used in past research of alcohol-related aggression and reliably produced BrAC levels between .08% and .12% (e.g., Giancola et al., 2009; Watkins, DiLillo, & Maldonado, 2015). Participants in the no-alcohol condition received a beverage containing orange juice only. All participants were allotted 20 minutes to consume their beverage. Participants were explicitly informed of their respective condition.

Taylor Aggression Paradigm

A modified version (Giancola & Zeichner, 1995) of the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP; Taylor, 1967) was used to measure perpetration of intimate partner violence. The hardware for the task was developed by Coulbourn Instruments (Allentown, PA), and the computer software was developed by Vibranz Creative Group (Lexington, KY). The TAP is presented as a “reaction time task,” during which participants receive electric shocks from a fictitious opponent to whom they are also given the opportunity to administer shocks. Participants are seated in front of a computer and keyboard. The numbers 1-10 on the keyboard are labeled from “low” to “high,” respectively. Participants choose which level of shock to issue to their opponent. Participants are also able to vary the duration of their shocks in order to shock their opponent for shorter or longer periods of time. The keyboard and monitor are connected to a computer located in an adjacent room out of the participant’s view. Physical IPV was defined as the average of standardized scores for the intensity and duration of shocks selected (i.e., TAP physical aggression). This scoring procedure was used because previous research has demonstrated that shock intensity and shock duration are highly correlated and part of a more general construct of direct, physical aggression (Carlson, Marcus-Newhall, & Miller, 1990; Hyatt, Chester, Miller, & Zeichner, 2019). The TAP and other similar laboratory paradigms have been repeatedly shown to be safe and valid measures of aggression (Giancola & Parrott, 2008; Parrott, Miller, & Hudepohl,2015).

Procedure

Participants presented to the laboratory on two separate days. To minimize potential coercion, informed consent was obtained separately (i.e., in separate rooms) for the index participant and his/her partner upon arrival to each session. Session 1 involved reassessment of all eligibility criteria as well as administration of a questionnaire battery using MediaLab 2014 software (Jarvis, 2014). Eligible couples who returned for Session 2 were met in a room separate from the aggression laboratory. To disguise the task as a measure of aggression, participants were given a fictitious cover story. They were informed that the purpose of the study was to examine the relation between alcohol and reaction time under competitive conditions. As such, they would consume an alcoholic or nonalcoholic beverage prior to engaging in a competitive reaction time task against their partner. At this time, participants were also weighed and their BrAC was assessed to confirm sobriety. Participants with a BrAC above 0% were rescheduled on a subsequent day.

Both members of the couple were then escorted to the index participant’s testing room. Participants received instructions regarding the reaction time competition. For each trial, participants were informed that shortly after the words “Get Ready” appeared on the screen, the words “Press the Spacebar” would appear at which time they would press, and hold down, the spacebar. Following this, the words “Release the Spacebar” would appear at which time they would lift their fingers off of the spacebar as quickly as possible. A “win” was signaled by the words “You Won. You Get to Give a Shock.” A “loss” was signaled by the words “You Lost. You Get a Shock.” A winning trial required participants to deliver a shock to their partner, and a losing trial resulted in receiving a shock from their partner. Participants were told that they had a choice of 10 different shock intensities to administer at the end of each winning trial for a duration of their choosing. Participants were informed that while they could not elect to not shock their partner, the shock button “1” would deliver a low-intensity shock that is best characterized as “very mild” and “definitely” not painful. Evidence supports the TAP’s validity, despite its lack of a nonaggressive response option (Giancola & Chermack, 1998; Giancola & Parrott, 2008).

