The Interactive Effects of Emotion Regulation and

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
The Interactive Effects of Emotion Regulation and Alcohol
Intoxication on Lab-Based Intimate Partner Aggression
Laura E. Watkins, David DiLillo, and Rosalita C. Maldonado
Online First Publication, April 6, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000074
CITATION
Watkins, L. E., DiLillo, D., & Maldonado, R. C. (2015, April 6). The Interactive Effects of
Emotion Regulation and Alcohol Intoxication on Lab-Based Intimate Partner Aggression.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000074
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
2015, Vol. 29, No. 2, 000
© 2015 American Psychological Association
0893-164X/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000074
The Interactive Effects of Emotion Regulation and Alcohol Intoxication on
Lab-Based Intimate Partner Aggression
Laura E. Watkins, David DiLillo, and Rosalita C. Maldonado
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
This study draws on Finkel and Eckhardt’s (2013) I3 framework to examine the interactive effects of 2
emotion regulation strategies—anger rumination (an impellance factor) and reappraisal (an inhibition
factor), and alcohol intoxication (a disinhibition factor)— on intimate partner aggression (IPA) perpetration as measured with an analogue aggression task. Participants were 69 couples recruited from a large
Midwestern university (total N ⫽ 138). Participants’ trait rumination and reappraisal were measured by
self-report. Participants were randomized individually to an alcohol or placebo condition, then recalled
an anger event while using 1 of 3 randomly assigned emotion regulation conditions (rumination,
reappraisal, or uninstructed). Following this, participants completed an analogue aggression task involving ostensibly assigning white noise blasts to their partner. Participants in the alcohol condition displayed
greater IPA than participants in the placebo condition for provoked IPA, but not unprovoked IPA. Results
also revealed interactions such that for those in the alcohol and rumination group, higher trait reappraisal
was related to lower unprovoked IPA. For provoked IPA, higher trait rumination was related to greater
IPA among those in the alcohol and rumination condition and those in the placebo and uninstructed
condition. In general, results were consistent with I3 theory, suggesting that alcohol disinhibits, rumination impels, and trait reappraisal inhibits IPA. The theoretical and clinical implications of these
findings are discussed in the context of current knowledge about the influence of alcohol intoxication and
emotion regulation strategies on IPA perpetration.
Keywords: aggression, alcohol intoxication, emotion regulation, intimate partner violence
factors that reduce risk for perpetrating IPA, by increasing one’s
ability to override their urges to aggress (e.g., high self-control).
Impellance factors increase an individual’s risk for perpetrating
aggression when he or she experiences instigation (e.g., trait anger). These three general processes can be either dispositional or
situational factors. Risk for aggression is highest when individuals
experience strong impellance factors and weak inhibition (or
strong disinhibition) factors at the time of instigation. The current
study draws on I3 framework to examine the interactive impact of
two emotion regulation strategies—anger rumination (an impellance factor) and reappraisal (an inhibition factor), and alcohol
intoxication (a disinhibition factor)— on IPA perpetration.
Intimate partner aggression (IPA) includes physical, sexual, or
psychological acts intended to cause harm to a significant other
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006). The current
study focuses on physical IPA, which occurs with alarming frequency in the Unites States and causes both physical and mental
health problems to its victims (Amar & Gennaro, 2005; Clements,
Ogle, & Sabourin, 2005; Kaura & Lohman, 2007). These adverse
effects underscore the need to examine risk factors that may lead
to IPA perpetration. The I3 theory is an integrative framework that
suggests instigation, inhibition, and impellance are three crucial
processes that underlie IPA perpetration (Finkel, 2007; Finkel &
Eckhardt, 2013). This model, which has received empirical support
(Finkel et al., 2012; Maldonado, DiLillo, Hoffman, 2015; Slotter et
al., 2012; Watkins, DiLillo, Hoffman, & Templin, 2015), proposes
that IPA perpetration occurs when individuals are unable to control
urges to aggress against an intimate partner. Instigation is the
provocation that leads an individual to have an urge to aggress
(e.g., an insulting comment from partner). Inhibition refers to
Emotion Regulation and IPA
People develop relatively stable patterns of regulating emotion
(i.e., trait emotion regulation). Yet, in particular situations, individuals are still able to engage in specific strategies that are
different from the strategies they typically use (i.e., state emotion
regulation; Gross & Thompson, 2007). Research demonstrates that
greater difficulties with emotion regulation are related to increased
IPA perpetration among both men and women (Gratz et al., 2009;
Shorey, Brasfield, Febres, & Stuart, 2011; Shorey, Cornelius, &
Idema, 2011; Stuart, Moore, Gordon, Hellmuth, Ramsey, &
Kahler, 2006; Watkins, Maldonado, & DiLillo, 2014). These findings suggest that attempts to regulate negative emotion and anger
likely impact IPA.
Two emotion regulation strategies with particular relevance to
IPA are anger rumination and reappraisal (Bettencourt, Talley,
Benjamin, & Valentine, 2006; Denson, Pedersen, Friese, Hahm, &
Laura E. Watkins, David DiLillo, and Rosalita C. Maldonado, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
This research was supported by National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism F31 AA020727 awarded to Laura E. Watkins under the supervision of David DiLillo.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura E.
Watkins, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 238
Burnett Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308. E-mail: watlaura@gmail.com
1
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2
WATKINS, DILILLO, AND MALDONADO
Roberts, 2011; Maldonado et al., 2015; Scott, DiLillo, Maldonado,
& Watkins, 2015). Attempts to regulate responses to anger through
rumination may impel IPA due to its focus on anger-inducing
memories, re-experiencing anger responses, and thoughts of revenge (Sukhodolsky, Golub, & Cromwell, 2001). Past research
shows that greater trait and state rumination are each related to
greater general aggression (Bettencourt et al., 2006; Denson et al.,
2011). In contrast, reappraisal involves actively seeking alternate
interpretations of the meaning of an emotion-eliciting event,
thereby inhibiting aggressive urges (Gross & John, 2003). High
trait reappraisal is associated with positive interpersonal outcomes,
such as sharing emotions with others and having closer relationships with friends (Gross & John, 2003), and state reappraisal is
related to less interpersonal aggression when compared to other
emotion regulation strategies, such as suppression. (Maldonado et
al., 2015; Scott et al., 2015). Together, these findings suggest that
both trait and state rumination are impellance factors that increase
risk for IPA perpetration, whereas trait and state reappraisal may
inhibit urges to aggress, thereby reducing the risk for IPA.
The relationship between trait emotion regulation and IPA may
also be impacted by in-the-moment use of emotion regulation
strategies. For example, individuals high in trait reappraisal may
be less influenced by instructions to ruminate about an anger event
and thus may experience weaker urges to aggress against a partner.
By contrast, tendencies of individuals who have high trait rumination to dwell on anger events may be enhanced when given
instructions to ruminate, leading to increased IPA. Therefore, as
suggested by the I3 theory it is important to consider how these
impellance and inhibition (both dispositional and situational) processes interact to influence IPA perpetration. In addition, I3 theory
suggests these impellance and inhibition factors may interact with
situational disinhibition factors, such as alcohol intoxication, to
impact risk for IPA.
