Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Psychology Theses & Dissertations Psychology Spring 2010 An Experimental Analysis of Couple Aggression Using a Response Choice Paradigm Claudia R. Viggiano Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds Part of the Clinical Psychology Commons, Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence Commons, Experimental Analysis of Behavior Commons, and the Social Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Viggiano, Claudia R.. "An Experimental Analysis of Couple Aggression Using a Response Choice Paradigm" (2010). Doctor of Psychology (PsyD), dissertation, Psychology, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/9k6a-2j14 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/324 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Psychology Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF COUPLE AGGRESSION USING A RESPONSE CHOICE PARADIGM by Claudia R. Viggiano B.A. 2001, New York University M.A. 2007, Norfolk State University A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculties of The College of William and Mary Eastern Virginia Medical School Norfolk State University Old Dominion University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PSYCHOLOGY CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY VIRGINIA CONSORTIUM PROGRAM IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY May 2010 The College of William & Mary he College ofWilliam & Mary ABSTRACT AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF COUPLE AGGRESSION USING A RESPONSE CHOICE PARADIGM Claudia R. Viggiano Virginia Consortium Program in Clinical Psychology, 2010 Director: Dr. Constance Pilkington Research suggests that a majority of the violence reported by couples involves mutual, low-level acts of aggression; however, there is a dearth of research examining this "common couple violence" using a true experimental paradigm. The current study was designed to more closely approximate a naturalistic situation involving common couple violence by allowing participants to choose whether to retaliate in the face of provocation by their partner. Couples were randomly assigned to four conditions representing different patterns of provocation. Based on the assigned condition, participants received varying amounts of bad tasting juice allegedly poured for them by their partners across 5 experimental trials. Building on the response choice methodology of Zeichner, Parrott, and Frey (2003), participants had the option to respond to their partners' aggression by pouring either a neutral flavored beverage (water) or the bad juice. Of interest was the number of trials that would elapse prior to an individual's decision to retaliate (flashpoint latency) as well as the amount of bad juice poured (flashpoint intensity). Individual and relationship variables were examined as they related to a participant's decision to aggress and the intensity of the aggressive response. Flashpoint latency did not vary as a function of condition. Gender differences were not found with regard to overall aggression, although male participants aggressed earlier than female participants. Participants in the Decreasing Provocation condition poured more juice on the flashpoint trial than those in the Increasing Provocation Condition. Partial support was obtained for the prediction that participants would respond in kind to the level of provocation received. Flashpoint latency did not vary as a function of individual or relationship variables. Increased irritability was related to increased flashpoint aggression. In addition, the greater the degree of irritability and emotional susceptibility reported by participants, the more aggression they displayed over the course of the experiment. Hypotheses regarding the relationship between trait anger and aggression were not supported. Flashpoint behavior did not vary as a function of relationship commitment or aggression levels. Implications of these and other findings, as well as methodological limitations and directions for future research are discussed. iv Copyright, 2010, by Claudia R. Viggiano, All Rights Reserved. V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I extend many thanks to my chairperson, Dr. Constance Pilkington, for her mentoring and encouragement throughout this project. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Robin Lewis, my program advisor and committee member, for her support and guidance throughout my graduate experience. I owe many thanks to my wonderful parents, Michael and Dianne, for their love, support, and unconditional acceptance. I would also like to thank my sister Noelle, my constant cheerleader. Finally, I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Kevin Tsang for his friendship and assistance throughout this project. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE OCCURRENCE OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 6 INDIVIDUAL RISK FACTORS FOR PARTNER AGGRESSION 9 RELATIONSHIP DYNAMICS 18 ACCOMMODATION PROCESSES IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS 22 LABORATORY STUDIES OF AGGRESSION 27 THE CURRENT STUDY 32 HYPOTHESES 34 II. METHOD 37 PARTICIPANTS 37 MATERIALS 37 PROCEDURE 46 III. RESULTS 51 FLASHPOINT BEHAVIOR AND GENDER COMPARISONS ACROSS CONDITIONS 51 AGGRESSION ACROSS TRIALS 52 TEMPERAMENT VARIABLES 56 INVESTMENT MODEL VARIABLES 57 PRIOR RELATIONSHIP AGGRESSION 58 TRIAL 1 BEHAVIOR: UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION 59 POST-MANIPULATION ANALYSES 59 IV. DISCUSSION 64 SUMMARY OF FLASHPOINT BEHAVIOR RESULTS 65 SUMMARY OF AGGRESSION ACROSS TRIALS RESULTS 69 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON TEMPERAMENT VARIABLES 70 SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT MODEL FINDINGS 72 SUMMARY OF PRIOR RELATIONSHIP AGGRESSION FINDINGS 74 SUMMARY OF POST-MANIPULATION FINDINGS 75 METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS 77 CONCLUSIONS 78 vii REFERENCES 82 APPENDICES A. SOP AS: SUBTLE AND OVERT PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE OF WOMEN SCALE ("PARTNER ASSESSMENT FORM - WOMEN") 93 B. SOP AS: SUBTLE AND OVERT PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE OF MEN SCALE ("PARTNER ASSESSMENT FORM - MEN") 95 C. COMBINED CTS-2 & SVAW/MS ("RELATIONSHIP BEHAVIORS") ....97 D. INVESTMENT MODEL SCALE ("RELATIONSHIP ASSESSMENT INVENTORY") 100 E. STATE-TRAIT ANGER SCALE ("SELF-EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE") 106 F. IRRITABILITY & EMOTIONAL SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALES ("PERSONAL RESPONSES SCALE") 107 G. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 109 H. POST-JUICE FEELINGS QUESTIONNAIRE 110 I. VERBATIM SCRIPT 112 J. INFORMED CONSENT FORM 117 K. MAZES 118 L. FOLLOW-UP E-MAIL 122 VITA. 123 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Amount of juice poured on flashpoint trial by provocation condition 53 2. Amount of juice poured as a function of provocation level and trial 55 3. Condition main effects for liking and trusting one's partner 61 4. Condition main effects for feeling angry with and wronged by one's partner.... 63 1 CHAPTERI INTRODUCTION The National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000a) revealed that approximately 1.5 million women and 835,000 men become victims of intimate partner violence in the United States each year. Findings indicating that 22% of women and 7% percent of men reported being physically assaulted by an intimate at some point in their lifetime highlight the pervasiveness of intimate partner abuse in the United States. Furthermore, Frieze (2005) posited that statistics regarding the prevalence of partner violence are likely to underestimate actual rates as a result of partners' reluctance to report such incidents accurately. Studies examining the occurrence of violence in intimate relationships have produced varying results. In a national study of married couples, Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz (1980) found that 28% of couples reported having experienced some form of violence during their marriage. One-third of the violent incidents reported by those couples represented serious assaults, such as punching, biting, or assaults with a knife or gun. Bradbury and Lawrence (1999) examined aggression in a community sample of recently married couples and reported that 48% of these dyads indicated they experienced physical aggression in their relationship. In a study comparing the rate of physical assault in married, cohabitating, and dating couples, Stets and Straus (1989) reported that the highest rate of assault and most This dissertation is formatted in accordance with the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.), 2001. 2 severe forms of violence occurred among cohabitating couples, with 35% of those couples reporting a physical assault in their relationships during the previous year. Stets and Henderson (1991) examined conflict tactics in a random, national sample of dating couples. They reported a 30% prevalence rate for violent acts during the previous year. Makepeace (1981) conducted one of the first studies of dating violence in college students. He found that one in five students had personally experienced at least one incident of dating violence. Subsequent studies on dating aggression amongst high school and college students have indicated prevalence rates falling between 20 and 50 percent (Arias, Samios, & O'Leary, 1987; Bernard & Bernard, 1983; Stacy, Schandel, Flannery, Conlon, & Milardo, 1994; Watson, Cascardi, Avery-Leaf, & O'Leary, 2001). Differences in prevalence rates may be understood when examining how violence is defined in these studies, the context within which the violent acts occur, and the methodological and sampling procedures employed. The National Violence Against Women Survey defined physical