Next, the partner was escorted to a separate testing room to ostensibly consume his or her beverage. In actuality, this participant received a full debriefing of the study, was compensated, and discharged. This was done as a safety precaution so that the partner could provide consent for the deception protocol to continue with the index participant. Upon obtaining this consent, index participants were administered an alcoholic or nonalcoholic beverage. After consuming their beverages, index participants’ pain thresholds were then assessed to determine the intensity parameters for the shocks they would receive. This was accomplished via the administration of 1-second duration shocks presented in an incremental stepwise intensity method from the lowest available shock setting, which is imperceptible, until the shocks reached a reportedly “painful” level. All shocks were administered through 2 electrodes that were attached to the index and middle fingers of the nondominant hand. Participants were asked to state when the shocks were “first detectable” and then when they reached a “painful” level. This procedure was conducted while participants were seated in the testing room and the experimenter was in an adjacent control room. They communicated through an intercom.

After the pain thresholds were determined and participants reached a BrAC of 0.075%, participants completed 6 “practice” TAP trials, ostensibly against their intimate partner, so that they could become familiar with the procedure. In actuality, the “practice” trials were rigged so that all participants received physical and verbal provocations from their partner to create an adversarial interpersonal interaction. Participants “lost” 4 of 6 trials and received moderate-intensity shocks (i.e., 4s and 5s) on each of these losing trials. Next, participants received standardized written negative feedback they believed to be from their partner. Most relevant to this feedback was the partner’s statement that she/he expected to win most of the subsequent reaction time trials and deliver the highest possible level shock during those trials.

Upon reaching a BrAC of 0.08, the full aggression task commenced and consisted of 20 trials (10 wins and 10 losses). On losing trials, participants received shocks from their “partner” that were 1 second in duration and ranged from 90% (an “8”) to 100% (a “10”) of their highest tolerated shock intensity. A specially designed “voltmeter” and the illumination of 1 of the 10 “shock lights” (ranging from 1 [low] to 10 [high]) on the computer screen signaled to the participant the shock that she/he or the partner selected. A randomly generated win/loss sequence was predetermined and incorporated into the computer program that executed the task. All participants received the same sequence. A computer controlled the initiation of trials, administration of shocks to participants, and recordings of their responses.

Immediately upon completion of the TAP, BrACs were measured. Participants were then asked a variety of questions to assess indirectly the credibility of the experimental manipulation (see below), debriefed, and compensated. All individuals who received alcohol remained in the laboratory until their BrAC fell to 0.03% and were escorted to prearranged transportation by laboratory staff.

Results

Manipulation Checks

Aggression Task Checks.

Prior to debriefing, participants were interviewed to confirm their belief that they were competing against their partner on a “reaction time” task and that this task was not a measure of aggression. First, participants were asked whether or not they thought the task was a good measure of reaction time. Second, they were asked how they thought their partner performed on the task. The main criteria for exclusion were participants’ beliefs that they were not actually competing against their partner or that the task was a measure of aggression. As noted above, of the 289 participants, 12 (4%) indicated that the task was not a measure of reaction time and/or that they were not actually competing against their partner. These participants were excluded from the following analyses.

BrAC Levels.

All participants tested in this study had BrACs of 0% upon entering the laboratory. A repeated measures ANOVA indicated that participants’ BrACs in the alcohol group were significantly higher post-TAP (M = .11, SD = .02) than pre-TAP (M = .09, SD = .01), t(120) = −9.55, p < .001. This finding indicated that participants were on the ascending limb of the BrAC curve. Inspection of these data at the individual level confirmed that all intoxicated participants were on the ascending limb of the BrAC curve during the experimental procedures. Participants in the No-Alcohol Control condition had a mean BrAC of 0% before and after the experimental procedures.

Regression Analyses

Because trait anger and psychological flexibility are continuous variables, hierarchical linear regression analyses were indicated (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Trait anger and psychological flexibility were z-scored. Beverage condition was dummy coded (0 = no-alcohol control, 1 = alcohol). Interaction terms were calculated by obtaining the cross-products of pertinent first-order variables. For the hierarchical analysis, main effects of beverage condition, trait anger, and psychological flexibility were entered first (Step 1). Two- and three-way interaction terms was entered second (Step 2). Site was added to Step 1 as a covariate. Significant interactions were probed according to well-established procedures (Cohen et al., 2003).