Alcohol and IPA Perpetration
Alcohol intoxication is believed to disinhibit the urge to aggress
and increase risk for aggression through its psychopharmacological effects on perception and thought (Giancola, Josephs, Parrott &
Duke, 2010). According to the Alcohol Myopia Model (AMM;
Steele & Josephs, 1990), in situations with high inhibition conflict
(i.e., situations that have strong instigation and strong inhibition
cues), intoxicated individuals disproportionately process and respond to salient cues (Steele & Josephs, 1990). In situations
involving interpersonal aggression, the most salient cues tend to be
provoking (e.g., hearing an insult), whereas aggression-inhibiting
cues (e.g., considering the consequences of aggressive actions)
tend to be less salient. This myopic state brought on by intoxication leads to an increased risk for general interpersonal aggression
(Giancola et al., 2010).
Consistent with the AMM, empirical findings from both general
aggression (i.e., aggression toward a stranger) and IPA research
suggests that alcohol intoxication increases risk for aggression.
The general aggression literature has repeatedly shown that intoxicated individuals enact greater aggression toward confederates
than do sober participants (Bushman & Cooper, 1990; Exum,
2006). Likewise, IPA studies suggest that individuals who are
administered alcohol in the lab demonstrate greater IPA-related
behaviors than do sober individuals. For example, men who re-
ceive alcohol have greater negative verbalizations during marital
conflict discussions (Leonard & Roberts, 1998). Likewise, university students (Stappenbeck & Fromme, 2014) and partner-violent
men (Eckhardt, 2007) who receive alcohol state a greater number
of aggressive verbalizations during anger-arousing scenarios. Recent studies using daily diary methods also find that both men and
women are more likely to perpetrate IPA on days that they consume alcohol (Moore, Elkins, McNulty, Kivisto, & Handsel, 2011;
Shorey, Stuart, Moore, & McNulty, 2014; Testa & Derrick, 2014).
Further, Testa and Derrick (2014) recently demonstrated a temporal relationship between alcohol use and IPA by establishing that
the likelihood of IPA perpetration increased when alcohol was
consumed in the previous 4 hours. Together, these studies point to
alcohol intoxication as an important proximal risk factor for IPA
perpetration. Nevertheless, negative verbalizations are not a measure of physical IPA. In addition, although daily diary studies
address many limitations of traditional survey research, these
investigations rely on self-reports of drinking and aggressive behaviors and thus may be impacted by recall bias or social desirability. With the current study we use an experimental approach to
test the proximal effects of alcohol intoxication on IPA via an
analogue aggression task.
Interactions Between Emotion Regulatory
Strategies and Alcohol
The I3 theory holds that IPA results from a confluence of
instigating, impelling, and inhibiting factors. Thus, dispositional
traits that an individual brings to a situation can be moderated by
more proximal factors. As highlighted above, trait and state emotion regulation may interact to impact risk for IPA. In addition,
trait and state emotion likely interact with alcohol intoxication to
influence IPA perpetration. Ruminating about an anger-provoking
event is an internal process that may bring provoking cues to the
forefront of one’s attention, which according to the AMM, should
increase the risk of IPA when one is intoxicated. Support for this
possibility comes from findings that both trait and state rumination
interact with alcohol to predict general aggression toward strangers
(Borders, Barnwell, & Earleywine, 2007; Borders & Giancola,
2011). On the other hand, reappraisal emphasizes interpreting an
angering event in a new and less negative way and, according to
the AMM, focusing on these nonprovoking cues when intoxicated
should decrease risk for aggression. Supporting this notion are
findings that individuals high in trait reappraisal who consume
alcohol express fewer IPA intentions than those given no alcohol
(Stappenbeck & Fromme, 2014). The AMM and these initial
results suggest that alcohol will enhance the impact of rumination
and reappraisal on IPA.
Summary and Purpose of the Present Study
In sum, I3 theory and prior empirical work suggest the potential
for interactive effects of emotion regulation strategies and alcohol
on IPA perpetration. The purpose of the present study is to test
these potential interactive effects. The specific hypotheses are as
follows:
Hypothesis 1: Although the link between alcohol intoxication
and general aggression is well established, well-controlled
EMOTION REGULATION, ALCOHOL, AND AGGRESSION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
laboratory studies examining the proximal effects of alcohol
intoxication specifically on IPA are limited; thus, our first
hypothesis is that participants who are intoxicated will demonstrate greater IPA perpetration than participants who consume a placebo beverage.
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between trait rumination and
IPA will vary according to alcohol and emotion regulation
condition, such that those in the alcohol and rumination group
will have the strongest positive relationship between trait
rumination and IPA. We also expect a positive relationship
between trait rumination and IPA among those in the placebo
and uninstructed group, placebo and rumination group, and
the alcohol and uninstructed group; no association between
trait rumination and IPA is expected among those in the
placebo and reappraisal group and the alcohol and reappraisal
group.
Hypothesis 3: Relations between trait reappraisal and IPA will
also differ across the alcohol and emotion regulation conditions, such that those in the alcohol and reappraisal group will
have the strongest negative relationship between trait reappraisal and IPA. We also expect a negative relationship between trait reappraisal and IPA among those in the placebo
and uninstructed group, placebo and reappraisal group, and
the alcohol and uninstructed group; no relationship between
trait reappraisal and IPA is expected among those in the
placebo and rumination group and the alcohol and rumination
group.
Method
Participants
Participants were 69 couples recruited from a large Midwestern
university (total N ⫽ 138). One of these participants became ill
during the study, did not complete study procedures, and was
excluded from all analyses. Thus, the sample used in analyses
included 137 participants (68 women, 69 men). To participate,
individuals had to be at least 21 years old, report at least social
drinking (defined as two or more drinks at least twice a month),
and be in a committed dating relationship of at least 4 months.
Participants were an average age of 23.4 years (SD ⫽ 2.5,
range ⫽ 21–32) and had been in a relationship for a mean of 32.0
months (SD ⫽ 23.3, range ⫽ 4 –102). Participants described their
relationship as dating (44.9%), dating and living together (24.6%),
engaged (10.1%), or married or marriage-like (19.7%). Most participants were seniors (37.2%), 0.7% were freshmen, 10.2% were
juniors, 23.4% were graduate students, and 27% were not students.
The majority of participants described themselves as straight
(94.2%), 1.5% identified as lesbian, 2.9% identified as gay (male),
and 1.5% identified as bisexual. Regarding race and ethnicity,
9.5% of participants identified as Hispanic/Latino, 2.2% identified
as African American, 0.7% identified as American Indian, Native
American, or Alaskan Native, 5.8% identified as Asian or Pacific
Islander, 87% identified as White, and 3.6% identified as “other”
(participants were allowed to pick more than one category so
percentages may exceed 100%).
