Prospective prediction of husband marital aggression within newlywed couples.

Abstract

This study prospectively examined a social interactional model of husband marital aggression. Young couples were assessed at the time of their 1st marriage with respect to marital conflict styles, alcohol consumption, hostility, gender identity, perceived power inequity, and history of family violence. Couples were reassessed at their 1-year anniversary, and information concerning marital aggression was collected. Most of the constructs were prospectively related to husband aggression, but these relationships were largely mediated through marital conflict styles and husband alcohol consumption, which in turn were influenced by husband's hostility, gender identity, and perceived power inequity.

Daily Associations Between Alcohol Consumption and Dating Violence Perpetration Among Men and Women: Effects of Self-Regulation

“…In the spurious model, alcohol use and aggression are hypothesized to be related because of their association with a third variable that is associated with aggressive behavior, such as trait aggressivity. Although trait aggressivity or a history of aggression has been associated with subsequent aggression (Eaton et al, 2007;Roudsari et al, 2009), the relationship between alcohol and aggression typically remains signifi cant after these factors have been controlled (Kaufman-Kantor & Straus, 1990;Leonard & Senchak, 1996), suggesting that the indirect effects and spurious models may not provide the best explanation for the association between alcohol and aggression. The proximal effects model has received the most empirical support (for a review, see Shorey et al, 2011) and was the focus of our investigation.…”

Alcohol and intimate partner violence: when can we say that heavy drinking is a contributing cause of violence?

“…Leonard & Senchak 1993;McKenry, Julian, & Gavazzi 1995;see Leonard 2001 for a review). Moreover, there have been several longitudinal studies that have reported that drinking patterns are longitudinally predictive of subsequent domestic violence (Leonard & Senchak 1996;Leonard & Quigley 1999). These studies, in fact, controlled for previous domestic violence.…”

Intimate Partner Violence

“…IPV scholars have conducted little empirical work to map the domain of instigating triggers, largely because they "rarely examine domestic violence events per se" (Wilkinson & Hamerschlag, 2005), instead emphasizing dispositional or sociocultural factors. Although the suggestion that the victim plays any role in increasing or decreasing the likelihood of violence is anathema to some sociocultural perspectives and certainly delicate from any perspective, empirical evidence leaves little doubt that victim characteristics (e.g., hostility) and behaviors (e.g., initiating violence) are crucial predictors of the likelihood of IPV victimization (e.g., Leonard & Senchak, 1996;Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005;Straus, 1993). Indeed, arguments precede approximately 80 percent of IPV incidents (Eisikovits & Buchbinder, 1996;Greenfi eld et al, 1998), leading scholars to suggest that IPV may be "a confl ict negotiation strategy that is enacted when other strategies have failed and the confl ict has escalated out of control" (Lloyd & Emery, 2000, p. 56).…”