In Step 1, the regression model was not significant, F(4, 243) = 1.99, p = .10, R2 = .03. Inconsistent with Hypothesis 1, no main effects were detected. In Step 2, the regression model was significant, F(8, 239) = 2.01, p < .05, R2 = .06. Contrary to Hypothesis 2, the three-way interaction was not significant. However, standardized regression coefficients for two 2-way interactions evidenced a small-to-medium effect size (Cohen, 1988). First, the Beverage x Psychological Flexibility interaction was significant (β = −.20, b = −.47, SE = .23, 95% CI of b = −.93, −.02, p = .04; see Figure 1). Simple slopes analyses revealed that alcohol intoxication predicted higher levels of IPV perpetration in those who reported low (β = .23, p = .03), but not high (β = −.07, p = .44), psychological flexibility. Second, the Beverage x Trait Anger interaction also evidenced a small-to-medium effect size but was statistically nonsignificant (β = −.18, b = −.44, SE = .23, 95% CI of b = −.89, .00, p = .05; see Figure 2); however, explication analyses revealed that alcohol intoxication predicted higher levels of IPV perpetration in those who reported low (β = .22, p = .02), but not high (β = −.06, p = .54), trait anger.

Figure 1. Beverage Condition x Psychological Flexibility Interaction.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Alcohol intoxication predicted higher levels of IPV perpetration in those who reported low, but not high, psychological flexibility

Figure 2. Beverage Condition x Trait Anger Interaction.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Alcohol intoxication predicted higher levels of IPV perpetration in those who reported low, but not high, trait anger.

Discussion

The present study used the I3 Model to examine how trait anger, psychological flexibility, and alcohol intoxication interact to predict IPV perpetration. Results of this study did not support our hypotheses. Significant main effects were not detected (Hypothesis 1) and the three-way interaction between these predictors was not significant (Hypothesis 2). However, a statistically significant two-way interaction and a statistically nonsignificant two-way interaction both evidenced small-to-medium effect sizes and a pattern of effects that were consistent with our theorizing within the I3 Model. Given the myriad factors that contribute to IPV perpetration (e.g., Foran & O’Leary, 2008), a small-to-medium effect size indicates the importance of these factors in informing etiological models of IPV perpetration (e.g., Prentice & Miller, 1992).

First, results indicated a significant interaction between beverage condition and psychological flexibility, such that alcohol intoxication predicted higher levels of IPV perpetration among individuals who reported low, but not high, levels of psychological flexibility. Thus, alcohol did not weaken the ability of a disimpellor to reduce the salience of the instigator; rather, the disimpelling force of psychological flexibility significantly counterbalanced the effect of alcohol on IPV perpetration. Put another way, although the disinhibiting effect of alcohol likely reduced the drinker’s threshold for aggression, psychological flexibility likely limited the strength of the instigator-driven urge so that it was not sufficient to elicit IPV perpetration – even with a reduced threshold. This finding is consistent with broader literature that suggests that psychological flexibility is inversely related to IPV perpetration and aggression in general (e.g., Shorey et al., 2014; Tull et al., 2007) and thus acts as a disimpellor of IPV perpetration. Moreover, this finding is consistent with broader literatures that suggests ACT interventions – which focus on bolstering psychological flexibility – reduce IPV perpetration (Zarling et al., 2019; Zarling et al., 2015). This finding carries potential treatment implications for the prevention of alcohol-facilitated IPV perpetration. Specifically, among individuals who continue to use alcohol, strengthening their psychological flexibility may strengthen their ability to reduce the salience of the instigator and, as a result, attenuate the effect of proximal alcohol use on IPV perpetration. For instance, in a clinical setting, therapists may be able to target psychological flexibility through interventions (e.g., ACT) in an effort to decrease the likelihood of alcohol-facilitated IPV perpetration among at risk clients.