3
Procedures
All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board
of the home university. Participants were recruited through several
methods, including an online tool that allows undergraduate psychology students to sign up for voluntary participation in research
studies, campus-wide fliers, online advertisements on Facebook
and Craigslist, and emails sent to university students who were at
least 21 years of age. All recruitment methods stated that the study
was about alcohol, emotional processes, and relationships. Although in all cases one member of the couple was a student,
nonstudent partners were allowed to participate. Because of risks
associated with alcohol consumption and IPA research (and consistent with prior research; Eckhardt, 2007; Giancola, 2002, Giancola et al., 2009, Giancola, Godlaski, & Roth, 2012) the following
exclusion criteria were used: (a) current/past alcohol dependence,
alcohol-related treatment, or hospitalization due to alcohol use; (b)
current harmful drinking as indicated by a score of 10 or greater on
the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (Saunders, Aasland,
Babor, de la Fuente, & Grant, 1993); (c) any past serious head
injuries; (d) serious psychological symptoms; (e) abstinence from
alcohol use; (f) medical contraindications to the consumption of
alcohol; (g) presence of a positive breath alcohol concentration
(BrAC) upon arrival; (h) a positive on a urine pregnancy test
administered upon arrival; and (i) if either member of a couple
indicated two or more severe acts of physical IPA in the previous
year (e.g., beating up partner). Couples who met the initial inclusion criteria as determined over the phone were scheduled for a
single lab visit. Participants were asked to refrain from drinking
alcohol and recreational drug use 24 hours prior to their scheduled
appointment, and to refrain from eating 4 hours prior to the
appointment. Upon arrival, partners were taken to separate rooms
for the entirety of the study. Participants were provided informed
consent and screened for further eligibility criteria.
Alcohol administration. Each participant was randomly assigned to drink an alcohol or a placebo beverage. Thus, sometimes
one member of the couple received alcohol and one received the
placebo, sometimes both members received alcohol, and sometimes both members received the placebo. Men in the alcohol
condition were administered a dose of 0.80 g per kilogram of 95%
pure grain alcohol mixed at a 1:5 ratio with orange juice not from
concentrate. Because of gender differences in body fat composition, women were given a dose of 0.72 g per kilogram of alcohol.
Placebo beverages contained orange juice and four milliliters of
alcohol and alcohol was sprayed on the rim of the glass. Participants were given 20 minutes for beverage consumption. Because
of individual differences in alcohol absorption rates, participants in
the alcohol condition waited 15 to 30 minutes after finishing their
drinks before starting the next task. Specifically, if participants’
BrAC was at a level of 0.07% or above 15 minutes after finishing
their drinks, they were given the emotion regulation strategy
instructions (described below). If participants had not reached a
level of 0.07% 15 minutes after finishing their drinks, they were
given extra time to absorb the alcohol. Because placebo manipulations are effective for a short period of time (Bradlyn & Young,
1983), the placebo group was given the emotion regulation strategy instructions immediately after drink consumption.
Before and after the analogue aggression task, participants rated
how intoxicated they were on a scale from 0 (not drunk at all) to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4
WATKINS, DILILLO, AND MALDONADO
11 (more drunk than I have ever been). After the task participants
also rated how impaired they were from 0 (no impairment) to 10
(strong impairment). To determine if participants in the placebo
and alcohol condition found the alcoholic beverages to taste differently, they rated the taste of the beverages on two items. One
item was a scale from 1 (very unpleasant) to 4 (very pleasant) and
the other was a scale from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good). These two
items were summed to provide a beverage taste rating score.
Because the experience of unpleasant stimuli has been related to
negative affect and aggression (Anderson, 2001) and the two
groups differed on the taste ratings, this rating score was included
as a control variable in analyses.
Cognitive emotion regulation strategy manipulation. Using
modeling procedures described by Ray, Wilhelm, and Gross
(2008), participants identified an unresolved event or issue in their
relationship in which they became very angry with their partner
(angering event). After alcohol administration, each participant
was randomized to a rumination, reappraisal, or uninstructed condition. In each condition, participants were instructed to think
about the previously identified angering event for 2 minutes.
Participants in the rumination condition were told to “think about
[the event] from your own perspective and turn it over and over in
your mind. Focus on those things that initially made you feel and
respond the way you did” (Ray et al., 2008). Participants in the
reappraisal condition were asked to “think about [the event] from
a different perspective from the one you used earlier. For example,
you might try to see this event from the perspective of an impartial
observer” (Ray et al., 2008). Finally, the uninstructed condition
participants were asked to think about the event with no further
instructions.
Two manipulation checks were employed to ensure that (a)
recalling the event was successful in changing participants’ mood
and (b) participants adhered to the emotion regulation strategy
instructions. Participants completed a modified version of the
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark,
& Tellegen, 1988), consisting of 15 negative (e.g., “upset”) and
positive (e.g., “happy”) emotion adjectives. Participants completed
these ratings before and after event recall. Changes in positive
affect and negative affect, from pre- to postevent recall were
examined. Specific changes in anger were also examined by producing an anger summary score with five adjectives: “angry,”
“hostile,” “irritable,” “disgusted,” and “annoyed” (see also Eckhardt, 2007; Maldonado et al., 2015). Alphas for the current
sample were as follows: .75 for prerecall positive emotion, .85 for
postrecall positive emotion, .68 for prerecall negative emotion, .82
for postrecall negative emotion, .65 for prerecall anger, and .82 for
postrecall anger. Participants also rated the extent to which they
thought about the event from their own perspective or from another person’s perspective on a 5-point Likert scale.
Analogue aggression task. In vivo intimate partner aggression was measured with a competitive computer reaction time
(RT) task based on the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (Bushman &
Baumeister, 1998; Taylor, 1967). The Taylor Aggression Paradigm and other similar laboratory paradigms have received strong
support as reliable and valid measures of aggressive behavior for
both men and women (Giancola & Chermack, 1998; Hoaken &
Pihl, 2000). Participants were informed that they would play a RT
game against their partner. Participants were not actually playing
their partner; instead, the game responded to each person in the
same way. Participants were instructed to complete a series of
trials in which they press a button as quickly as possible after an
onscreen stimulus changes color. Before each trial, participants
designate a length (from 0 to 5 s) and volume (a level ranging from
0 to 10) of white noise to ostensibly be blasted over the headphones of their partner if they win and their partner loses. The
noise levels range from 1 (60 decibels) to 10 (105 decibels) in
5-decibel increments. The noise duration is recoded to range from
0 (0 s) to 10 (5 s). The 105 decibel level is uncomfortable to hear
but does not cause pain and is not harmful. Participants also have
the option of choosing 0, which produces no sound and gives a
nonaggressive alternative. Two outcome variables were created by
averaging the noise intensity and noise duration from the first trial
and the second trial. The first trial has been shown to provide the
best measure of unprovoked aggression because participants have
not yet received a blast of white noise from their ostensible
opponent (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Consistent with prior
research (Watkins et al., 2015), the second trial is a measure of
provoked aggression because it occurs following a blast of maximum intensity and duration perceived to come from the participant’s partner. Individuals’ designations on the second trial were
considered to be the best measure of provoked aggression because
this is the only trial in which participants respond to receiving the
maximum length and volume of white noise.
