It's Complicated: Incident- and Observer-Level Predictors of Blame and Justification for Reciprocated Psychological and Minor Physical Violence

Abstract

We examined whether incident- and observer-level factors found previously to influence blame assignment and foster justification for severe unidirectional partner aggression would replicate in the context of reciprocated psychological and minor physical dating violence. We employed a factorial vignette methodology, simultaneously varying the form of the violence (i.e., psychological or minor physical), gender of the initiator and retaliator, alcohol use, history of aggression, and commitment status. Observer-level variables included participant gender, history of dating violence perpetration and victimization, and social desirability. Using a sample of 321 undergraduates, we found that initiating violence with physical versus psychological tactics was judged comparably in terms of blame, but responding with symmetrical physical violence was viewed more negatively than the reciprocation of psychological aggression. Men’s aggression was more negatively evaluated only in situations involving physical force, except in cases where the woman’s capacity to inflict physical harm was comparable. Other characteristics of the incident (e.g., alcohol use) and observer (e.g., gender) were also relevant, but their effects were tethered to the particulars of the violent exchange or the type of attribution being solicited. Asymmetrical violence (e.g., physical response to psychological initiation) appeared to elicit the most attributional activity with respect to the predictors. Exploratory analyses also revealed that participants with intimate partner violence (IPV) histories responded differently to vignettes wherein the violence initiator had aggressed previously. The overall pattern of results highlights that attributions about dating violence are complexly determined and contextualized, and that the form and relative symmetry of the violence may shape how incident- and observer-level variables impact evaluations of blame and justification.

Alcohol, gender, and violence: Factors influencing blame for partner aggression

“…However, there are inconsistencies in the literature. Some research suggests that alcohol attenuates blame for violence (Critchlow, 1985; Tryggvesson & Bullock, 2006; Witte et al., 2015), while other studies suggest that intoxicated aggressors are viewed as more blameworthy than sober aggressors (Mattson et al., 2021; Wareham et al., 2019). Our results may help explain some of the discrepancy in the attribution literature.…”

“…While researchers have varied the amount of alcohol consumed by a perpetrator (Roach et al., 2022) or their intoxication status (Lane & Knowles, 2000; Mattson et al., 2021; Wareham et al., 2019), history of drinking—the key difference in our two intoxication conditions—has not been systematically varied in most research. One exception was Critchlow (1985), who found that men described as ‘chronic alcoholics’ were rated as less responsible than, but equally blameworthy to those depicted as ‘social drinkers’ for a group of deviant behaviors (e.g., assault, vandalism, and forgery).…”

“…When an aggressor has been depicted as having a history of violence (Mattson et al., 2021; Wareham et al., 2019), the individual is consistently viewed as more blameworthy. Similarly, intoxicated aggressors with a criminal history were viewed as more blameworthy for their violence than intoxicated aggressors with no criminal record (Wild et al., 1998).…”

“…Mattson et al. (2021) created vignettes that varied on six different factors, including type of violence (psychological or minor physical IPV), alcohol use, and perpetrator history of aggression. They presented participants with various randomized combinations of their six factors, resulting in 144 versions of the vignette.…”

“…As discussed earlier, researchers using vignettes to assess blame attributions for IPV have systematically varied, among other things, perpetrator's alcohol consumption. They have varied whether the perpetrator had consumed any alcohol (Mattson et al., 2021), had consumed one, few, or many drinks (Roach et al., 2022), or whether the perpetrator was intoxicated versus sober (Lane & Knowles, 2000; Wareham et al., 2019). However, the frequency with which a perpetrator consumes alcohol may also be an important, though less studied, factor.…”