Second, results indicated a statistically non-significant interaction between beverage condition and trait anger. However, explication revealed that alcohol intoxication predicted higher levels of IPV perpetration among individuals who reported low, but not high, trait anger. This finding is counter to prior studies which indicate that alcohol facilitates aggression in individuals who report high levels of trait anger (e.g., Giancola, 2006; Giancola, Saucier, & Gussler-Burkhardt, 2003). The explanation for this pattern of effects is unclear. However, one potential explanation is grounded in the basic tenets of the I3 Model, which stipulate that IPV perpetration is ultimately determined by the relative balance of I3 factors (Finkel & Hall, 2018). Unlike past laboratory-based studies that examined the interaction between trait anger and alcohol intoxication, the present study examined this effect in a sample at particularly high risk for aggression (i.e., participants who endorsed a one-year pattern of heavy drinking and IPV perpetration toward their current partner). These other risk variables may also be conceptualized as impellors; thus, coupled with high trait anger, it is possible that the strength of the collective impellence in the present sample was extremely strong and resulted in a ceiling effect, such that alcohol-related depletion of inhibitory capacity did not result in a significant increase in IPV perpetration. However, for individuals who were low in trait anger, the collective impellance may have been lower and, in turn, resulted in “more room” for alcohol intoxication to exert an effect on IPV perpetration. While speculative, findings such as these underscore the continued need to consider how trait anger may interact with other I3 factors to predict when individuals will surpass their “threshold” for violence perpetration. One implication of this finding is that when deciding on interventions for IPV perpetrators, interventions aimed to decrease alcohol consumption (e.g., motivational interviewing) should potentially be the first area of clinical focus. These results echo Leonard and Quigley’s (2017) discussion that more research into factors that alter, or do not alter, the effect of alcohol on IPV is sorely needed.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations merit attention. First, the present sample only included couples comprised of cisgender, heterosexual partners. Thus, research is needed to determine whether the present results generalize to couples comprised of partners who identify as a sexual and/or gender minority. Second, given the average relationship length was approximately 4 years, it is unclear if results would generalize to shorter-term relationships (i.e., “hook-ups” or new relationships) or longer-term relationships. Importantly, research indicates that relationship length moderates the relationship between proximal anger and IPV perpetration (Elkins, Moor, McNulty, Kivisto, & Handsel, 2013). Third, participants for this study only included individuals who reported engaging in heavy episodic drinking and had a one-year history of physical or psychological IPV perpetration. While this sample was chosen in order to test hypotheses among individuals who were at greatest risk and for whom intervention development could have the highest impact, the generalizability of these effects to lower risk samples (e.g., no history of IPV, no heavy drinking) remains unclear. Similarly, those who perpetrated severe IPV, and thus could pose a risk to their partner in the laboratory, were deemed ineligible for the study. Thus, the results may not generalize to individuals who perpetrate severe acts of IPV. Similarly, the present findings are limited to physical IPV perpetration. Future studies could utilize the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations paradigm (ATSS) to measure psychological IPV or the sexual imposition paradigm (Hall, Hirschman, & Oliver, 1995) to measure sexual IPV perpetration, a relatively understudied form of IPV.

It is noteworthy that our findings did not support our hypothesized three-way Beverage X Psychological Flexibility X Trait Anger interaction. Indeed, detecting interactions, especially three-way interactions, within social behavioral science research is challenging because such interactions are typically small in size and require substantial statistical power to detect (e.g., Cohen et al., 2003). Thus, it is possible that an effect truly exists but the present study was not sufficiently powered to detect it. On the contrary, it is also possible that this interaction effect does not exist. This would suggest that our conceptualization of how these variables promote urge initiation, urge reduction, or the setting of the threshold requires revision. These interpretations are further complicated by the fact that the predicted effects may less pronounced in high-risk samples. Future research is needed to explore these various possibilities.