Positive mood induction and debriefing. After completion
of data collection (which took approximately 1.5 hours for those in
the placebo condition and approximately 2 hours for those in the
alcohol condition due to the absorption period) participants
watched two film clips that have been found to increase feelings of
contentment (Gross & Levenson, 1995). Then, all participants
were asked about their experience and thoughts about the study.
Participants were fully debriefed, verbally and in writing. Once
participants who consumed alcohol reached a BrAC of 0.03% or
lower and passed a field sobriety test, they either had a friend pick
them up or they took a study-provided taxi. Participants could
receive course credit or compensation ($10 per hour) for their
participation.
Measures
Trait rumination. The Anger Rumination Scale (ARS; Sukhodolsky et al., 2001) was used to assess trait rumination. The
ARS measures individuals’ tendency to focus on angry moods,
remember past anger experiences, and think about the causes and
consequences of anger episodes. Participants are instructed to
respond to each of 19 items on a scale from 1 (almost never) to 4
(almost always). The items are summed to form a scale score, with
higher values indicating greater rumination. The ARS has adequate
internal consistency and test–retest reliability (Sukhodolsky et al.,
2001). The internal consistency in the current sample is .90.
Trait reappraisal. Trait reappraisal was measured with the
six-item reappraisal subscale of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). Participants are instructed to
indicate how much they agree with each item on a scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The ERQ has good
internal consistency and test–retest reliability (Gross & John,
2003). The alpha for the current sample is .73.
History of IPA perpetration. To control for history of IPA
perpetration and facilitate comparison to past studies, physical IPA
EMOTION REGULATION, ALCOHOL, AND AGGRESSION
was assessed with the 12-item Physical Assault subscale from the
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). Participants indicated the frequency at which they perpetrated each
aggressive behavior against their partner during the previous 6
months from 0 (never) to 7 (more than 20 times). The number of
endorsed items was summed, with higher values indicating more
acts of IPA. For descriptive purposes, a dichotomous variable was
created indicating whether or not each individual had any perpetrated aggression in the previous six months.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Analytic Approach
Both members of each couple assigned their partner white noise.
These outcome variable observations, one from each member of a
given couple, violate the ordinary least squares regression assumption of independence, which rules out the conventional analysis of
variance approach. As such, multilevel modeling (MLM; Kenny,
Kashy, Cook, 2006) was used to examine the effects of emotion
regulation and alcohol on IPA. In the case of dyadic data, MLM
treats the data from each partner as nested scores within a group of
2. The degree of nonindependence between outcomes was estimated as a covariance with a compound symmetry covariance
structure (Campbell & Kashy, 2002; Kenny et al., 2006).
The first trial of the RT game exhibited a normal distribution
and no excess skew or kurtosis. The multilevel model for this trial
was estimated using maximum likelihood within SAS PROC
MIXED. The second trial of the RT game was censored from
above, such that about one fifth of the sample had the highest
possible value of 10, indicating that the use of methods that assume
a normal distribution of residuals would be biased. Thus, a multilevel censored regression model was used, which is a generalization of the standard Tobit model. This model quantifies the
proportion of the sample that was unable to assume any value
higher than the censoring limit of 10. The multilevel censored
model was estimated using maximum likelihood via numerical
integration within SAS PROC NLMIXED.
5
Because alcohol and emotion regulation conditions were categorical, they were dummy-coded to conduct group comparisons.
Two dummy codes were computed from the emotion regulation
strategy conditions that reflect comparisons between (a) the uninstructed group and the rumination group, and (b) the uninstructed
group and the reappraisal group. All continuous variables (e.g.,
trait emotion regulation) were centered so that 0 equaled their
mean. Interaction terms were computed by multiplying variables
together. Nonsignificant, unnecessary interactive effects were discarded one-at-a-time. In addition to the main independent variables, we controlled for gender, past IPA perpetration, recent
alcohol use and problems (AUDIT score), and beverage taste
ratings. All estimates reported in the Results section are unstandardized coefficients. A total R2 is used to describe effects size and
was calculated as the square of the correlation between the actual
outcomes and the outcomes predicted by the model fixed effects.
Results
Data Descriptives
During debriefing, six participants (4.4%) indicated they were
suspicious they were not playing their partner after completing the
first aggression trial. Thus, these participants’ second trial was not
used in analyses. One participant indicated not following the
emotion regulation directions and thus was not used in analyses
examining emotion regulation effects.
Descriptives for study variables are displayed in Table 1. Regarding physical IPA, 7.2% of men and 16.2% of women perpetrated at least one act of physical IPA during the prior 6 months.
These rates appear to be lower than what is typically found among
similar samples (e.g., 20 –30%; Shorey et al., 2008). Trait rumination was significantly negatively correlated to trait reappraisal,
r ⫽ ⫺.31, p ⬍ .01. Partners’ Trial 1 and Trial 2 aggression scores
were not significantly correlated (r ⫽ ⫺.16 and r ⫽ .09, respec-
Table 1
Descriptives for Study Variables
Men
Variable
M
SD
Trial 1
Trial 2
IPA history
Trait rumination
Trait reappraisal
AUDIT
Drinking patterns as percentage
Typical frequency
Two to four times per month
Two to three times per week
Four or more times per week
Typical quantity of standard drinks
One to two drinks
Three to four drinks
Five to six drinks
3.12
5.06
0.04
33.07
30.68
6.04a
2.02
3.46
0.27
9.12
4.63
1.01
Note. IPA ⫽ Intimate partner aggression.
a
Indicates mean is significantly higher than other gender.
Women
%
M
SD
2.56
4.91
0.15
33.25
32.28
4.94
1.65
3.39
0.47
9.82
4.84
1.78
%
46.4
40.6
13.0
51.5
47.1
1.5
43.5
44.9
11.6
50.0
50.0
0.0
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6
WATKINS, DILILLO, AND MALDONADO
tively. Individuals’ Trial 1 and Trial 2 scores were significantly
correlated, r ⫽ .49, p ⬍ .01
Alcohol manipulation. Sixty-eight participants were randomized to the alcohol condition (35 women, 33 men), whereas 69
participants were assigned to the placebo condition (33 women, 36
men). All participants in the alcohol condition reached a peak
measured BrAC of over .07%. The average BrAC in the alcohol
group was .090% (SD ⫽ 0.018) before the anger event recall and
.097% (SD ⫽ 0.018) after the RT game. Participants in the alcohol
group reported feeling significantly more intoxicated after anger
event recall, t(135) ⫽ ⫺11.90, p ⬍ .001, and after the RT game,
t(135) ⫽ ⫺9.96, p ⬍ .001, than the participants in the placebo
group. The alcohol group also reported greater impairment during
the RT game, t(135) ⫽ ⫺6.49, p ⬍ .001. These differences are
consistent with prior alcohol administration research (e.g., Giancola et al., 2012; Eckhardt, 2007). Participants in the placebo
group reported that their drinks tasted significantly better than
participants in the alcohol group, t(135) ⫽ 7.14, p ⬍ .001.
Emotion induction and emotion regulation manipulations.