Finally, this study utilized the AAQ-II (Bond et al., 2011) to measure psychological flexibility. Recent research has raised potential concerns with the psychometric validity of the AAQ-II (Ong, Pierce, Woods, Twohig, & Levin, 2019; Tyndall et al., 2019; Wolgast, 2014). Collectively, these studies suggest the AAQ-II may not adequately discriminate between psychological flexibility and psychological distress. While psychological distress was initially considered a marker of psychological inflexibility (e.g., Kashdan, 2010), these psychometric concerns indicate that caution must be exercised in the interpretation of the present findings and support a call for the use of alternative measures of psychological flexibility in studies of its relation with IPV perpetration (e.g., Gámez et al., 2014; Rolffs, Rogge, & Wilson, 2018).

Conclusion

The present study utilized the I3 Model to examine the effects of trait anger (an impellor), psychological flexibility (a disimpellor), and alcohol intoxication (a disinhibitor) on intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration. Results of this study did not support our hypotheses. Significant main effects were not detected and the 3-way interaction between these predictors was not significant. However, two significant two-way interactions were detected that are consistent with the I3 Model. Results indicate that alcohol intoxication predicted higher levels of IPV perpetration in those who reported low, but not high, psychological flexibility and among those who reported low, but not high, trait anger. Taken together, the results of the present study have several potential treatment implications among alcohol-consuming clients.

Highlights.

  • Used I3 Model as guiding framework for lab-based study

  • Examined effects of trait anger, psychological flexibility, and alcohol on IPV

  • Beverage x Psychological Flexibility and Beverage x Trait Anger interactions

  • Alcohol predicted higher IPV among those with low psychological flexibility

  • Alcohol predicted higher IPV perpetration among those who reported low trait anger

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant R01-AA-020578 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism awarded to Dominic J. Parrott, Ph.D. (Georgia State University) and Christopher I. Eckhardt, Ph.D. (Purdue University).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicts of interest: none

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributor Information

Jessica L. Grom, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University.

Molly A. Maloney, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University.

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

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

References

  1. Berkowitz L (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45(4), 494–503. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.494 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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: 10.1002/ab.21432 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, et al. (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. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  4. 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. 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.01.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bond FW, & Bunce D (2003). The role of acceptance and job control in mental health, job satisfaction, and work performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1057–1067. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bond FW, Hayes SC, Baer RA, Carpenter KM, Guenole N, Orcutt HK, et al. (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 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cafferky BM, Mendez M, Anderson JR, & Stith SM (2018). Substance use and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Violence, 8, 110–131. [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlson M, Marcus-Newhall A, & Miller N (1990). Effects of situational aggression cues: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 622–633. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.622 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Carver CS, & Harmon-Jones E (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 183–204. doi: 10.1037/a0013965 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, & Aiken LS (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  12. Crane CA, & Testa M (2014). Daily associations among anger experience and intimate partner aggression within aggressive and nonaggressive community couples. Emotion, 14, 985–994. doi: 10.1037/a0036884 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Deffenbacher JL, Oetting ER, Thwaites GA, Lynch RS, Baker DA, Stark RS, et al. (1996). State-trait anger theory and the utility of the trait anger scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 131–148. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.43.2.131 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Eckhardt CI, Parrott DJ, & Massa AM (2021). Substance use and intimate partner violence perpetration. In Geffner R, White JW, Hamberger LK, Rosenbaum A, Vaughan-Eden V, & Vieth VI (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal violence across the lifespan: A project of the National Partnership to End Interpersonal Violence Across the Lifespan (NPEIV). New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  15. Elkins SR, Moore TM, McNulty JL, Kivisto AJ, & Handsel VA (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 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Finkel EJ (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 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Finkel EJ (2014). The I 3 model: Metatheory, theory, and evidence. In Olson JM, & Zanna MP (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 49, pp. 1–103). San Diego: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Finkel EJ, DeWall CN, Slotter EB, McNulty JK, Pond RS, & Atkins DC (2012). Using I 3 theory to clarify when dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 533–549. doi: 10.1037/a0025651 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Finkel EJ, & Eckhardt CI (2013). Intimate partner violence. In Simpson JA & Campbell L (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 452–474). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Finkel EJ, DeWall CN, Slotter EB, Oaten M, & Foshee VA (2009). Selfregulatory failure and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 483–499. doi: 10.1037/a0015433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Finkel EJ, & Hall AN (2018). The I 3 model: A metatheoretical framework for understanding aggression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 125–130. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Foran HM, & O’Leary KD (2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1222–1234. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gamez W, Chmielewski M, Kotov R, Ruggero C, Suzuki N, & Watson D (2014). The brief experiential avoidance questionnaire: Development and initial validation. Psychological Assessment, 26, 35–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Giancola PR, & Parrott DJ (2008). Further evidence for the validity of the Taylor Aggression Paradigm. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 214–229. 10.1002/ab.20235 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Giancola PR (2006). The influence of trait anger on the alcohol-aggression relation in men and women. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 26, 1350–1358. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000030842.77279.C4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Giancola PR, & Chermack ST (1998). Construct validity of laboratory aggression paradigms: A response to tedeschi and Quigley (1996). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 237–253. doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(97)00004-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Giancola PR, Levinson CA, Corman MD, Godlaski AJ, Morris DH, Phillips JP, et al. (2009). Men and women, alcohol and aggression. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 17, 154–164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Giancola PR, Saucier DA, & Gussler-Burkhardt NL (2003). The effects of affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of trait anger on the alcohol-aggression relation. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 27, 1944–1954. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000102414.19057.80 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Giancola PR, & Zeichner A (1995). Construct validity of a competitive reaction-time aggression paradigm. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 199–204. doi: 10.1002/1098-2337(1995)21:33.0.CO;2-Q [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Giancola PR, Josephs RA, Parrott DJ, & Duke AA (2010). Alcohol myopia revisited: Clarifying aggression and other acts of disinhibition through a distorted lens. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 265–278. 10.1177/1745691610369467 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gloster AT, Meyer AH, & Lieb R (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 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hall G, Hirschman R, & Oliver LL (1995). Sexual arousal and arousability to pedophilic stimuli in a community sample of normal men. Behavior Therapy, 26, 681–694. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hayes SC, Barnes-Holmes D, & Wilson KG (2012). Contextual Behavioral Science: Creating a science more adequate to the challenge of the human condition. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2012.09.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hayes SC, Luoma JB, Bond FW, Masuda A, & Lillis J (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1–25. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hayes SC, Strohsahl KD, & Wilson KG (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hayes SC, Wilson KG, Gifford EV, Follette VM, & Strosahl K (1996). Experiential avoidance and behavioral disorders: A functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1152–1168. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.64.6.1152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Halmos MB, Leone RM, Parrott DJ, & 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. 10.1177/0886260518801019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hyatt CS, Chester DS, Zeichner A, & Miller JD (2019). Analytic flexibility in laboratory aggression paradigms: Relations with personality traits vary (slightly) by operationalization of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 45, 377–388. 