Forty-four participants were randomly assigned to the rumination
condition (25 women, 19 men), 49 were assigned to the reappraisal
condition (23 women, 26 men), and 44 were assigned to the
uninstructed condition (20 women, 24 men). In the rumination
condition, 22 participants were assigned to drink alcohol and 22
participants drank the placebo beverage. In the reappraisal condition, 24 participants drank alcohol and 25 drank the placebo
beverage. In the uninstructed condition, 22 participants drank
alcohol and 21 drank the placebo beverage.
To ensure that recall of the anger-event produced the desired
changes in emotions, differences in participants’ prerecall and
postrecall emotion scores were examined as a function of emotion
regulation condition with a repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results revealed an increase in negative emotion, F(1,
133) ⫽ 3.80, p ⫽ .05, and anger, F(1, 133) ⫽ 19.08, p ⬍ .001, and
a significant decrease in positive emotion F(1, 133) ⫽ 36.69, p ⬍
.001. Reports of emotion did not differ by emotion regulation
condition for negative F(2, 133) ⫽ 1.29, p ⫽ .28, anger, F(2,
133) ⫽ 0.80, p ⫽ .45, or positive emotion, F(2, 133) ⫽ 1.03, p ⫽
.36 from pre- to postrecall. Alcohol and trait emotion regulation
were then included in the models, which showed that alcohol
impacted positive emotion, F(1, 128) ⫽ 5.63, p ⬍ .05, but not
negative emotion, F(1, 128) ⫽ 0.57, p ⫽ .61, or anger, F(1, 128) ⫽
0.26, p ⫽ .61. Follow-up analyses indicate that positive affect
decreased in both the alcohol condition, t(67) ⫽ 2.39, p ⫽ .02, and
the placebo condition, t(68) ⫽ 6.11, p ⬍ .001. Before event recall,
the alcohol and placebo condition did not differ significantly on
positive affect, t(135) ⫽ ⫺0.94, p ⫽ .35, but after event recall the
alcohol group had significantly greater positive affect than the
placebo condition, t(135) ⫽ ⫺2.58, p ⫽ .01. Both trait reappraisal
and trait rumination did not impact positive [F(1, 128) ⫽ 0.49, p ⫽
.49; F(1, 128) ⫽ 0.004, p ⫽ .95], anger [F(1, 128) ⫽ .93, p ⫽ .34;
F(1, 128) ⫽ 2.25, p ⫽ .14], or negative emotion [F(1, 128) ⫽ .74,
p ⫽ .39; F(1, 128) ⫽ 0.66, p ⫽ .42]. Overall, these results provide
consistent evidence that the anger-event recall task produced significant changes in emotion, as expected, and that emotion regulation strategies did not impact changes in emotion.
Further, responses to the in vivo strategy-use question, in which
higher scores indicate taking someone else’s perspective during
event recall and lower scores indicated taking one’s own perspec-
tive, differed among the three groups, F(2, 133) ⫽ 42.947, p ⬍
.001. Post hoc comparisons using Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test revealed that the reappraisal group mean (M ⫽
3.49, SD ⫽ 0.82) was significantly higher than the rumination
group mean (M ⫽ 1.95, SD ⫽ 0.83) and the uninstructed group
mean (M ⫽ 2.26, SD ⫽ 0.90), but that the rumination and uninstructed group means did not significantly differ. This lack of
difference between rumination and uninstructed conditions intuitively makes sense; if an individual is instructed to think about a
past personal event, he or she would most likely think about it from
his or her own perspective.
Results for Hypothesis 1
Our hypothesis that participants who were assigned to the alcohol intoxication condition would demonstrate greater IPA perpetration compared to participants who did not consume alcohol was
partially supported. The alcohol and placebo groups did not differ
in their unprovoked IPA (Trial 1; Est. ⫽ 0.41, p ⫽ .18). Yet,
consistent with hypotheses, for provoked IPA (Trial 2), participants in the alcohol group allotted 1.97 (p ⬍ .01) greater noise
levels than the participants in the placebo group.
Results for Hypothesis 2 and 3
Next, interactions between alcohol and emotion regulation and
control variables were added to the models. To ease readability,
these results are presented by outcome (i.e., unprovoked IPA and
provoked IPA).
Unprovoked IPA. The model parameters for unprovoked IPA
are displayed in Table 2. This model accounted for 25.0% of the
variance in unprovoked IPA. Two significant main effects were
found. As recent alcohol use and problems increased, unprovoked
IPA increased (Est. ⫽ 0.19, p ⫽ .03). The effect of trait rumination
was significant, indicating that as trait rumination increased, unprovoked IPA was expected to increase (Est. ⫽ 0.04, p ⫽ .02).
A significant (Est. ⫽ ⫺0.36, p ⫽ .02) negative three-way
interaction was found between alcohol intoxication, emotion regulation strategy condition (specifically uninstructed vs. rumination), and trait reappraisal. This three-way interaction revealed that
the interaction of alcohol intoxication by uninstructed-rumination
was more negative as trait reappraisal increased. To further illustrate this three-way interaction, simple effects of trait reappraisal
were also estimated (see Figure 1). These analyses indicated that
trait reappraisal was only significantly related to unprovoked IPA
among individuals who were in both the alcohol and rumination
condition. Specifically, the effect of trait reappraisal was not
significant in the placebo and uninstructed group (Est. ⫽ ⫺0.08,
p ⫽ .28), the placebo and reappraisal group (Est. ⫽ ⫺0.08, p ⫽
.35), the placebo and rumination group (Est. ⫽ 0.01, p ⫽ .87), the
alcohol and uninstructed group (Est. ⫽ 0.05, p ⫽ .44), or the
alcohol and reappraisal group (Est. ⫽ 0.07, p ⫽ .34). However,
among the alcohol and rumination group, for every one-unit increase in trait reappraisal, unprovoked IPA was expected to decrease by 0.21 (p ⬎ .01).
Provoked IPA. The final model parameters predicting Trial 2
after removing nonsignificant interactive effects are presented in
Table 3. This model accounted for 20.0% of the variance in Trial
2. No main effects emerged as significant, but a significant posi-
EMOTION REGULATION, ALCOHOL, AND AGGRESSION
7
Table 2
Parameters for Unprovoked IPA Model
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Predictors
Control variables
Gender
Beverage taste rating
IPA history
Recent alcohol use and problems
Primary IVs and interactions among IVs
Beverage condition
Uninstructed vs. Rumination
Uninstructed vs. Reappraisal
Trait rumination
Trait reappraisal
Beverage Condition ⫻ Uninstructed vs. Rumination
Beverage Condition ⫻ Uninstructed vs. Reappraisal
Beverage Condition ⫻ Trait Reappraisal
Uninstructed vs. Rumination ⫻ Trait Reappraisal
Uninstructed vs. Reappraisal ⫻ Trait Reappraisal
Beverage Condition ⫻ Uninstructed vs.
Rumination ⫻ Trait Reappraisal
Beverage Condition ⫻ Uninstructed vs.
Reappraisal ⫻ Trait Reappraisal
Est.
SE
p
⫺0.56
0.19
⫺0.34
0.19
0.33
0.23
0.33
0.08
.09
.41
.30
.03
0.12
0.32
⫺0.07
0.04
⫺0.08
0.46
0.79
0.14
0.10
⫺0.0006
0.53
0.54
0.51
0.02
0.08
0.75
0.73
0.10
0.12
0.12
.83
.55
.89
.02
.28
.54
.28
.19
.41
.99
⫺0.36
0.16
.02
0.01
0.15
.92
Note. IPA ⫽ intimate partner aggression; IV ⫽ independent variable. Uninstructed vs. rumination and
uninstructed vs. reappraisal reflect the dummy code comparisons between (a) the uninstructed group and the
rumination group and (b) the uninstructed group and the reappraisal group.
tive three-way interaction was found between alcohol intoxication,
emotion regulation condition, and trait rumination (Est. ⫽ 0.44,
p ⫽ .03). This three-way interaction revealed that the interaction of
alcohol intoxication by uninstructed-rumination was significantly
more positive as trait rumination increases. Simple effects of trait
rumination were estimated to further illustrate the three-way interaction (see Figure 2). Among individuals who were in the
placebo and uninstructed group, trait rumination positively predicted IPA on Trial 2 (Est. ⫽ .22, p ⫽ .03). The effect of trait
rumination was not significant in the placebo and reappraisal group
Figure 1. Interaction between alcohol condition, emotion regulation condition, and trait reappraisal predicting unprovoked intimate partner aggression (IPA). The midpoint on the x-axis is the mean of trait reappraisal
(31.5) and values to the left of the middle are 1 SD (26.7) and 2 SDs below
the mean (21.9), while values to the right are 1 SD (36.3) and 2 SDs above
the mean (41.0).
(Est. ⫽ 0.06, p ⫽ .47), the placebo and rumination group (Est. ⫽ 0.12,
p ⫽ .17), the alcohol and uninstructed group (Est. ⫽ ⫺0.07, p ⫽ .47), or
the alcohol and reappraisal group (Est. ⫽ ⫺0.04, p ⫽ .68). Trait
rumination did significantly predict Trial 2 IPA among the alcohol
and rumination group, such that for every one-unit increase in trait
rumination, Trial 2 IPA was expected to increase by 0.27 (p ⫽
.02).
Discussion
The present study examined the proximal effects of the emotion
regulatory strategies of anger rumination and reappraisal and alcohol intoxication on IPA perpetration. Consistent with I3 theory,
the relationship between trait emotion regulation and IPA varied
depending on the presence of a provocation following an angering
event, instructions to ruminate or reappraise the angering event,
and levels of trait rumination and reappraisal. Below we elaborate
on these findings and discuss their theoretical and clinical implications.
First, our predictions for the effects of alcohol on IPA were
partially supported. As expected, alcohol intoxication disinhibited
the urge to aggress and contributed to the emergence of greater
IPA perpetration on the second trial. This finding adds to the
literature supporting the proximal relationship between alcohol
intoxication and IPA (Eckhardt, 2007; Testa & Derrick, 2014), and
may be the first to demonstrate this effect using random assignment to alcohol conditions and in vivo measurement of IPA. In
contrast to findings from the second trial, those in the alcohol
condition did not perpetrate greater IPA on the first trial. Though
unexpected, these findings may be interpreted within the AMM.
Whereas the second trial took place after participants had been
blasted with white noise (a salient provoking cue likely to captivate the attention of intoxicated individuals), no such intense
8
WATKINS, DILILLO, AND MALDONADO
Table 3
Parameters for Provoked IPA Model
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Predictors
Control variables
Gender
Beverage taste rating
IPA history
Recent alcohol use and problems
Primary IVs and interactions among IVs
Beverage condition
Uninstructed vs. Rumination
Uninstructed vs. Reappraisal
Trait rumination
Trait reappraisal
Beverage Condition ⫻ Uninstructed vs. Rumination
Beverage Condition ⫻ Uninstructed vs. Reappraisal
Beverage Condition ⫻ Trait Rumination
Uninstructed vs. Reappraisal ⫻ Trait Rumination
Uninstructed vs. Rumination ⫻ Trait Rumination
Beverage Condition ⫻ Uninstructed vs. Reappraisal ⫻
Trait Rumination
Beverage Condition ⫻ Uninstructed vs. Rumination ⫻
Trait Rumination
Est.
SE
p
⫺0.16
0.08
⫺1.06
0.26
0.74
0.55
0.78
0.20
.83
.89
.18
.19
1.50
1.20
0.28
0.22
⫺0.10
0.83
1.00
⫺0.28
⫺0.16
⫺0.09
1.25
1.20
1.16
0.09
0.08
1.76
1.75
0.13
0.12
0.13
.23
.32
.81
.03
.21
.64
.57
.03
.19
.46
0.19
0.18
.30
0.44
0.19
.03
Note. IPA ⫽ intimate partner aggression; IV ⫽ independent variable. Uninstructed vs. rumination and
uninstructed vs. reappraisal reflect the dummy code comparisons between: 1) the uninstructed group and the
rumination group, and 2) the uninstructed group and the reappraisal group.
provocation occurred in the first trial, reducing the risk of myopiarelated aggression among those in the drinking condition.
Consistent with I3 theory, trait reappraisal, state rumination, and
alcohol intoxication interacted to predict unprovoked IPA. However, unexpectedly, higher trait reappraisal was associated with
less IPA only among individuals in the alcohol and rumination
conditions. Although we did not expect this relationship among
these conditions, it is somewhat consistent with the I3 model and
has important implications. Those lower in trait reappraisal and
who were in the rumination and alcohol conditions displayed the
Figure 2. Interaction between alcohol condition, emotion regulation condition, and trait rumination predicting provoked intimate partner aggression (IPA). Because, 2 SDs below the trait rumination mean was not in the
sample’s range of values it is not included in this graph. The trait rumination mean is the second value from the left in Figure 2. Values increase
by 1 SD away from the mean.
highest levels of unprovoked IPA. Individuals with lower trait
reappraisal may have succumbed to the disinhibiting properties of
alcohol and impelling effects of rumination, leaving them less able
to control urges to aggress against their partners. Conversely, the
regular use of reappraisal may be a protective (inhibiting) factor
against IPA perpetration, even in the presence of intoxication and
rumination. Thus, those higher in trait reappraisal may have resisted aggressive urges brought on by alcohol and rumination by
using skills such as considering their partner’s perspective when
recalling the anger event. If so, these findings suggest that regular
use of reappraisal may enable one to redirect alcohol’s myopic
effect to less provoking cues as well as counteract the preservative
qualities of rumination, at least as they relate to IPA. This potential
benefit of trait reappraisal is consistent with recent evidence that
regular use of reappraisal in response to partner conflict is associated with gains in marital quality over time (Finkel, Slotter,
Luchies, Walton, & Gross, 2013).
With further provocation (i.e., being blasted by white noise
ostensibly from one’s partner), trait and instructed rumination
interacted with alcohol intoxication to predict greater IPA perpetration. Consistent with I3 theory, and as expected, when individuals experienced a strong instigation, the impelling influences of
high trait rumination, and ruminated about an angering event,
alcohol intoxication appears to have disinhibited the ability to
control aggressive urges. This finding comports with the AMM by
suggesting that among high trait ruminators who were intoxicated,
the provoking cue of the intense noise blast on the first trial was
highly salient—more so than nonprovoking cues (e.g., that retaliating with a high blast may hurt their partner or result in greater
retaliation from their partner on the next trial)—resulting in greater
aggression on the second trial. In addition, higher trait rumination
impelled sober individuals who received no emotion regulation
instructions to perpetrate greater Trial 2 IPA. This finding suggests
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
EMOTION REGULATION, ALCOHOL, AND AGGRESSION
that after dwelling on a past conflict with their intimate partner and
being provoked by a partner, high trait ruminators may resort to
aggression more often than do low trait ruminators.
Although the influence of alcohol intoxication and emotion
regulation strategies worked similarly across genders, men exhibited greater unprovoked aggression than women when controlling
for other predictors. Although past research has found men to
aggress at higher levels than women on lab-based paradigms
(DeSteno, Valdesolo, & Bartlett, 2006; Giancola et al., 2009), a
previous study with couples using the same aggression paradigm
used here found no gender differences (Watkins et al., 2015).
Further, the finding that the effect of alcohol on IPA did not vary
across genders differs from past studies showing a stronger relationship between alcohol and general aggression among men (Giancola, 2002; Hoaken & Pihl, 2000). Nevertheless, the present
finding is consistent with results from a daily diary study, which
found no gender differences in the impact of drinking on IPA
(Testa & Derrick, 2014). It is possible that the effect of alcohol
differs across genders for general aggression, but not for IPA.
Given that women perpetrate IPA at similar or slightly higher rates
than men (Archer, 2000), alcohol may influence each gender’s IPA
perpetration similarly.
Limitations of this study suggest directions for future research.
First, the sample consisted primarily of European Americans who
were students at a large university. These factors, as well as the
extensive exclusion criteria required to conduct alcohol administration studies, limit the generalizability of the results. It is important for future research to examine the effects of alcohol and
emotion regulation strategies among community couples and individuals with a more severe IPA history. Finally, although a
strength of the current study was the inclusion of a RT task to
measure in vivo IPA, some argue that laboratory-based aggression
paradigms are not the best indicators of actual aggression (see
Tedeschi & Quigley, 1996 and Giancola & Chermack, 1998 for a
rebuttal). In addition, we used the second trial as a measure of
provoked aggression, which has limited use in prior research.
Future work should examine the correspondence of these reactions
to everyday acts of provoked aggression. Further, using this task
with a sample of couples produced some challenges. For example,
several participants reported that they became aware that they were
not playing their partner during the task. Participants may have
become suspicious because the maximum blast of noise they
received on the first trial could have been an atypical behavior for
their partner. Future research could develop and examine different
analogue IPA tasks to determine the task with the best external
validity. Finally, our study did not include a no-alcohol control
group. Although meta-analytic studies find no differences between
no-alcohol and placebo control groups, placebo groups may sometimes produce compensatory responses that could reduce aggression compared to no-alcohol control groups (Bushman & Cooper,
1990). Future studies could include a no-alcohol control group.
Given that the current study was conducted among relatively
low-risk couples who were asked to recall a conflict (rather than
engage in an actual argument), these interactive effects may be
stronger among higher risk couples in a natural setting (couples
drinking at higher levels and engaging in actual conflicts with each
other). Further work is needed to examine the interactive effects of
alcohol intoxication and emotion regulation strategies during conflict. Our finding that alcohol intoxication may increase IPA un-
9
derscores the importance of addressing alcohol use in IPA treatment programs (see, e.g., O’Farrell, Fals-Stewart, Murphy, &
Murphy, 2003). Results further suggest that interventions that
focus on building emotion regulation skills may help to reduce
IPA. For example, those low in trait reappraisal may benefit from
a series of brief trainings to boost the regular use of reappraisal.
Past research indicates that eight 10-min reappraisal trainings over
the course of a semester can increase trait reappraisal (Barlett &
Anderson, 2011). Further, regular use of reappraisal rather than
in-the-moment instructed reappraisal has the potential to help
intoxicated individuals’ redirect myopic attention to less provoking cues (i.e., by taking another’s perspective rather than their
own). Finally, mindfulness training and cognitive– behavioral therapies that explicitly target rumination have been found to reduce
ruminative thinking associated with depression (Deyo, Wilson,
Ong, & Koopman, 2009; Watkins et al., 2007). These interventions
could potentially be adapted for individuals prone to anger rumination.
Overall this study suggests the importance of alcohol intoxication and emotion regulation as predictors of partner aggression.
Most notably, the consistent use of reappraisal appears to serve as
a protective factor for IPA even when intoxicated, whereas anger
rumination exacerbates the likelihood of physically harming one’s
partner while under the influence of alcohol. This study highlights
the need to teach reappraisal strategies and address ruminative
thinking styles and alcohol use in IPA prevention programs and
interventions.
References
Amar, A. F., & Gennaro, S. (2005). Dating violence in college women:
Associated physical injury, healthcare usage, and mental health symptoms. Nursing Research, 54, 235–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
00006199-200507000-00005
Anderson, C. A. (2001). Heat and violence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 33–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00109
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual
partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651– 680.
Barlett, C. P., & Anderson, C. A. (2011). Reappraising the situation and its
impact on aggressive behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1564 –1573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211423671
Bettencourt, B. A., Talley, A., Benjamin, A. J., & Valentine, J. (2006).
Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 751–777.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.751
Borders, A., Barnwell, S. S., & Earleywine, M. (2007). Alcohol-aggression
expectancies and dispositional rumination moderate the effect of alcohol
consumption on alcohol-related aggression and hostility. Aggressive
Behavior, 33, 327–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20187
Borders, A., & Giancola, P. R. (2011). Trait and state hostile rumination
facilitate alcohol-related aggression. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and
Drugs, 72, 545–554.
Bradlyn, A. S., & Young, L. D. (1983). Parameters influencing the effectiveness of the balanced placebo design in alcohol research. In L.
Pohorecky & J. Brick (Eds.), Stress and alcohol use (pp. 87–104).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or
self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219 –229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10
WATKINS, DILILLO, AND MALDONADO
Bushman, B. J., & Cooper, H. M. (1990). Effects of alcohol on human
aggression: An integrative research review. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
341–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.341
Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and
interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A
user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00023
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Understanding intimate partner violence. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Clements, C., Ogle, R., & Sabourin, C. (2005). Perceived control and
emotional status in abusive college student relationships: An exploration
of gender differences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1058 –
1077. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260505277939
Denson, T. F., Pedersen, W. C., Friese, M., Hahm, A., & Roberts, L.
(2011). Understanding impulsive aggression: Angry rumination and
reduced self-control capacity are mechanisms underlying the
provocation-aggression relationship. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 37, 850 – 862. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211401420
DeSteno, D., Valdesolo, P., & Bartlett, M. Y. (2006). Jealousy and the
threatened self: Getting to the heart of the green-eyed monster. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 626 – 641.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.626
Deyo, M., Wilson, K. A., Ong, J., & Koopman, C. (2009). Mindfulness and
rumination: Does mindfulness training lead to reductions in the ruminative thinking associated with depression? EXPLORE, 5, 265–271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2009.06.005
Eckhardt, C. I. (2007). Effects of alcohol intoxication on anger experience
and expression among partner assaultive men. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 75, 61–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X
.75.1.61
Exum, M. L. (2006). Alcohol and aggression: An integration of findings
from experimental studies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 131–145.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.01.008
Finkel, E. J. (2007). Impelling and inhibiting forces in the perpetration of
intimate partner violence. Review of General Psychology, 11, 193–207.
Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., McNulty, J. K., Pond, R. S., Jr.,
& Atkins, D. C. (2012). Using I3 theory to clarify when dispositional
aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 533–549. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0025651
Finkel, E. J., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2013). Intimate partner violence. In J. A.
Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 452– 474). New York, NY: Oxford.
Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross, J. J.
(2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves
marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24, 1595–1601. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612474938
Giancola, P. R. (2002). Irritability, acute alcohol consumption and aggressive behavior in men and women. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68,
263–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(02)00221-1
Giancola, P. R., & Chermack, S. T. (1998). Construct validity of laboratory
aggression paradigms. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 237–253.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(97)00004-9
Giancola, P. R., Godlaski, A. J., & Roth, R. M. (2012). Identifying
component-processes of executive functioning that serve as risk factors
for the alcohol-aggression relation. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
26, 201–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025207
Giancola, P. R., Josephs, R. A., Parrott, D. J., & Duke, A. A. (2010).
Alcohol myopia revisited: Clarifying aggression and other acts of disinhibition through a distorted lens. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 265–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369467
Giancola, P. R., Levinson, C. A., Corman, M. D., Godlaski, A. J., Morris,
D. H., Phillips, J. P., & Holt, J. C. D. (2009). Men and women, alcohol
and aggression. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 17,
154 –164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016385
Gratz, K. L., Paulson, A., Jakupcak, M., & Tull, M. T. (2009). Exploring
the relationship between childhood maltreatment and intimate partner
abuse: Gender differences in the mediating role of emotion dysregulation. Violence and Victims, 24, 68 – 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/08866708.24.1.68
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348 –362.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotion elicitation using films.
Cognition and Emotion, 9, 87–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02699939508408966
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation conceptual
foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp.
3–24). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hoaken, P. N. S., & Pihl, R. O. (2000). The effects of alcohol intoxication
on aggressive responses in men and women. Alcohol and Alcoholism
(Oxford, Oxfordshire), 35, 471– 477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/35
.5.471
Kaura, S. A., & Lohman, B. J. (2007). Dating violence victimization,
relationship satisfaction, mental health problems, and acceptability of
violence: A comparison of men and women. Journal of Family Violence,
22, 367–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9092-0
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Leonard, K. E., & Roberts, L. J. (1998). The effects of alcohol on the
marital interactions of aggressive and nonaggressive husbands and their
wives. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 602– 615. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-843X.107.4.602
Maldonado, R. C., DiLillo, D., & Hoffman, L. (2015). Can college students
use emotion regulation strategies to alter intimate partner aggression-risk
behaviors? An examination using I3 theory. Psychology of Violence, 5,
46 –55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035454
Moore, T. M., Elkins, S. R., McNulty, J. K., Kivisto, A. J., & Handsel,
V. A. (2011). Alcohol use and intimate partner violence perpetration
among college students: Assessing the temporal association using electronic diary technology. Psychology of Violence, 1, 315–328. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0025077
O’Farrell, T. J., Fals-Stewart, W., Murphy, M., & Murphy, C. M. (2003).
Partner violence before and after individually based alcoholism treatment for male alcoholic patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 71, 92–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.1.92
Ray, R. D., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2008). All in the mind’s eye?
Anger rumination and reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94, 133–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.133
Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., de la Fuente, J. R., & Grant,
M. (1993). Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test
(AUDIT). Addiction, 88, 791– 804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.13600443.1993.tb02093.x
Scott, J. P., DiLillo, D., Maldonado, R. C., & Watkins, L. E. (2015).
Negative urgency and emotion regulation strategy use: Associations
with displaced aggression. Aggressive Behavior. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/AB.21588
Shorey, R. C., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., & Stuart, G. L. (2011). An
examination of the association between difficulties with emotion regulation and dating violence perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20, 870 – 885. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926771
.2011.629342
Shorey, R. C., Cornelius, T. L., & Bell, K. M. (2008). A critical review of
theoretical frameworks for dating violence: Comparing the dating and
marital fields. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 185–194. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.03.003
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
EMOTION REGULATION, ALCOHOL, AND AGGRESSION
Shorey, R. C., Cornelius, T. L., & Idema, C. (2011). Trait anger as a
mediator of difficulties with emotion regulation and female-perpetrated
psychological aggression. Violence and Victims, 26, 271–282. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.26.3.271
Shorey, R. C., Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., & McNulty, J. K. (2014). The
temporal relationship between alcohol, marijuana, angry affect, and
dating violence perpetration: A daily diary study with female college
students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28, 516 –523. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0034648
Slotter, E. B., Finkel, E. J., Dewall, C. N., Pond, R. S., Jr., Lambert, N. M.,
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Putting the brakes on
aggression toward a romantic partner: The inhibitory influence of relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102, 291–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024915
Stappenbeck, C. A., & Fromme, K. (2014). The effects of alcohol, emotion
regulation, and emotional arousal on the dating aggression intentions of
men and women. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28, 10 –19. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032204
Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia. Its prized and
dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45, 921–933. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996).
The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001
Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Gordon, K. C., Hellmuth, J. C., Ramsey, S. E.,
& Kahler, C. W. (2006). Reasons for intimate partner violence perpetration among arrested women. Violence Against Women, 12, 609 – 621.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801206290173
Sukhodolsky, D. G., Golub, A., & Cromwell, E. N. (2001). Development
and validation of the Anger Rumination Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 689 –700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01918869(00)00171-9
11
Taylor, S. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a
function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal
of Personality, 35, 297–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967
.tb01430.x
Tedeschi, J. T. & Quigley, B. M. (1996). Limitations of laboratory paradigms for studying aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1,
163–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1359-1789(95)00014-3
Testa, M., & Derrick, J. L. (2014). A daily process examination of the
temporal association between alcohol use and verbal and physical aggression in community couples. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28,
127–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032988
Watkins, E., Scott, J., Wingrove, J., Rimes, K., Bathurst, N., Steiner, H.,
. . . Malliaris, Y. (2007). Rumination-focused cognitive behaviour therapy for residual depression: A case series. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 45, 2144 –2154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.09.018
Watkins, L. E., DiLillo, D., Hoffman, L., & Templin, J. (2015). Do
self-control depletion and negative emotion contribute to intimate partner aggression? A lab-based study. Psychology of Violence, 5, 35– 45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033955
Watkins, L. E., Maldonado, R. C., & DiLillo, D. (2014). Hazardous alcohol
use and intimate partner aggression among dating couples: The role of
impulse control difficulties. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 369 –381. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21528
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Received August 16, 2014
Revision received February 14, 2015
Accepted February 17, 2015 䡲