10.1002/ab.21830 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Jarvis B (2014). MediaLab (version 2014) [computer software]. New York, NY: Empirisoft Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  40. Josephs RA, & Steele CM (1990). The two faces of alcohol myopia: Attentional mediation of psychological stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 115–126. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.99.2.115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kashdan TB, & Rottenberg J (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 865–878. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lee KDM, Rodriguez LM, Edwards KM, & Neal AM (2020). Emotional dysregulation and intimate partner violence: A dyadic perspective. Psychology of Violence, 10, 162–171. doi: 10.1037/vio0000248 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Leonard KE (2005). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: When can we say that heavy drinking is a contributing cause of violence? Addiction, 100, 422–425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. 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: 10.1111/dar.12434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Maldonado RC, DiLillo D, & Hoffman L (2015). Can college students use emotion regulation strategies to alter intimate partner aggression-risk behaviors? An examination using I 3 theory. Psychology of Violence, 5, 46–55. doi: 10.1037/a0035454 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. McCracken LM (1998). Learning to live with pain: Acceptance of pain predicts adjustment in persons with chronic pain. Pain, 74, 21–27. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(97)00146-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2007). Helping patients who drink too much: A clinician’s guide. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https//pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/CliniciansGuide2005/guide.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ong CW, Pierce BG, Woods DW, Twohig MP, & Levin ME (2019). The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II: An item response theory analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 41, 123–134. doi: 10.1007/s10862-018-9694-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Parrott DJ, & Eckhardt CI (2018). Effects of alcohol on human aggression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 1–5. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Parrott DJ, Miller CA, & Hudepohl AD (2015). Immediate and short-term reactions to participation in laboratory aggression research. Psychology of Violence, 5, 209–216. 10.1037/a0035922 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Parrott DJ, & Giancola PR (2004). A further examination of the relation between trait anger and alcohol-related aggression: The role of anger control. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 28, 855–864. 10.1097/01.alc.0000128226.92708.21 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Peterson C, Kearns MC, McIntosh WL, Estefan LF, Nicolaidis C, McCollister KE, et al. (2018). Lifetime economic burden of intimate partner violence among U.S. adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 55, 433–444. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Prentice DA, & Miller DT (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160–164. [Google Scholar]
  54. Reddy MK, Meis LA, Erbes CR, Polusny MA, & Compton JS (2011). Associations among experiential avoidance, couple adjustment, and interpersonal aggression in returning Iraqi war veterans and their partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 515–520. doi: 10.1037/a0023929 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rolffs JL, Rogge RD, & Wilson KG (2018). Disentangling components of flexibility via the hexaflex model: Development and validation of the multidimensional psychological flexibility inventory (MPFI). Assessment, 25, 458–482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Shorey RC, Elmquist J, Zucosky H, Febres J, Brasfield H, & Stuart GL (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 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Shorey RC, McNulty JK, Moore TM, & Stuart GL (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 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Slotter EB, & Finkel EJ (2011). I 3 theory: Instigating, impelling, and inhibiting factors in aggression. In Milkulincer M, & Shaver PR (Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences (pp. 35–52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  59. Spielberger CD (1999). STAXI-2: The state trait anger expression inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: PAR. [Google Scholar]
  60. Spielberger CD, Jacobs G, Russell S, & Crane R (1983). Assessment of anger: The state-trait anger scale. In Butcher JN & Spielberger CD (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 159–187). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. [Google Scholar]
  61. Spielberger CD, Krasner SS, & Solomon EP (1988). The experience, expression, and control of anger. In Janisse MP (Ed.), Individual differences, stress, and health psychology. Contributions to psychology and medicine. New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  62. Spielberger CD, & Reheiser EC (2009). Assessment of emotions: Anxiety, anger, depression, and curiosity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well Being, 3, 271–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01017.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Sprunger JG, Eckhardt CI, & Parrott DJ (2015). Anger, problematic alcohol use, and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 25, 273–286. 10.1002/cbm.1976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Stith S, Smith DB, Penn CE, Ward DB, & Tritt D (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 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, & Sugarman DB (1996). The revised conflict Tactics scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Taylor SP (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality, 35, 297–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01430.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Tull MT, Jakupcak M, Paulson A, & Gratz KL (2007). The role of emotional inexpressivity and experiential avoidance in the relationship between posttraumatic stress disorder symptom severity and aggressive behavior among men exposed to interpersonal violence. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 20, 337–351. doi: 10.1080/10615800701379249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Tyndall I, Waldeck D, Pancani L, Whelan R, Roche B, & Dawson DL (2019). The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II) as a measure of experiential avoidance: Concerns over discriminant validity. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 12, 278–284. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.09.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. 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: 10.1037/adb0000074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Wolgast M (2014). What does the acceptance and action questionnaire (AAQ-II) really measure? Behavior Therapy, 45, 831–839. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2014.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Zarling A, Bannon S, & Berta M (2019). Evaluation of acceptance and commitment therapy for domestic violence offenders. Psychology of Violence, 9, 257–266. doi: 10.1037/vio0000097 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Zarling A, Lawrence E, & Marchman J (2015). A randomized controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy for aggressive behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83, 199–212. doi: 10.1037/a0037946 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES