TESTING TWO MODELS OF IPV SUBTYPES IN A
MIXED-GENDER ADOLESCENT SAMPLE
By
Parker Lee Huston

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Psychology
2012

ABSTRACT
TESTING TWO MODELS OF IPV SUBTYPES IN
A MIXED-GENDER ADOLESCENT SAMPLE
By
Parker Lee Huston

The current study was designed to test two theoretically driven models of intimate partner
violence (IPV) in a mixed-gender sample of adolescents. Johnson (2006) proposed two subtypes
of IPV, situational couple violence (SCV) and coercive controlling violence (CCV), to account
for disparate findings in prevalence, severity, and gender symmetry of IPV perpetration.
Research on these subtypes suggests they are associated with different patterns of emotional and
behavioral regulation, personality traits, and physiological reactivity, all of which may originate
in childhood. Theories of the intergenerational transmission of IPV suggest that family violence,
including exposure to parental IPV and child maltreatment, may influence the development of
these variables. Additionally, there is little research on whether models of IPV function similarly
for males and females, especially in adolescence. Thus, the current study was designed to test
separate models of SCV and CCV, including the influence of childhood exposure to parental IPV
and child maltreatment, on emotion regulation and behavioral self-control, personality traits,
physiological reactivity, and IPV subtypes. These models were tested using a mixed-gender,
late-adolescent sample. The results suggest that SCV and CCV have separate pathways and
related individual characteristics, but can originate from common experiences of family violence
and childhood maltreatment. This is important in that it both supports previous research which
demonstrated the deleterious impact of family violence and maltreatment on later involvement of
IPV (Ireland & Smith, 2009) and furthers our understanding of the role of individual differences

in the types of violence which might be perpetrated later in life. The current study also found
relatively equal distribution of both psychopathy traits and CCV across genders, which is
different from previous research in these areas. Implications of these findings and suggestions
for further research are also discussed.

DEDICATION
To my wonderful wife Dana for all her support and tolerance;
To my parents, John and Diana Huston, for setting a wonderful example
and for their unconditional support and positive reinforcement;
To my brothers for supporting me and challenging me to
be as successful as they have become;
From the bottom of my heart, I thank you.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my dissertation chair and advisor over
the past 6 years, Dr. G. Anne Bogat, for helping me to grow a tremendous amount in many
aspects of life. In all honesty, I could not have done this without her. Her support encouraged
me to become more humble, thoughtful, inquisitive, and self-motivated; qualities that I hope I
can maintain long into the future.
I would also like to thank Dr. Alex von Eye for acting as a constant sounding board for
methodological and statistical problems. Alex’s interpersonal style, teaching acumen, thirst for
knowledge, and mid-range jump-shot have been inspirational to me. He has selflessly given
many hours of his time to me as this project was conceived, planned, executed, and evaluated.
I must also thank Drs. Davidson, Moser, and Maxwell for guiding me through the
dissertation process and helping to make this project a successful one. They offered many
helpful suggestions and constructive criticisms that challenged me to find novel solutions to
unforeseen problems and to design the best study I could. Dr. Moser also offered his lab space
for me to use in collecting some data and allowed me to venture into a new realm of study for
this project.
I am also very thankful for the undergraduate research assistants who helped in the data
collection for this project; Carli Boyer and Jooi Dave. In Dr. Moser’s lab, Tim Moran and Alex
Jendrusina helped me in developing the technical aspects of the data collection and with
processing the data. Many thanks also to The Graduate School of Michigan State University for
helping to fund this project.

v

There are so many people who have been integral parts of my experience at Michigan
State. I cannot name them all here, but there are a few who stand out and must be recognized.
First of all, my wife Dana has been a blessing to have by my side for the past 6 years. She has
grounded me and constantly reminded me not to take myself and my work too seriously. Lia
Field has been the best lab-mate and tailgating diva anyone could hope for and Audie Black has
been the best partner-in-crime and instigator-of-good-times-at-the-end-of-a-hard-day. I also
want to single out Jeff Nibert and Brooke Bluestein, Jesse Bledsoe, and Saleem Hue Penny for
their support and encouragement. I am honestly blessed to have them in my corner.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my extended family for supporting me over more
than the past 6 years. My parents- and sister-in-law, Karen, Keith, and Megan Ansley, have been
incredibly supportive of me, especially during difficult times. Kara Huston and Erin Nichol have
also been a huge part of my life since they joined our family, I am lucky to have them as sisters.
Jasey and Syd Schnaars and Helen and Bruce Andersson have been like surrogate parents to me
and have a huge influence on who I am today. Last but not least, my best friend Anthony
Andersson has been constantly available and supportive since I was 4 years old. I cannot express
enough thanks to all of them.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………. ix
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………x
CHAPTER 1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………….. 3
Review of relevant research on IPV…………………..…………………………… 5
IPV and batterer typologies………………………………………………………... 11
CHAPTER 2
Model 1: Situational couple violence……………………………………………………… 14
Behavioral self-control……………………………………………………………...14
Emotion dysregulation and hyper-arousal symptoms.…...………………………… 16
CHAPTER 3
Model 2: Coercive controlling violence…………………………………………………… 22
Primary psychopathic traits………...……………………………………………….23
Emotional numbing…………………………………...……………………………. 27
CHAPTER 4
Summary and hypotheses………………………………………………………………….. 30
CHAPTER 5
Method…………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
Participant recruitment……………………………………………………………... 33
Measures…………………………………………………………………………… 35
Procedures………………………………………………………………………….. 43
Classification of SCV and CCV…………………………………………………… 43
CHAPTER 6
Results……………………………………………………………………………………… 46
Data preparation……………………………………………………………………. 46
SCV results………………………………………………………………………… 50
CCV results………………………………………………………………………… 58
CHAPTER 7
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………….. 70
Situational couple violence findings……………………………………………….. 72
Coercive controlling violence findings…………………………………………….. 75
Gender analysis findings…………………………………………………………… 78
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………. 80
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………. 81
vii

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………... 84
Appendix A – Measures…………………………………………………………… 85
Appendix B – Consent form.………………………………………………………. 114
Appendix C – Figures not included in the text…………………………………….. 117
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………….. 120

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:

Descriptive statistics for the current sample as well as
the matched groups………………………………………………………… 34

Table 2:

Means and standard deviations for all variables in the full sample,
CCV, SCV, and by gender ………………...………………………………. 47

Table 3:

Correlation matrix for all variables in the study…………………………… 49

Table 4:

Follow-up regression results for hypothesis 1b……………………………. 54

Table 5:

Follow-up regression results for hypothesis 1d……………………………. 55

Table 6:

Intercorrelations between CCV perpetration and demographic variables…. 59

Table 7:

Summary of regression analysis for childhood experiences
predicting emotional numbing using the full sample…………….………… 61

Table 8:

Summary of regression analysis for childhood experiences
predicting emotional numbing using the matched sample…………………. 62

Table 9:

Summary of regression analysis for childhood experiences predicting
primary and secondary psychopathy using the full sample………………... 63

Table 10:

Summary of regression analysis for childhood experiences
predicting psychopathy using the matched sample……………………….... 64

Table 11:

Summary of regression analysis to test mediation
using the matched sample………………………………………………….. 67

Table 12:

Summary of bootstrapped regression analysis by gender
using the matched sample…………………………………………………. 69

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:

Proposed model of Situational Couple Violence (SCV)……………….….. 10

Figure 2:

Proposed model of Coercive Controlling Violence (CCV)………………... 10

Figure 3:

Model for SCV with standardized path coefficients
and factor loadings reported………………………………...………51

Figure 4:

Female SCV model with standardized path coefficients
and factor loadings reported………………………………...……....56

Figure 5:

Male SCV model with standardized path coefficients
and factor loadings reported………………………………...……....57

Figure 6:

Conceptual Model for SCV……………………………………………..…. 118

Figure 7:

Conceptual Model for CCV………………………………………………... 119

x

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent problem in the United States. Studies
estimate that in the U.S. upwards of 1 in 6 adults in heterosexual relationships experience partner
violence in a given year (Schafer, Caetano, & Clark, 1998; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The
National Violence Against Women survey showed that 22% of surveyed adult women and 7% of
surveyed adult men reported they were physically assaulted by a romantic partner (Tjaden &
Thoennes, 2000). Further research suggested that rates of domestic violence are higher in
younger couples, cohabitating couples, and couples with young children (Magdol et al., 1998).
For many, exposure to IPV begins during adolescence (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001). For instance,
over one-third of high school seniors have already experienced physical relationship violence
(Foshee et al., 2009; Jezl, Molidor, & White, 1996) while the prevalence of verbal aggression is
above 90% (Munoz-Rivas, Grana, O’Leary, & Gonzalez, 2007). A primary goal of studying
partner violence is to understand developmental antecedents of IPV in order to apply more
effective prevention strategies. One of the most robust risk factors for becoming involved in
adult relationship violence is exposure to family violence as a child (Colman & Widom, 2004;
Ireland & Smith, 2009; Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Widom, Czaja, & Dutton, 2008). Both
retrospective and prospective research studies indicate that children exposed to IPV are more
likely to participate in adult relationship violence both as perpetrator and victim; a wellestablished cycle often termed the “intergenerational transmission of relationship conflict” (Fite
et al., 2008; McKinney, Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Nelson, 2009; Stith et al., 2000;
Wareham, Boots, & Chavez, 2009).

1

There is very little research, however, on whether models of the intergenerational
transmission of relationship conflict apply to adolescent dating violence as well. The majority of
studies have focused on spousal conflict or adult partner violence rather than early dating
relationships. One reason may be a perception that dating violence is less common or less
significant than marital conflict. Unfortunately, there is mounting evidence that suggests dating
violence between adolescents is both common and severe (e.g., Munoz-Rivas, Grana, O’Leary,
& Gonzalez, 2007). Lewis and Fremouw (2001) reviewed several studies that assessed the
prevalence rates of adolescent dating violence and found rates ranging from 9% to 65%
depending on the nature of violence measured. For instance, higher prevalence rates are found if
verbal abuse is included. Lewis and Fremouw concluded that the majority of prevalence
estimates were between 30% and 40%, which is higher than recent estimates of adult partner
violence (i.e., 22% in McDonald, Jouriles, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & Green, 2006).
In addition to a possible misconception about the prevalence of adolescent dating
violence, there may be a perception that adolescent IPV is not as severe as in adults. In a recent
study of adolescents aged 13 to 19, Foshee and colleagues (2009) found that 9% of participants
aged 16 to 19 reported being the victim of physical violence by a partner which resulted in injury
within the past year and approximately 4% experienced sexual abuse by a partner. The World
Health Organization also reported that women between the ages of 15 and 19 are at the greatest
risk for experiencing partner violence in the United States and most other countries (Matud,
2007). Munoz-Rivas and colleagues (2007) reported that the overall frequency of adolescent
dating violence decreases between age 16 and age 20; however, the severity of the violence and
injuries caused become more severe during the same period. Again, these statistics mirror the

2

adult IPV literature (see McDonald, Jouriles, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & Green, 2006;
McKinney, Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Nelson, 2009).
As we learn more about the prevalence and severity of adolescent dating violence, it has
become clear that this phenomenon is a public health risk that necessitates more attention from
researchers. As with many other behavioral and psychological problems, early interventions
may prove most useful in curtailing IPV between adolescents. Understanding the development
and maintenance of adolescent partner violence could prove invaluable in this endeavor.
Theoretical Framework
There is a great deal of research in psychology, sociology, and criminology which
suggests that violence in one’s family of origin is a significant risk factor for later behavior
problems and antisocial behavior, including IPV (Ireland & Smith, 2009). The role of family
violence (including IPV and forms of child maltreatment) on negative outcomes for children has
been integrated into a number of developmental theories which focus on family influences on
behavior. Many of these theories do not focus specifically on outcomes related to perpetration of
IPV later in life, but on general criminal behavior (Ireland & Smith, 2009) of which IPV is an
example. The most influential theory for much of the early research on the effect of family
violence on adolescent behavioral outcomes is social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). Social
learning theory posits that repeated exposure to any form of violence during childhood teaches
that controlling others through violence, aggression, and coercion is an acceptable strategy and,
indeed, children may observe this to be true in their own home. Bandura (1977) then suggested
that these learned behaviors are internalized and generalized as principles to guide future
decisions in multiple situations and across domains. Thus, behaviors learned in childhood
through observation of IPV, or experience of maltreatment, and internalized over time would be
3

part of a more general pattern of antisocial behavior in adulthood. In the context of family
violence, this process is sometimes referred to as a “cycle of violence” (Widom, 1989). Social
learning theory would suggest that exposure to any form of family violence over time may
contribute to a general pattern of violent behavior.
Another theory which is also consistent with the “cycle of violence” perspective is the
life course theory of antisocial behavior (Ireland, Smith, & Thornberry, 2002). Although the
term “antisocial behavior” captures many specific behaviors, IPV is an intimate and often violent
form of antisocial behavior and may be more common than other crimes which are more public.
Life course theory is a developmental theory which proposes specific turning points in
development where antisocial or violent behavior is either discontinued or maintained through
reinforcement or extinction. Adolescence is a particular stage of interest in this theory because it
is a time of natural turbulence when it is somewhat developmentally appropriate to engage in
risky behaviors (Elliott, Avery, Fishman, & Hoshiko, 2002). During this time, antisocial
behaviors can be reinforced and may become entrenched in an individual’s typical behavior
pattern going forward.
Early adulthood is also a critical period in the development and maintenance of antisocial
behavior (Arnett, 2000). During early adulthood individuals are typically given the opportunity
to establish their own life pattern and family away from their family of origin. For individuals
exposed to family violence, this can be an opportunity to establish a more conventional lifestyle
free from violence. In other cases, the established behavioral patterns from adolescence,
including emerging IPV and other antisocial behaviors, can become solidified as individuals are
allowed greater freedom and decreased monitoring of their behavior (Ireland & Smith, 2009). In

4

order to understand the risk factors for continuing antisocial behaviors into young adulthood, it is
important to investigate behaviors such as IPV at these critical developmental periods.
Review of Relevant Research on IPV
There is very little research on the etiology of IPV in adolescents and no studies could be
found which take a developmental perspective in studying IPV subtypes in an adolescent
population. The majority of existing research which has investigated the antecedents of partner
violence in adults treats IPV as a singular construct and uses aggregated data to study group
differences between violent and non-violent partners (usually men; see Holt, Buckley, &
Whelan, 2008 for a review). Early research specifically designed to investigate IPV was
primarily driven by feminist theories of violence between romantic partners as a maleperpetrated device for control over a female partner. For example, Pence and Paymar (1993)
developed a widely known Power and Control Wheel to describe the ways that males can use
different tactics for control of their partners. One of the primary contributions of the Power and
Control Wheel is that Pence and Paymar were able to describe behaviors other than physical and
sexual violence that a perpetrator may use to gain an upper hand on their partner. Although
gender-neutral terminology was used in some of the theory, the specific behaviors described
were all male perpetrated. In particular, “male privilege” is part of the wheel. Other behaviors
though, such as emotional abuse, isolation, and economic abuse, have persisted and been
included in other theories of IPV for both males and females (Johnson, 1995).
The three batterer subtypes proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and colleagues (HoltzworthMunroe & Meehan, 2004; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994) generated a great deal of research
on individual differences not just between batterers and non-batterers, but within-group
differences in severity, frequency, and motivation behind male-perpetrated IPV. Their tactic was
5

to investigate the specific characteristics of maritally violent men which differed from nonviolent men. They focused on dimensions such as the severity of violence, presence of
psychopathology, and the generality (whether they were also violent outside of the home) in
determining three subtypes of male batterers; family-only, dysphoric/borderline, and generally
violent/antisocial. In the context of previous research on IPV, these three subtypes allowed
researchers to consider that IPV was not a unitary phenomenon and that not all batterers are the
same. What was insinuated, without being stated explicitly, was that individuals who perpetrate
IPV do not necessarily do so for the same reasons or with the same motivation, as Pence and
Paymar’s (1993) Power and Control Wheel may have suggested. Research on the typologies
suggested by Holzworth-Munroe and colleagues will be reviewed in greater detail below.
Although these theories have aided our understanding of the influence of male violence
against female partners and their children, recent data have demonstrated that violence between
romantic partners is not a homogeneous phenomenon (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003; Johnson,
1995) and is not limited to male perpetration (Williams, Ghandour, & Kub, 2008). In fact, some
studies in community samples have reported relatively equal prevalence rates of IPV between
genders (Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Field, 2005) or even higher prevalence in women
(Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007). Efforts to classify meaningful subtypes of
IPV have produced several taxonomies (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Johnson,
1995) and evidence suggests that these subtypes differ in severity, frequency, perpetrator gender,
and victim outcomes (Holtzworth-Munroe & Meehan, 2004; Kelly & Johnson, 2008).
Therefore, extant literature suggests that there may be multiple pathways leading to perpetration
of IPV and that investigating these pathways could have implications for prevention and
intervention for both men and women (see Johnson & Ferraro, 2000 for a review).
6

Unfortunately, no studies have yet integrated IPV typologies with risk factors in order to develop
an understanding of pathways for partner violence, or tested models of IPV aimed at capturing
the behavior of both genders.
The current study aims to fill these gaps in the literature by studying models of IPV along
two pathways using Johnson’s (1995; Johnson & Leone, 2005) proposed dichotomy of partner
violence with an adolescent mixed-gender sample. Johnson’s typology is particularly applicable
in studies of mixed-gender samples because the subtypes are hypothesized to describe both male
and female behavior (Johnson, 2006), whereas other prominent typologies have been developed
to describe males only (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Pence & Paymar, 1996).
Johnson (1995) proposed two subtypes: coercive controlling violence (CCV) and situational
couple violence (SCV). CCV is “. . . a general pattern of controlling behavior” (Johnson &
Leone, 2005, p. 322). This type of violence is theoretically perpetrated primarily by males and
includes both physical and psychological tactics (Johnson, 2006). In contrast, SCV describes
violence which is context specific and indicative of low self-control. Past research demonstrates
that outcomes for those exposed to SCV are different than for those exposed to CCV (Johnson &
Leone, 2005). For instance, SCV is less likely to cause serious physical injury or include sexual
violence (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). For women, SCV results in fewer physician visits, less
missed work, and fewer psychological symptoms than CCV (Johnson & Leone, 2005).
An important criticism of Johnson and colleagues’ research thus far might be in the
variability of how they measure and classify CCV and SCV perpetration. For instance, studies
by Anderson (2008) and Johnson and Leone (2005) used the exact same sample, but their
measurement of psychological control consisted of seven dichotomous (yes/no) items arbitrarily
chosen from an existing dataset. Anderson (2008) used a cutoff point two standard deviations
7

above the mean score to determine high and low levels of control, while Johnson and Leone
(2005) used a cluster analysis procedure to arrive at the best cutoff score. Leone, Johnson, and
Cohan (2007) also used a set of unvalidated yes/no items and then a cluster analysis to determine
groups of CCV and SCV perpetrators. Yet another method was used by Leone, Johnson, Cohan,
and Lloyd (2004) who constructed two scales based on eight items thought to measure
psychological control tactics. They then used the scale total scores to perform a cluster analysis
within an all female sample. An important aspect of Johnson’s theory is that he described CCV
as a pattern of controlling behavior and refers to it occurring with more regularity and frequency
than SCV (Johnson, 1995); however using yes/no occurrence measures does not allow for the
frequency or regularity of these behaviors to be assessed. Many of these studies also have used
non-validated or “self-made” scales to measure controlling behaviors (e.g., Anderson, 2008;
Leone, Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004) and different cut-off points to determine how to classify
CCV and SCV (e.g., Leone, Johnson, and Cohan, 2007). Typically, a count of psychological
control tactics is used and a cut-off is established two standard deviations above the mean. This
could indicate that the aggressor used all of these tactics on one occasion rather than on an
ongoing basis. The only study that could be located which used a validated measure of control
tactics including behavioral frequency was one by Graham-Kevin and Archer (2003). The
authors used a 24-item scale of control tactics and then a cluster analysis for high and low
control groups which helps to establish a pattern of behavior rather than a greater variety. In the
future, it is important as this research continues that a more standardized way of measurement is
consistently used which addresses the theoretical underpinnings of the difference between CCV
and SCV and allows for comparison of results across studies.

8

The current study attempts to replicate and advance Johnson’s theory in several ways.
First, this will be the first known study to sample a large number of adolescent subjects to study
SCV and CCV in a mixed-gender sample. This will provide the opportunity to study gender
symmetry and asymmetry of IPV subtypes in a group of younger male and female subjects.
Second, the current study will separate the theories of SCV and CCV into unique models. These
models are based upon theories proposed by Johnson and colleagues but are unique to the current
study. Third, the current study will use criteria for identifying CCV and SCV that more closely
conform to the theoretical basis underlying the conceptualization. The two models are illustrated
below (Figures 1 & 2) and will be explicated in detail in the following pages.

9

Family Violence
Exposure

Hyper-arousal

Situational
Couple
Violence

Emotional
Abuse

Self-control

Neglect
Figure 1: Proposed model of Situational Couple Violence (SCV).

Family Violence
Exposure

Hypo-arousal/
Numbing

Primary
Psychopathy

Physical /Sexual
Abuse

Male
Gender
Figure 2: Proposed model of Coercive Controlling Violence (CCV).

10

Coercive
Controlling
Violence

IPV and Batterer Typologies
Descriptive and inductive research on partner violence has led to several taxonomies.
Although nuanced differences exist, the basis for these types is similar. One group is typified by
chronic violence and control, usually causing injury, perpetrated almost exclusively by men
against their female partners. Examples of this category are Gottman and colleagues’ (1995)
Type 1 group, Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) antisocial group, and Johnson’s (2006)
coercive controlling type. The second group is characterized by periodic violence which is less
severe but causes injury, is emotionally driven, and is linked to problems with behavioral
inhibition. Examples are Gottman and colleagues’ (1995) Type 2 group, Holtzworth-Munroe
and Stuart’s (1994) family-only men, and Johnson’s (2006) situational couple violence. Other
studies simply use the terms “severe” and “minor” to describe different severities of IPV. In
general, these terms refer to both the level of injury caused by the IPV and the frequency.
There has been a great deal of research on outcomes related to these different types of
partner violence. Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) performed an exhaustive review of past
batterer typologies and found that family-only batterers perpetrate the most sporadic IPV. They
are also less likely to use psychological abuse as a control tactic compared to antisocial batterers.
Antisocial batterers perpetrate the most chronic violence and likely use psychological abuse as a
control tactic. They are also most likely to suffer from personality pathology characterized by
aggression and violence (e.g., psychopathy).
A major limitation to the subtypes proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart is that
they are specific to males. Empirical studies have generally supported these subtypes in samples
of male batterers, but females do not fit into these categories well (Holtzworth-Munroe, 2008)
despite a great deal of research indicating that females perpetrate certain types of IPV at least as
11

often as men (e.g., Foshee et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2006). As data on female perpetration
of IPV mounts, it becomes important to identify theories that may account for heterogeneity in
IPV perpetration.
To that end, as noted earlier, Johnson (2006; Johnson & Leone, 2005) has delineated
between coercive controlling violence (CCV) and situational couple violence (SCV). CCV is
analogous to the feminist view of domestic violence as a mechanism of control in romantic
relationships and is theoretically perpetrated primarily by males (Johnson, 2006). In contrast,
SCV is context specific and more indicative of low self-control and emotion dysregulation. SCV
occurs during typical relationship strain, but does not necessarily constitute a systematic pattern.
Instead, SCV represents a lapse in self-control that is influenced by situational variables and
stimuli. CCV will occur regardless of the situational determinants because it represents a longterm, goal-oriented strategy to control one’s partner and assert dominance in the relationship.
Research on Johnson’s subtypes has provided support for the distinction between CCV
and SCV, even in mixed gender samples. For example, Graham-Kevan and Archer (2003) found
support for Johnson’s dichotomy using several samples. They sampled women from domestic
violence shelters, male and female students, men attending an IPV treatment program and their
partners, and male prisoners and their partners. Using cluster analysis they found support for
Johnson’s typology in the unified sample as well as separately for males and females. They also
found support for gender symmetry in the perpetration of SCV, while over 90% of the CCV
cases were male.
Further evidence exists in outcome studies, but has been limited to male perpetrated
violence. For instance, Johnson and Leone (2005) used data from the National Violence Against
Women Survey and found distinct experiences and outcomes for women exposed to SCV versus
12

CCV. Women exposed to CCV experienced more frequent physical attacks and the violence
during these attacks caused more serious injuries. The violence was also more likely to be
chronic and continuous. Women who experienced SCV were less likely to leave their
relationships due to the abuse, to experience sporadic violence, and to receive frequent injuries
requiring medical attention.
In another study, Leone, Johnson, and Cohan (2007) found that women who experienced
SCV, compared to those experiencing CCV, were more likely to seek informal help in the form
of friends and family; CCV victims were more likely to seek formal help from police and other
government agencies. Because of the psychological tactics and manipulation associated with
CCV, it is likely that women who experience it are less able to maintain connections with friends
and family as a support system and more likely to rely on authorities for help (Leone, Johnson, &
Cohan, 2007).
Although there are many ways to distinguish battering subtypes, Johnson’s dichotomy of
SCV and CCV is unique in that it helps to explain gender asymmetry in the literature by
demonstrating how sampling different populations leads to disagreement about the prevalence of
female partner violence. Johnson goes so far as to say that we cannot draw any firm conclusions
about the nature of IPV from studies that do not distinguish among subtypes (Johnson & Ferraro,
2000). The following sections outline in detail the two proposed models which are informed by
developmental theory; one leading to SCV, one leading to CCV.

13

CHAPTER 2
Model 1: Situational Couple Violence
The first proposed model leads to perpetration of SCV. Johnson (1995) proposed that
SCV is primarily influenced by contextual factors that lead to momentary emotional outbursts of
violence driven by anger and frustration. He theorized that the majority of individuals who
perpetrate SCV regret their behavior and attempt to curtail their violent impulses in the future.
In essence, SCV is preceded by a strong emotional reaction and a lapse in self-control.
Childhood experiences such as child maltreatment and exposure to IPV are detrimental to selfcontrol and emotion regulation systems (Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000; Kim, Pears,
Capaldi, & Owen, 2009; Maughan & Cicchetti, 2002) as well as biological processes that
facilitate these skills (e.g., Kearney, Wechsler, Kaur, & Lemos-Miller, 2010), thus increasing the
risk for perpetration of SCV in the future. Furthermore, behavioral self-control may mediate the
relationship between emotion regulation and SCV. Johnson (1995) posited that SCV is preceded
by a series of three events: 1) an emotionally evocative experience which leads to, 2) an
aggressive impulse, and 3) a lapse in behavioral self-control. Self-control mediates the
relationship between emotion regulation and perpetration of SCV as research shows that many
individuals have aggressive impulses toward their partners without acting upon them (Finkel,
DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, & Foshee, 2009).
Behavioral Self-control
Baumeister and colleagues described self-control as “an important inner faculty that
enables people to resist … acting on their aggressive impulses” (DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman,
& Gailliot, 2007; p. 62). Self-control is analogous to other terms such as self-regulation and selfrestraint (DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot, 2007) and is closely tied to emotion
14

regulation (Teisl & Cicchetti, 2007). Emotion regulation is not a behavioral process; rather, it is
the underlying ability to modulate one’s emotional experience, which is critical in determining
the manner in which those feelings are behaviorally expressed (Fabes & Eisenberg, 1992; Teisl
& Cicchetti, 2007). Thus, poor emotion regulation is a risk factor for lapses in self-control, but
is not necessarily indicative of behavior.
Several studies have investigated the relationship between self-control and general
aggressive behavior in children and adults. People with poor self-control generally respond with
more outward aggression to anger-evoking stimuli (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004), have
more angry conflict with others, and commit a greater number of criminal acts over time (Caspi,
2000; Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000). Although these studies have found a direct link
between self-control and aggression, all three suggest that emotion is the antecedent to a loss in
self-control. In other words, reacting angrily necessitates that anger preceded the behavior and
was strong enough to illicit an aggressive response.
Other research has identified failure of self-control as an important precursor to many
incidents of IPV (e.g., Finkel & Campbell, 2001; Finkel, DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, & Foshee,
2009; Kerley, Xu, & Sirisunyaluck, 2008). These studies used community samples and included
more sporadic forms of violence in their measurement of IPV. Although the use of a community
sample and measurement of less frequent IPV is consistent with theories of SCV, no studies have
yet investigated the role of self-control in the perpetration of SCV specifically. This relationship
is important as Johnson (1995) posited that poor self-control is the primary risk factor for
perpetrating SCV. Furthermore, none of these studies assessed the perpetrator’s emotional state
in the moments before they became violent. It is likely that anger and/or frustration led to a
momentary lapse in self-control, consistent with SCV.
15

A prominent theory of why people have short-term lapses in self-control is the resource
depletion theory. Self-control is a limited resource that will fail when over-taxed (e.g., Muraven,
Tice, & Baumeister, 1998; Vohs & Heatherton, 2000). Vohs and Heatherton (2000)
experimentally depleted effortful self-control resources during priming tasks and found that
participants required to exert more effort were more likely to experience self-regulatory failure in
a challenge task. Subsequent studies utilizing similar methods found that self-control of decision
making (Vohs et al., 2008) and aggressive behavior (DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot,
2007; Stucke & Baumeister, 2006), including partner violence (Finkel, DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, &
Foshee, 2009), were also negatively influenced by experimental depletion of self-control
resources. Tasks which depleted resources included restrained eating behavior, affective
regulation, and forced decision making. Finkel and colleagues (2009) noted that intimate
relationships may be particularly taxing on self-control resources due to interdependence.
Interdependence is the idea that the more emotionally involved a pair of individuals is, the more
powerfully they can influence each others’ emotional states (Finkel & Campbell, 2001; Finkel,
DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, & Foshee, 2009). This applies to all interpersonal relationships, but
intimate relationships tend to be the most highly interdependent (Finkel, 2007). Thus, when an
intimate partner acts in a way that is upsetting or offensive, it may be more taxing on self-control
resources than typical situations.
While the above studies have all focused on temporary lapses in self-control, others have
investigated the role of dispositional self-control on aggression and IPV. Dispositional selfcontrol is a stable individual trait describing the degree to which one can control one’s impulses
across time and situations (Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006; Finkel et al., 2009;
Raffaelli, Crockett, & Shen, 2005). In studies of self-control depletion, those with low trait
16

levels of self-control, as indicated by scores one or more standard deviations below the mean,
were more likely to respond aggressively than those with average trait self-control (e.g., DeWall,
Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot, 2007). Those with high dispositional self-control (1+SD above
the mean) were more likely to maintain self-control during the same depleting task. Authors
have likened self-control to a muscle in that overusing it causes weakness, and those with
stronger “muscles” can withstand greater strain (see works by Baumeister and colleagues, 2006;
DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot, 2007; Stucke & Baumeister, 2006). Work by Finkel
and colleagues (2009) as well as Baumeister (Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006;
DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot, 2007; Stucke & Baumeister, 2006) demonstrated that
individuals with greater self-control feel aggressive impulses when frustrated, but are less likely
to act upon them.
Research on dispositional self-control suggests that it is a developmentally acquired skill.
In a longitudinal study, children’s ability to exhibit self-control significantly improved between
age 4 and 13 (Raffaelli, Crockett, & Shen, 2005). Other research also suggests that self-control
is developed through an interactive system between temperament and environmental factors
(e.g., Barkley, 1997; Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Ashby Wills & Dishion, 2004). Therefore, it is
important to also investigate factors that may influence the development of trait self-control over
time when interested in the antecedents of SCV. Exposure to conflict in the home has been
repeatedly demonstrated to be a risk factor for a wide range of poor developmental outcomes,
including disrupted development of emotional and behavioral competence (see Wolfe, Crooks,
Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003 for a review). For instance, exposure to IPV and
interparental conflict during childhood has been implicated in low dispositional self-control
(Cummings, Davies, and Campbell, 2000; Schulz, Waldinger, Hauser, & Allen, 2005). Child
17

maltreatment and harsh parenting have also been linked to poor self-control (Ashby Wills &
Dishion, 2004; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Since self-control is a developmentally
acquired process which continues into adolescence, disruptions in the developmental process due
to IPV or poor parenting behaviors are likely to have a long-term negative effect on self-control
(Pulkkinen, 2009; Raffaelli, Crockett, & Shen, 2005).
Emotion Dysregulation and Hyper-arousal Symptoms
Emotion Dysregulation. Whereas self-control refers to inhibition of behavior in the
current study, emotion regulation refers to the modulation of the internal emotional experience
(Eisenberg & Fabes, 1992). Although other definitions exist (see Cole, Martin & Dennis, 2004
for a review and discussion), the current study is interested in how individuals cope with the
emotions they feel. Thus, emotion regulation in the current study refers to the ability to alter or
regulate one’s emotional state. The lack of emotion regulation skills (i.e., emotion
dysregulation) places individuals at increased risk for inappropriate and impulsive emotional
reactions, especially anger and aggression (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1992; Schulz, Waldinger,
Hauser, & Allen, 2005; Seguin, Arseneault, & Tremblay, 2007).
As with self-control, several studies have demonstrated that early deficits in emotion
regulation tend to persist throughout development (e.g., Caspi, 2000; Pulkkinen, 2009). Emotion
regulation is described as an epigenetic process, an interaction between genes and environmental
experiences during development (Campos, Frankel, & Camras, 2004). Thus, factors which
negatively influence the development of skills critical for emotion regulation during childhood
may have implications for future emotion regulation abilities and behavior (Blandon, Calkins,
Keane, & O’Brien, 2008; Cole, Martin & Dennis, 2004).

18

Deficits in emotion regulation have been implicated as both a predictor and outcome of
IPV (Crockenberg, Leerkes, & Lekka, 2007; Maughan & Cicchetti, 2002) as well as mediators of
the intergenerational transmission of IPV (Kim, Pears, Capaldi, & Owen, 2009). Kim and
colleagues (2009) found that adolescent sons’ emotion regulation was related to the emotion
regulation abilities of their parents and that this relationship was partially mediated by parenting
behavior. They also found that the intergenerational transmission of IPV was mediated by the
sons’ emotion regulation capabilities. Unfortunately, no complementary study has been
performed with girls. The current study will include a mixed-gender sample and will test the
effect of gender on the relationships between exposure to family violence in childhood, emotion
regulation, and behavioral self-control.
Child maltreatment has also been implicated in emotion dysregulation. In fact, at least
one study found that the influence of IPV exposure on children’s emotion regulation was
moderated by the effect of child maltreatment (Maughan & Cicchetti, 2002). The direct effects
of IPV exposure on emotion dysregulation were only evident when child maltreatment was also
considered. In their sample, Maughan and Cicchetti (2002) found that over three quarters of
maltreated 5 year old children displayed maladaptive emotion regulation patterns. Teisl and
Cicchetti (2007) also found that child maltreatment increased emotion dysregulation and that
problems with emotion regulation were significantly related to externalizing behaviors and
aggression in 6 to 12 year olds. Others have found that harsh parenting practices diminished
emotion regulation ability and increased aggressive behavior in children (Chang, Schwartz,
Dodge, & McBride-Chang, 2003) and adults (Kim, Pears, Capaldi, & Owen, 2009). In a
longitudinal study, Kim and colleagues (2009) found that poor parenting practices when children
were adolescents were negatively related to their emotion regulation abilities 8 years later.
19

Unfortunately, IPV and child maltreatment tend to co-occur, placing children in these homes at
increased risk for poor emotion regulation and behavioral self-control (Knickerbocker, Heyman,
Smith Slep, Jouriles, & McDonald, 2007).
The influence of IPV and child maltreatment on emotion regulation may be understood
within the framework of traumatic stress. Biological models of the influence of early trauma,
such as child maltreatment, suggest that the influence of psychosocial stress on long-term
functioning is based on biological changes and dysfunction (van der Kolk, 2005). One of the
primary systems identified in existing literature is increased activity in the HPA axis, involved in
emotion regulation (Kearney, Wechsler, Kaur, & Lemos-Miller, 2010). The HPA axis is
responsible for releasing chemicals which facilitate emotion regulation during times of stress
(Heim & Nemeroff, 2009). Exposure to long-term trauma or violence may produce adaptive
changes in biological functioning (Tarullo & Gunnar, 2006). In the case of child maltreatment,
increased sensitivity to threats and danger may be useful in self-preservation.
However, possibly the most important function of the HPA axis related to traumatic
response is ceasing the production of glucocorticoids, such as cortisol, through a negative
feedback loop, which helps an individual relax when the stressful situation has passed
(Handwerger, 2009). Exposure to trauma can interrupt this loop, leading to constant activation
of the stress response, consistent with arousal symptoms in PTSD, and problems with emotion
regulation (Kearney, Wechsler, Kaur, & Lemos-Miller, 2010).
Behaviors resulting from HPA axis dysregulation manifest as symptoms such as anger
outbursts, concentration problems, and exaggerated startle response (Cicchetti & Rogosch,
2001a; Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2001b), all indicative of poor emotion regulation. Exposure to IPV
can also produce a trauma response in children (e.g., Bogat, DeJonghe, Levendosky, Davidson,
20

& von Eye, 2006; Moretti, Obsuth, Odgers, & Reebye, 2006), and at least one study indicates
that exposure to IPV produces similar biological dysregulation of the HPA axis (Mead,
Beauchaine, & Shannon, 2010). Therefore, the influence of IPV and maltreatment on emotion
regulation may be understood as a traumatic stress reaction.
Hyper-arousal Symptoms. Symptoms of hyper-arousal may also influence emotion
regulation capabilities and are related to traumatic stress reactions and HPA axis functioning
(Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2001a; Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2001b). Previous research suggests that
physiological reactivity is influenced by exposure to traumatic events during development
(Kearney, Wechsler, Kaur, & Lemos-Miller, 2010), including IPV exposure (Mead, Beauchaine,
& Shannon, 2010); thus, increased physiological reactivity may be a primary mechanism for the
long-term influence of child maltreatment and exposure to IPV on emotion regulation and
behavioral outcomes. The PTSD symptom cluster of arousal (APA, 2000) captures many of
these symptoms and can be negatively influenced by child maltreatment and IPV exposure
(Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2001a; Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2001b; Finkel et al., 2009; Frewen &
Lanius, 2006).
The first model will provide a framework to test the interrelationships between these
symptoms of hyper-arousal and emotion dysregulation with behavioral control and their
influence on perpetration of SCV. The model is based on a developmental perspective and
includes the early influences of IPV in the home and child maltreatment, which have been shown
to negatively impact all of these systems in previous research. This is the first study to develop
and test a model of specific correlates that may be unique to SCV.

21

CHAPTER 3
Model 2: Coercive Controlling Violence
The second model proposes pathways that lead to perpetration of CCV (Figure 2). The
first model describes a pathway to SCV and assumes that individuals react to family violence
and child maltreatment by becoming emotionally and physiologically dysregulated. This
dysregulation coupled with poor behavioral self-control leads to aggressive outbursts toward
romantic partners. There is a great deal of evidence to support this model, as cited above. There
is, however, another body of literature which suggests that children and adolescents exposed to
the same childhood experiences become overcontrolled and may even lack emotional
responsiveness. Cicchetti and colleagues (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2001a; Cicchetti & Toth, 2005)
posit that these seemingly opposite reactions to similar circumstances represent an epigenetic
process. Epigenesis is the process of genetically inherited systems interacting with the
environment during development (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2001a). In their work with maltreated
children, Cicchetti and colleagues have observed multiple outcomes, including both hyperreactivity and hypo-reactivity of the HPA axis resulting in differing levels of arousal and
emotionality (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2001a; Cicchetti & Toth, 2005). In the context of the CCV
model, children exposed to IPV and maltreatment may become hyper-controlled as a reaction to
the continual danger around them. Unlike emotionally dysregulated individuals, those who
follow this path have minimal emotional experiences and may become callous and unemotional
and present symptoms (i.e., traits) of primary psychopathy. These symptoms are more likely to
lead to perpetration of CCV which is described as a cold and calculated manipulation without
remorse (Johnson, 1995).

22

Primary Psychopathic Traits
Although it is clear that behavioral self-control likely plays a role in many instances of
IPV, it does not explain long-term patterns of abusive behavior in relationships as seen in CCV.
The above research linking self-control to IPV tends to measure less severe and more sporadic
violence indicative of situational stress and poor self-regulatory behavior (e.g., Finkel, DeWall,
Slotter, Oaten, & Foshee, 2009; Kerley, Xu, & Sirisunyaluck, 2008). Studies of more chronic
IPV have identified a trajectory of consistent violence and manipulation which may be indicative
of enduring traits of the perpetrator rather than situational factors (e.g., Coyne, Nelson, GrahamKevan, Keister, & Grant, 2010; Holtzworth-Munroe & Meehan, 2004).
The term psychopathy (or psychopath) has been used loosely in the past to describe
various levels of criminality and antisocial behaviors (Huss & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2000).
Psychopathy is also commonly linked with personality pathology, especially antisocial
personality disorder; although antisocial personality disorder is primarily indicative of behavioral
problems, whereas psychopathy is more focused on affective and emotional deficiencies (Huss &
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2000). Those who study psychopathy differentiate the term from many
of its former uses, instead focusing on two core sets of symptoms often termed “primary” and
“secondary” psychopathic traits (Coyne & Thomas, 2008). Primary psychopathic traits refer to a
set of deficiencies in affective experience, including callousness, lack of empathy, manipulation
of others, and lack of guilt (Huss & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2000). Secondary psychopathic
traits include many of the behavioral aspects commonly associated with antisocial personality
disorder, including violence against others, law-breaking, impulsivity, and substance abuse.
Although secondary psychopathic traits capture previous criminal and antisocial behavior, Huss
and Langhinrichsen-Rohling (2000) suggest that primary psychopathy is more salient in studies
23

of IPV. They suggest that true psychopaths are just as likely to be car salesmen or stock brokers
as they are to be criminals, because the core affective and interpersonal traits associated with
psychopathy distinguish them from the general population.
There are several theories regarding the development of primary psychopathic traits, but
no clear consensus. As with many personality characteristics, psychopathic traits seem to be
multiply determined and relatively stable over time (Lynam & Gudonis, 2005; Pardini & Loeber,
2008). In their review, Lynam and Gudonis (2005) cite both adevelopmental and developmental
theories of psychopathy. Adevelopmental theories posit that psychopathy is due to inherent
individual differences which are present beginning at birth. Alternatively, developmental models
propose that inborn traits coupled with environmental experiences (gene x environment
interactions) culminate in psychopathy. Environmental stressors such as childhood physical and
sexual abuse (Daversa, 2010; Pollak, Cicchett, & Klorman, 1998) and maladaptive attachment
(Bowlby, 1951; Gao, Raine, Chan, Venables, & Mednick, 2010) have been implicated in the
development of psychopathic traits. The operative characteristic in these environments,
according to the researchers who studied them, is inconsistency and lack of positive moral and
behavioral modeling. Therefore, another environmental risk factor for psychopathic traits may
be exposure to IPV. A genetic loading for violent and amoral behavior is likely to be present in
the abuser and the same inconsistent environment and lack of positive modeling is likely present
as well.
IPV researchers have established that primary psychopathic traits are a substantial risk
factor for perpetrating chronic IPV (Babcock, Green, Weeb, & Yerington, 2005; Coyne, Nelson,
Graham-Kevan, Keister, & Grant, 2010; Swogger, Walsh, & Kosson, 2007). Coyne and
colleagues (2010) recently studied a community sample of men and found that primary
24

psychopathic traits predicted psychological IPV, while secondary psychopathic traits predicted
general aggression levels across situations (e.g., fights with strangers as well as family violence).
Similarly, Swogger et al. (2007) used a prison sample and criminal records to identify men
charged with domestic battery and those with other violent crimes and found that low empathy,
callousness, and low impulsivity (i.e., high self-control) characterized the men who had
perpetrated chronic IPV as compared to other violent offenders.
Adults with primary psychopathic traits have also demonstrated low physiological
reactivity to anger-evoking stimuli (e.g., Osumi, Shimazaki, Imai, Siguira, & Ohira, 2007;
Vanman, Mejia, Dawson, Schell, & Raine, 2003), as well as aggressive behavior (Coyne &
Thomas, 2008), and empathy deficits (Ali, Amorim, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009). Ali and
colleagues (2009) found that primary psychopathy is associated with experiencing positive
emotions in reaction to sadness in others. In essence, these individuals are positively reinforced
for causing negative emotions in those around them.
Another group of researchers have studied a subset of psychopathic symptoms they
termed callous/unemotional traits (Frick et al., 2003a, 2003b). Callous/unemotional traits
include a lack of empathic responding and guilt, exploitation of others, and hyper-regulated
emotions (Seah & Ang, 2008). Thus, callous/unemotional traits encompass much of what
previous research termed primary psychopathic traits. Children with callous/unemotional traits
tend to show more aggressive behavior toward others, and callous/unemotional traits are
predictive of continued deviancy into late adolescence (Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin, & Dane,
2003a; Frick, Cornell, Bodin, Dane, Barry, & Loney, 2003b). At least one study has investigated
physiological differences between children with conduct disorder only (same as secondary
psychopathic traits) and conduct disorder with callous/unemotional traits. The authors found that
25

children with conduct disorder and callous/unemotional traits demonstrated less physiological
reactivity to a fear-inducing film than those with conduct disorder alone (AnastassiouHadjicharalambous & Warden, 2008), suggesting that physiological differences between those
with primary and secondary psychopathic traits may exist even in childhood.
Research has also shown that psychopathic traits are remarkably stable. Longitudinal
studies have consistently reported reliability coefficients greater than .80 over 1-, 2-, and 5-year
periods for children aged 7 to 17 (i.e., Frick, Kimonis, Dandreaux, & Farell, 2003; Lynam,
Charingo, Moffitt, Raine, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2009; Lynam, Derefinko, Caspi,
Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2007). These studies invariably combine primary and secondary
psychopathic traits into a single psychopathy construct, so it is difficult to ascertain whether
there are differences in stability in one set of symptoms versus another (i.e., callous/unemotional
traits). However, extant research suggests that assessing traits of psychopathy in late
adolescence captures enduring individual differences that have been present for some time.
These findings are also critical for identification and prevention efforts; if callous/unemotional
traits are a significant marker for perpetrating the most chronic forms of relationship violence
and can be identified early in adolescence (i.e., before dating age), prevention efforts can be
instituted.
It is important to clarify that past research has not suggested that individuals who possess
primary psychopathic traits are the only ones who are manipulative and violent in romantic
relationships (perpetrating CCV). However, as with many other facets of personality, primary
psychopathic traits are hypothesized to fall on a continuum, and individuals may possess certain
traits of primary psychopathy without being labeled a psychopath (Huss & LanghinrichsenRohling, 2000). For instance, at least one study found that higher levels of primary psychopathic
26

traits are related to instrumental aggression in a typical college sample (Falkenbach, Poythress,
& Creevy, 2008). Instrumental aggression is akin to CCV in that it is defined by a pattern of
manipulative, goal-oriented aggression (Dodge & Coie, 1987). Thus, traits of primary
psychopathy may be a risk factor for CCV even when all criteria are not met.
Unlike deficits in self-control which tend to occur with the same frequency in males and
females (Weinberg & Klonsky, 2009), the majority of research to date indicates that traits of
psychopathy occur less frequently in women than men (see Dolan & Vollm, 2009 for a review).
At least one study has also found that primary psychopathic traits, in particular, are less frequent
in women than men (Douglas, Strand, Belfrage, Fransson, & Levander , 2005). Given the
gender differences in rates of psychopathic traits, especially primary traits, which may be
associated with perpetration of chronic IPV, previous studies reporting over 90% percent of CCV
perpetrators to be male likely reflect the relationship between these traits and CCV (GrahamKevan & Archer, 2003; Johnson, 1995, 2006).
Emotional Numbing
Although exposure to child maltreatment and IPV may lead to an attenuated ability to
regulate one’s emotions, there is other evidence that some children overcompensate and suppress
their emotional reactions (Daversa, 2010). A paradox when studying traumatic stress reactions is
that a diagnosis of PTSD requires seemingly opposing reactions to the same event/experience. It
was argued above that traumatic childhood experiences may lead to heightened reactivity of the
nervous system and also difficulty in modulating one’s emotions. This type of reaction is akin to
the hyper-arousal symptom cluster in PTSD (APA, 2000). However, other research suggests that
children exposed to similar traumas during childhood may develop over-controlled emotion
regulation (Kemp et al., 2009). Such a reaction is similar to the avoidance and numbing cluster
27

of PTSD symptoms (APA, 2000). Cicchetti and colleagues (e.g., Cicchetti & Curtis, 2006;
Cicchetti & Toth, 2005) have argued that varying reactions to trauma in children exposed to
violence is likely due to biological variability and genetic predispositions. Animal models
support this theory. In studies of non-human primates and other mammals, some offspring
respond to early trauma by becoming more aggressive, while others become withdrawn (see
Veenema, 2009 for a review). Along with opposing behavioral reactions to early trauma, changes
in HPA axis activity varied as well. Although some animals demonstrate increased HPA activity
indicative of emotion dysregulation, others show decreased activity (Veenema, 2009). Variables
such as the timing, severity, and chronicity of maltreatment may influence the developmental
changes, but this is not well understood in animals or humans (Mead, Bauchaine, & Shannon,
2010; Veenema, 2009).
Much as hyper-arousal and increased HPA activity may begin as an adaptive change in
children exposed to child maltreatment, the same may be the case for children who exhibit
numbing and under-arousal. Animal and human models have shown that individuals within a
species may adapt in multiple ways to similar stresses in order to cope (see Sroufe, 1997 and
Cicchetti & Curtis, 2006 for reviews). Instead of becoming more sensitive to stress and danger,
as in Model 1, some individuals may become ”numb” to their experiences, thereby reducing their
level of anxiety (Kim-Cohen et al., 2006) and allowing for continued functioning in the face of
ongoing stress.
Importantly, the behavioral outcomes associated with emotional over-control (numbing)
are much different than the reaction in Model 1 (Daversa, 2010; Lorber, 2004). Model 1
proposes that heightened arousal can negatively affect the emotional and behavioral regulation
systems and lead to SCV. Model 2 proposes that emotional numbing can lead to a different type
28

of behavioral problem. For instance, detachment from emotion, which is characteristic of an
overcontrolled reaction to trauma, is also associated with primary psychopathic traits (Frewen &
Lanius, 2006; Osumi, Shimazaki, Imai, Siguira, & Ohira, 2007; Vanman, Mejia, Dawson, Schell,
& Raine, 2003). I hypothesize that those individuals who have a deficient affective experience,
including emotional numbing and traits of primary psychopathy, which predispose aggression,
violence, and manipulation in relationships, are most likely to perpetrate CCV. Thus, primary
psychopathy traits are hypothesized to mediate the relationship between emotional numbing and
CCV.

29

CHAPTER 4
Summary and Hypotheses
Previous research has demonstrated that perpetration of IPV is a significant problem for
both males and females (Schafer, Caetano, & Clark, 1998; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), and that,
for many, perpetration of IPV begins during adolescence (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001). Research
also shows that a salient risk factor for IPV perpetration is exposure to violence in the home
during childhood, a cycle called the intergenerational transmission of relationship conflict (Fite
et al., 2008). Although there has been an effort to create developmental models of this
transmission, previous models have limitations. First, IPV is generally considered a unitary and
continuous outcome in these studies (Stith et al., 2000) rather than attending to the mounting
evidence that IPV is best captured by measuring multiple facets such as duration, severity, and
use of psychological tactics (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Johnson & Leone, 2005).
Johnson’s dichotomy of situational couple violence (SCV) and coercive controlling violence
(CCV) bridges the gap between research on community and adjudicated samples, considering
such factors as duration and use of psychological manipulation, as well as being more sensitive
to gender (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). It is important to understand these two forms of IPV
because of the difference in associated outcomes for victims. For instance, SCV is less likely to
cause serious physical injury or include sexual violence (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). For women,
SCV also results in fewer physician visits, less missed work, and fewer psychological symptoms
than CCV (Johnson & Leone, 2005).
Another limitation of extant research is that models have generally been tested only in
adult male populations, again ignoring research that highlights the severity and frequency of IPV
during adolescence (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001; Munoz-Rivas, Grana, O’Leary, & Gonzalez,
30

2007), and among women (Foshee et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2006). The current study will
assess a mixed-gender, late-adolescent sample. Each of the proposed models will be tested with
both the entire sample, and separately for gender.
This study also uniquely contributes to the literature by assessing self-reported symptoms
of physiological reactivity and testing hypotheses of different profiles for perpetrators of SCV
and CCV as well as comparing male and female data in the same context.
The first model aims to investigate the role of emotion regulation, hyper-arousal
symptoms, and behavioral self-control in relation to SCV. Previous research has established a
relationship between childhood exposure to IPV and child maltreatment and future perpetration
of IPV. No previous studies have investigated this relationship with IPV or in a developmentally
informed model including measures of arousal symptoms and behavioral self-control.
Furthermore, this will be the first study to conduct this inquiry with a mixed-gender sample to
test gender differences.
Additionally, there is convincing evidence that primary traits of psychopathy, which are
measurable and stable beginning at least in adolescence, are related to the perpetration of CCV.
There is also evidence that these traits can be influenced by negative childhood experiences such
as child maltreatment and possibly IPV exposure. Emotional numbing can also result from
exposure to childhood trauma such as abuse and witnessing violence. The combination of
emotional numbing and a propensity for violence and manipulation will likely result in
perpetration of CCV. Thus, the second model will test the direct effect of IPV exposure and
child maltreatment on the development of primary psychopathy traits and restricted emotional
experience as well as the mediating role of psychopathic traits in the relationship between
emotional numbing and CCV. A major question to be answered in this model is how well it
31

describes both males and females, since the majority of research on psychopathy and CCV has
heretofore focused on males.
Hypotheses Tested Using Model 1
Hypothesis 1a: Exposure to IPV during childhood will be associated with deficits in selfcontrol, symptoms of hyper-arousal, and poor emotion regulation skills..
Hypothesis 1b: Exposure to child maltreatment will be associated with deficits in selfcontrol, symptoms of hyper-arusal, and poor emotion regulation skills.
Hypothesis 1c: Emotion dysregulation and hyper-arousal symptoms will be associated
with greater perpetration of SCV.
Hypothesis 1d: Self-control will partially mediate the relationship between emotion
regulation/ hyper-arousal and SCV perpetration.
Hypothesis 1e: The model will function similarly for males and females.
Hypotheses Tested Using Model 2
Hypothesis 2a: Exposure to IPV and child maltreatment during childhood will be
associated with emotional numbing relative to non-exposed participants.
Hypothesis 2b: Exposure to IPV and child maltreatment during childhood will be
associated with higher primary psychopathic traits.
Hypothesis 2c: Primary psychopathic traits will fully mediate the relationship between
emotional numbing and CCV perpetration.
Hypothesis 2d: The model will fit male data significantly better than female data.

32

CHAPTER 5
Method
Participant Recruitment
Participants were recruited from students enrolled in introductory psychology classes
during the fall, spring, and summer terms of the 2010-2011 academic year at Michigan State
University. Including all three terms, over 3,000 undergraduates were enrolled for Introductory
Psychology classes during that period. To be included in the study, participants had to be
between 18 and 20 years old and must have at least one significant heterosexual relationship in
the past 2 years. A significant relationship was considered any lasting one month or longer,
which is consistent with other studies of adolescent/young adult relationship violence (e.g.,
Magdol et al., 1997).
Both recruitment and data collection for the majority of participants were completed
online during the fall, spring, and summer terms of the 2010-2011 academic year. Thirty-four
participants during the summer term were recruited to complete the questionnaires in the lab in
paper form. The questionnaires were presented in the same order as the online study for these
participants. In total, 1073 subjects participated in the study. Descriptive statistics can be found
below in Table 1. Fewer males (N=489) completed the survey than females (N=584). The age
range of participants was limited to 18-20, so it is unsurprising that the average age was 19.0
years. The vast majority of the sample identified themselves as Caucasian (81.4%) followed by
Asian/Pacific Islander (7.3%), Black/African American (4.1%), bi-racial/multi-racial (3.4%),
Hispanic/Latino/Chicano (2.5%), and others not listed (1.2%). These proportions are near those
reported for the MSU student body (http://www.collegeportraits.org/MI/MSU/characteristics).
Income ranges were used as a proxy for socioeconomic status (see demographic questionnaire in
33

Appendix A for specific ranges). The largest proportion of respondents reported that their
families earned more than $110,000 per year (28.4%). The median income was between $70,000
and $89,000 per year. Approximately half of the participants reported their relationship status as
“single” at the time of data collection. The remaining participants primarily reported being in a
“dating” relationship. Less than 2% reported cohabitating, none reported being married or
divorced/separated. When asked to report the length of their current or most recent relationship
of at least 4 weeks, 97% reported a relationship between one and three months.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for the current sample as well as the matched groups.
N

%male

Median Income
range

Mean length
of relationship

Total Sample

1073

46%

$70,000 $89,000

7 weeks

SCV Group

245

48%

$70,000 $80,000

8 weeks

CCV Group

42

50%

$70,000 $89,000

8 weeks

Matched Controls

72

49%

$70,000 $80,000

6 weeks

The questionnaires were entered into the HPR system and delivered to each participant in a fixed
sequential order. Data were then stored on the HPR server and downloaded into a commaseparated values file (.csv) which is read by Microsoft Excel and converted to an SPSS file for
analysis.
34

Measures
A copy of all the measures used in the current study can be found in Appendix A.
Demographics. Participants completed a brief demographic questionnaire regarding age,
race/ethnicity, estimate of family income, and current/past relationship status.
Childhood Experiences
Conflict Tactics Scale-Revised Adult-recall (CTS2-CA; Straus, 1999). The CTS is the
most commonly used violence instrument in the literature and has been generated in many forms
to fit many purposes. This short-form version of the measure allows participants to report the
behavior of their parents (and/or parents’ partners) during childhood. Participants were
instructed to report on behaviors any time prior to their 18th birthday. The measure asks two sets
of 10 conjoined questions about ‘mother’ and ‘father’ behavior (20 total items). In the
directions, participants are instructed as to which caretakers to report on if their parents do not
live together. Example items are “Mother (Father) threw something at father (mother) that could
hurt” and “Mother (Father) beat up father (mother).” Respondents rate items on a 7-point Likert
scale of frequency ranging from “Never” to “More than 20 times.” Respondents can also report
that the behavior did not happen during the specified time, but did occur at a different time. The
original measure contains subscales for physical abuse, injury, negotiation, and psychological
abuse. Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and Sugarman (1996) reported internal consistency
above .85 for all subscales except the psychological aggression scale (α = .79) for the CTS2.
Test-retest reliability has not been reported for the adult-recall version of the CTS2; however, an
average coefficient of .72 has been reported for the self-report version (Straus, 2007). Reliability
for the current study is acceptable (α = .84).

35

Childhood Trauma Questionnaire – Short Form (CTQ-SF; Bernstein et al., 2002). The
CTQ-SF is a self-report inventory of five different types of trauma children may experience in
their home: emotional abuse, emotional neglect, physical abuse, physical neglect, and sexual
abuse. The scale contains 28 items, of which three are validity items. The items ask respondents
to report on experiences during childhood and adolescence and are rated on a 5-point Likert scale
with options from ‘never true’ to ‘very often true.’ The 3-item validity scale assesses
minimalization and denial, indicating possible underreporting. Examples of items include
“People in my family hit me so hard that it left me with bruises or marks (physical abuse)” and
“People in my family said hurtful or insulting things to me (emotional abuse).” Bernstein et al.
(2003) reported internal consistency reliability above .85 for all subscales other than physical
neglect (α = .78). Construct validity was established through confirmatory factor analysis as
well as correlations with the full version of the CTQ, a well established and validated measure
(Bernstein et al., 1994). For the current study, four of the five scales were reliable: emotional
abuse (α = .83), physical abuse (α = .77), sexual abuse (α =.91), and emotional neglect (α = .87).
The physical neglect scale demonstrated unacceptable reliability (α = .47), thus, these items have
been omitted from the current analyses. Because the current study was particularly interested in
differences in emotionality and both scales possess good reliability, the emotional abuse and
emotional neglect scales were summed to create a single scale of emotional abuse.
Post-traumatic Stress Symptoms and Emotion Regulation
PTSD Checklist Scale (PCLS; Weathers, Litz, Herman, Huska, & Keane, 1993). The
PCLS is a brief, 17-item self-report scale designed to assess the 17 symptoms of post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD). Respondents are asked to rate how much they have been bothered by
each of the criteria in the past month on a 5-point scale from “not at all” to “extremely.” There
36

are three subscale scores for re-experiencing, avoidance, and hyper-arousal domains. The
measure has been validated in both clinical and non-clinical populations (Blanchard, JonesAlexander, Buckley, & Forneris, 1996; Ventureyra, Yao, Cottraux, Note, & De Mey-Guillard,
2002) and provides good reliability for total scores (α = .94) and all three subscales (α > .80).
Ventureyra and colleagues (2002) report test-retest reliability coefficients of between r = .70 and
.80 over a 2-week interval and were also able to correctly diagnose 96% of PTSD patients who
were administered the measure, establishing good predictive validity. Reliabilities for the
current study were acceptable for all three scales; re-experiencing (α = .89), avoidance (α = .86),
and arousal (α = .79).
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004). The DERS is
a 36-item measure designed to comprehensively measure emotion dysregulation on 6 subscales:
lack of acceptance of emotional responses, inability to engage in goal-directed behaviors, poor
impulse control, lack of emotional awareness, lack of accessibility to effective emotion
regulation strategies, and lack of emotional clarity. For the current study, impulse control and
engagement in goal-directed behaviors were assessed using another measure and these subscales
were not included in order to reduce the length of the interview. Respondents were asked to rate
how often each of the statements describes them on a 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always) scale.
Examples of items include “I am confused about how I feel (lack of clarity subscale)” and
“When I am upset, my emotions feel overwhelming (Limited emotion regulation strategies
subscale).” Scores are obtained by summing relevant items and a total score can also be
calculated. Validity for the measure was established by correlating results with three established
measures of emotion regulation, coping, and emotional expressiveness. Internal-consistency was
good for both the total score (α = .93) and individual subscales (α’s > .80; Gratz & Roemer,
37

2004). The DERS also demonstrated good test-retest reliability of .88 over a 4-8 week period,
When used with an adolescent sample (ages 13-17), internal consistency reliability was good as
well (alphas ranged from .76 to .89; Weinberg & Klonsky, 2009). For the current study,
reliability coefficients for each subscale and the total score were all above .80 except for lack of
accessibility to effective emotion regulation strategies (α = .77).
Emotional Reactivity and Numbing Scale (ERNS; Orstillo, Theodore-Oklota, Luterek, &
Plumb, 2007). The ERNS is a 62-item self report measure designed to assess typical emotional
responses of respondents. Participants are asked to rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale from
“not at all typical of me” to “entirely typical of me.” The measure produces 5 subscales, with
each item loading onto a single scale: positive, sadness, anger, fear, and general. For the
purposes of the current study, only the anger, general, and fear subscales were used, as these
emotions are of primary interest. The resulting measure contained a total of 25 items (11 anger,
8 general, and 6 fear items). Examples of items include “I get angry if someone criticizes me
(anger subscale)” and “There are certain emotions that I cannot feel (general subscale).” The
authors report reliabilities of α = .87, α = .81, and α = .81 for the anger, fear, and general
subscales, respectively (Orstillo, Theodore-Oklota, Luterek, & Plumb, 2007). Test-retest was
good as well, ranging from r = .72 to .87 over a 1-week period. Validity was established using a
measure of PTSD numbing symptoms and the ERNS was also able to discriminate between those
with and without PTSD. Since this is the first known measure exclusively focused on emotional
numbing, convergent validity was difficult to test. In the current study, reliability was
commensurate with those of Orstillo and colleagues (2007) with α = .81, α = .85, and α = .80 for
the anger, fear, and general subscales, respectively. The total scale reliability was α = .87.
Self-Control
38

Inventory of Self-Control (ISC; Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Aneklev, 1993). The ISC is a
24-item self report questionnaire designed to measure 6 components of self-control: impulsivity,
preference for simple tasks, risk taking, physical activity, self-centered orientation, and volatile
temper. Each subscale is measured by four items each rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree). Respondents are asked to rate how well each item typically describes them.
Example items are “I lose my temper easily” and “I act on the spur of the moment without
stopping to think.” Scores are obtained by summing relevant items for each subscale. Validity
was established initially through correlating the measure with reported criminal behavior. A
further validation study was completed using a sample of inmates and behavioral reports of selfcontrol problems (DeLisi, M., Hochstetler, A., & Murphy, D.S., 2003). Internal consistency in a
mixed-gender sample demonstrated good reliability for both males and females (alphas above
.70) for most subscales (Gibson, Ward, Wright, Beaver, & Delisi, 2010). Exceptions were
impulsivity (male α = .65, female α = .69) and self-centered orientation for females (α = .65).
Reliabilities were very similar between genders with the exception of the self-centered
orientation component (male α = .77, female α = .65). For the current study, the impulsivity,
physical activity, and volatile temper subscales were used and the total sum score was used in all
analyses (α = .76 for this sample).
Traits of Psychopathy
Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRPS; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995).
The LSRPS is a 26-item self-report measure designed to assess behavioral and personality traits
commonly associated with psychopathy. Whereas many scales are designed for “diagnostic” use
with incarcerated or institutionalized populations, this scale was developed specifically for
assessing these traits on a continuum in the general population. Each item consists of a
39

statement that the respondent endorses on a 4-point scale from “disagree strongly” to “agree
strongly.” There are seven reverse-scored items as well to control for random responding
patterns. Examples of items include “Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am not
concerned about the losers” and “I enjoy manipulating other’s feelings.” The scale was designed
to have two separate factors; primary (callous/unemotional interpersonal style) and secondary
(violent behavior, failure to learn from mistakes) psychopathy symptoms. The original scale was
validated using a college sample with good reliability (α = .82 for primary and α = .63 for
secondary scale). The measure was also cross-validated with other established measures of
psychopathy. It has since been validated using a second college sample (Lynam, Whiteside, &
Jones, 1999). Test-retest reliability was high over an 8-week period (r = .83; Lynam, Whiteside,
& Jones, 1999). Scores are calculated by reverse scoring pertinent items and summing the total
frequencies for each scale. In the current study, reliability was higher than in previous studies
(Primary α = .85; Secondary α = .76). Given that the majority of research on psychopathy and
measures of the construct are developed with male populations, separate reliabilities were
calculated by gender. Surprisingly, reliability for females (Primary α = .84; Secondary α = .78)
was slightly higher than for males in the current sample (Primary α = .82; Secondary α = .70).
Physical and Psychological IPV Perpetration
Conflict Tactics Scale-Revised (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman,
1996). This measure is very similar to the CTS2-CA used to assess adult recall of IPV between
caretakers during childhood with a few exceptions. First, the self-report form contains items
regarding sexual coercion, where the CTS2-CA does not. Second, the items pertain to the past
12-months, rather than a designated period of childhood. The measure asks two sets of
conjoined questions about ‘self’ and ‘partner’ behavior. Example items are “I (My partner)
40

threw something at my partner (me) that could hurt” and “I (My partner) used a knife or gun on
my partner (me).” Respondents rate items on a 7-point Likert scale of frequency ranging from
“Never” to “More than 20 times.” Respondents can also report that the behavior did not happen
during the past year, but did occur at a different time. The measure contains subscales for
physical abuse, injury, negotiation, and psychological abuse. Items from the negotiation scale
will not be administered in the current study as they do not capture partner conflict. Reliability
and validity information was reported above for the CTS2-CA. In the current study, when all
items are used, the reliability is lower than expected (Self-report α = .69; Partner-report α = .49);
however, when only the physical and verbal aggression items are used (i.e., the reverse-scored
positive items are removed) reliability improves significantly (Self-report α = .90; Partner-report
α = .89). Therefore, the positive items were removed for all analyses in the current study.
Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI - Short Version; Tolman,
1999). The PMWI-S is a shortened version of the original 58-item scale including14 items and
two subscales: isolation/domination and verbal/emotional. Items will be asked for both ‘self’ and
‘partner’ behavior. An example item is “My partner (I) used our money or made important
financial decisions without talking to me (my partner) about it.” Respondents rate the frequency
of each item in the past year on a 5-point scale ranging from “Never” to “Very Frequently.”
Tolman (1999) reported a coefficient alpha of .88 for the domination/isolation subscale and .92
for the verbal/emotional subscale. A more recent study reported coefficient alphas of .86 for the
domination/isolation subscale and .92 for the verbal/emotional subscale (Jones, Davidson, Bogat,
Levendosky, & von Eye, 2005). Tolman (1999) validated the scale using other measures of nonphysical spousal abuse and found very high correlations (e.g., r = .90).

41

In addition, 6 items were added to the measure to capture recent advancements in
technology. These additions were suggested by undergraduate research assistants within the age
range of the study as they felt these behaviors may be common, especially in a college-aged
sample. The items were added to both the ‘self’ and ‘partner’ versions. Coefficient alphas were
high for the ‘self’ (α=.92) and ‘partner’ (α=.93) versions of the questionnaire including the new
items. A copy of each new item from the ‘self’ scale is listed below:
15. Restricted your partner’s use of social networking
sites (Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc.).
16. Monitored who your partner communicated with
online.
17. Made your partner give you his/her online
passwords to monitor their eMail/Facebook/etc.
18. Checked your partner’s computer browsing history.
19. Checked your partner’s call and text history on
their phone.
20. Read your partner’s eMail or other personal
communications without their permission and/or
knowledge.

Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA; Adams, Sullivan, Bybee, & Greeson, 2008). The SEA
assesses economic abuse in romantic relationships through self-report. There are a total of 28
items comprising two subscales; economic control and economic exploitation. Items pertaining
to economic control generally focus on partners limiting access to financial means. An example
item from this subscale is “I do things to keep my partner from going to work.” The economic
exploitation subscale pertains to stealing or using resources belonging to a partner without
42

permission. An example item from this subscale is “I take money from my partner’s wallet or
bank account without permission.” Participants were asked to rate the frequency of each item on
a 5-point scale from “never” to “quite often.” Total scores are computed for each subscale by
summing the total item scores. The authors report very good reliability of α = .91 and α = .89 for
economic control and economic exploitation, respectively. Reliability for the total SEA was .93.
The scale was validated using other scales of IPV and significantly correlated with the CTS (r =
.61) and the PMWI (r = .58). Reliability for both the self-report and partner-report versions was
high in the current study (α = .95 for both).
Procedures
The data for the current study were collected via online questionnaires hosted on the
server of the psychology department at Michigan State University. Participants received course
credit for completing the study. Consent was obtained online via digital signature and was
required to continue the experiment. Copies of the consent forms can be found in Appendix B.
As noted above, a small portion of participants were recruited to complete the
questionnaires in person rather than online. These participants came to the psychology
department building at Michigan State University where they met a research assistant in the lab
to read and sign consent forms. They then completed the questionnaires in a private room. These
participants then took part in an additional lab task which is not part of the current study.
Classification of SCV and CCV. SCV and CCV were classified using a procedure similar
to those in previous studies by Johnson and colleagues (Johnson, 2006; Johnson & Leone, 2005).
In previous studies, a count of psychological abuse items two standard deviations or more above
the mean in addition to any physical abuse has been used to indicate perpetration of CCV, while
physical abuse in the absence of a sufficient count of psychological abuse items is used to
43

indicate SCV (e.g., Anderson, 2008; Johnson & Leone, 2005). The current study adopted a
different approach given the theory that CCV is a long-term and consistent pattern of behavior.
In the current study, an individual was classified in the CCV group if they perpetrated three or
more of the psychological abuse items “frequently” or “very frequently” in addition to any
perpetration of physical aggression. A cutoff of three items was established as this was two
standard deviations above the mean. Requiring items to be reported as “frequently” or “very
frequently” perpetrated changed the number of individuals classified as perpetrating CCV from
51 to 42, but provides a more theoretically driven way of classifying the differences between
SCV and CCV in that a pattern of behavior is required. Symptoms reportedly occurring rarely or
sometimes were not included in the criteria for establishing a long-term pattern of behavior.
Surprisingly, contrary to previous studies which have reported male perpetration of CCV at rates
of close to 10:1 versus females (e.g., Graham-Kevin & Archer, 2003; Kelly & Johnson, 2008),
an equal number of males and females (N=21) self-disclosed perpetrating CCV in the current
study. However, male perpetrators of CCV reported a significantly greater severity of violence
against their partners than females [t (40)=3.04, p<.05].
Consistent with prior research, SCV was classified as perpetration of any physical abuse
items and less than three psychological abuse criteria for CCV. In the current study, 245
participants self-disclosed perpetrating SCV (approximately 23% of the overall sample). The
number of males (N=118) and females (N=127) reporting perpetration did not differ significantly
[χ2 (df=1)=.859, p=ns]. There was also no difference in the reported severity of violence
between genders for SCV. For individuals who perpetrated either SCV or CCV, a frequency x
severity sum score was computed including all three measures of IPV (CTS2, PMWI, and SEA).
For the portion of the sample which did not meet criteria, a score of 0 was entered. Each
44

participant received a score for both SCV and CCV. None of the participants could be classified
as having perpetrated both SCV and CCV. Each participant who perpetrated SCV obtained a
continuous score for that variable and the remainder of the sample were assigned a 0 score. Each
participant who perpetrated CCV obtained a continuous score for that variable and the remainder
obtained a 0 score. Thus, a subject who perpetrated CCV would have a score of 0 for SCV and
an integer score for CCV.

45

CHAPTER 6
Results
Because of numerical differences in the number of participants reporting SCV (N=245)
and CCV (N=42), different statistical methods were appropriate to test hypotheses related to
each. Data analysis occurred in a multi-step process including a Euclidean distance-based
matching procedure (Spiel et al., 2008) and linear regressions to test hypotheses related to CCV,
and structural equation modeling with follow-up regressions to test the hypotheses related to
SCV. Means and standard deviations for all variables can be found in Table 2 below. A
correlation matrix can be found in Table 3.
Data Preparation
Overall response rates were high and missing data was minimal. All missing data were
imputed using the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method in SYSTAT except age. Nine
participants failed to provide their age. The age range in the current study was limited to 18-20
years, thus the variation in age was minimal in the sample. For this variable, mean substitution
was used for all nine missing participants (Mean age = 19.0 years). For the remaining data, less
than 0.5% of the data were imputed. Mean-difference tests indicated no significant differences
between those with missing data and the remainder of the sample on the variables used for
imputation. After the imputation, there were no significant changes to the mean of any variable
in the dataset. Little’s MCAR test statistic was not significant (χ2 (673) = 122.26, p = 1.0),
indicating that the data are missing completely at random; thus, the imputed data was used for
analyses.

46

Table 2
Means and standard deviations for all variables in the full sample, CCV, SCV, and by gender.

Variable Name

Full Sample
CCV
SCV
Female
Male
__________________________________________________________________________________
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD

Maternal IPV

7.91

5.29

13.48 9.03

8.28

5.28

7.92

5.51

7.91

5.11

Paternal IPV

7.98

5.44

15.50 9.61

8.31

5.40

8.11

5.63

7.87

5.28

Sexual Abuse
(range 5-25)

5.46

1.88

9.40

5.58

1.95

5.46

1.84

5.46

1.91

Emotional Abuse

29.44 8.86

27.40 8.13

28.89 8.49

28.63 8.92

30.11 8.76

Physical Abuse

13.64 2.71

16.79 5.35

13.90 2.74

13.79 2.97

13.52 2.48

Arousal Symptoms

9.61

3.96

14.12 4.70

9.98

9.37

9.90

Avoidance Symptoms

12.32 5.36

17.71 5.14

12.88 5.77

12.86 5.55

11.86 5.15

Emotional Dysregulation

68.82 18.57

87.24 20.09

70.59 17.54

69.39 18.62

68.35 18.52

Numbing/Reactivity

91.58 13.45

88.81 16.14

90.63 13.86

86.57 12.18

95.78 13.03

Impulsivity

8.36

2.37

9.95

1.97

9.00

2.28

8.69

2.38

8.09

2.34

Volatile Temper

8.05

2.66

10.09 2.83

8.63

2.76

8.23

2.55

7.90

2.74

5.37

47

3.99

3.84

4.08

Table 2 (cont’d).

Variable Name

Full Sample
CCV
SCV
Male
Female
____________________________________________________________________________________
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD

Primary Psychopathy

31.54 6.58

37.43 5.46

33.52 6.06

33.46 6.31

29.94 6.37

Secondary Psychopathy

20.28 4.34

25.05 3.78

21.20 4.30

21.06 3.97

19.63 4.53

Self-perpetrated IPV

6.87

17.52 8.10

10.08 5.32

6.89

6.85

Self-perpetrated
Economic Abuse

15.92 4.16

25.55 11.84

16.07 4.08

16.40 5.31

15.51 2.80

Self-perpetrated
Psychological Abuse

26.55 8.38

51.26 9.76

28.82 6.92

26.78 9.16

26.35 7.67

--

--

94.33 24.23

--

104.7

83.95 17.39

--

--

--

54.97 13.44

CCV Score
SCV Score
a

a

b

4.92

--

b

--

Note. only for participants who perpetrated CCV; only for participants who perpetrated CCV.

48

5.62

25.98

55.09 16.70

4.24

54.86 9.54

Table 3
Correlation matrix for all variables in the study.
Variable Name
1
2
3
4
1. Maternal IPV

--

2. Paternal IPV
3. Sexual Abuse
4. Emotional Abuse
5. Physical Abuse
6. Arousal Symptoms
7. Avoidance/Numbing

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

.83*

.19*

-.20* .21*

.18*

.20*

.19*

-.09* .07*

.07*

.09*

.19*

.05

.26*

--

.21*

-.21* .26*

.19*

.23*

.19*

-.08* .05

.08*

.09*

.17*

.04

.32*

--

.06

.43*

.20*

.26*

.21*

-.10* .09*

.12*

.15*

.17*

.08*

.48*

--

.06*

-.17* -.18* -.20* .20*

-.13* -.08* -.13* -.22* -.05

-.04

--

.12*

.19*

.12*

-.04

.04

--

.73*

.57*

--

9. Numbing/Reactivity

.07*

.11*

.09*

.28*

-.07* .25*

.33*

.14*

.39*

.22*

.06

.59*

-.18* .23*

.22*

.13*

.37*

.07*

.22*

--

8. Emotion Dysregulation

.09*

-.14* .29*

.38*

.22*

.52*

.08*

.20*

--

15. SCV total

.61*

.16*

.12*

.36*

.53*

.15*

.13*

.56*

.18*

.19*

.13*

.22*

--

14. CCV total

.43*

--

13. Secondary Psychopathy

.41*

--

12. Primary Psychopathy

-.07*

--

11. Volatile Temper

-.24* -.12* -.05

--

10. Impulsivity

-.12* .15*

-.10*
--

Note: *p< .05; N=1073.

49

SCV Results
Hypotheses related to SCV were tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) with
follow-up linear regressions when appropriate. LISREL 8.7 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2001) was
used to fit the models with maximum likelihood estimation. Established standards (von Eye,
2009) convey that 10 subjects are needed for every estimated path and residual in a model. By
that standard, at least 360 subjects are required to run the proposed model. Three indices were
chosen a priori to evaluate model fit. The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Standardized Root
Mean-squared Residual (SRMR), and Room Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
were used because they represent both standardized and non-standardized methods of evaluating
fit and have been endorsed in previous literature (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1998). Although decisionmaking cutoffs for these indices is debated in the literature, the current study will follow Hu and
Bentler’s (1998) suggestions (GFI >= .90, SRMR <= .08, RMSEA <= .06). Based on these
criteria, the theoretical model in the current study fit the data very well (GFI=.98, RMSEA=.035,
SRMR=.031). The model is pictured below and standardized path coefficients are reported
(Figure 3).

50

PCLS
Arousal

CTS-Female

CTS-Male

0.72

0.19

0.21

Family
Violence
Exposure

DERS
0.80

Hyper-arousal &
Emotion
Dysregulation

0.21*

0.91

0.36*

1.98*

Child
Maltreatment
0.53
CTQSexual

0.28*

0.56
CTQPhysical

SEA
0.97

1.00

Situational Couple
Violence

0.24*

0.60*

CTQEmotional

CTS2-Self

ns

0.14*

-0.55

PMWI

Self-control
0.57

0.71

ISCImpulsivity

ISCVolatile Temper

Figure 3: Model for SCV with standardized path coefficients and factor loadings reported. * p<.05. All loadings of manifest variables
onto their latent factors are significant.
51

Hypothesis 1a: Exposure to IPV during childhood will be associated with deficits in self-control,
poor emotion regulation, and physiological hyper-arousal.
Results of the above model suggest that exposure to IPV during childhood is associated
with increases in hyper-arousal/emotion dysregulation and problems with behavioral self-control.
Factor loadings for maternal (0.19) and paternal (0.21) IPV were almost identical, indicating that
they were equally influential in the model.
Hypothesis 1b: Exposure to child maltreatment will be associated with deficits in self-control,
poor emotion regulation, and physiological hyper-arousal.
Results suggest that exposure to child maltreatment negatively influences both
reactivity/emotion regulation and behavioral self-control. Interestingly, emotional abuse loaded
negatively onto the factor for child maltreatment, such that it seemed to have the opposite effect
on outcomes compared to physical abuse and sexual abuse. Follow-up linear regressions
confirm that, while sexual abuse tends to negatively influence emotion regulation, arousal, and
self-control, there was an inverse relationship between emotional abuse and all three of these
outcomes. Physical abuse was positively related to arousal symptoms only. Regression results
are located in Table 4.
Hypothesis 1c: Emotion dysregulation and autonomic hyper-arousal will be associated with
increased perpetration of SCV.
Results do not suggest that physiological hyper-arousal and problems with emotion
regulation are directly related to perpetration of SCV.
Hypothesis 1d: Self-control will partially mediate the relationship between emotion
regulation/physiological hyperarousal and SCV perpetration.

52

A test of mediation was not possible because the first criterion for mediation was not
satisfied. In order for a test of mediation to proceed, a significant relationship would be required
between emotion regulation/hyper-arousal and SCV, which was not apparent in either the
structural model or individual linear regressions. There was, however, a significant relationship
between self-control and SCV such that individuals with poor self-control were more likely to
perpetrate SCV. There was also a significant correlation between emotion regulation/hyperarousal and self-control in the model.
Post-hoc linear regressions indicated a significant relationship between emotion
regulation/hyper-arousal and self-control, such that poor emotion regulation and higher arousal
scores on the PCLS were indicative of poor self-control. Regression results can be found in
Table 5 below.
Hypothesis 1e: The model will function similarly for males and females.
The number of males and females in the current sample was sufficient to support utilizing
the same model specified above using each gender as a separate sample. Both models fit the data
well. The resulting model for females (GFI=.98, SRMR=.034, RMSEA=.021) was very similar
to the model for the complete sample, with similar path coefficients and fit indices (see Figure
4). The model for males (GFI=.97, SRMR=.040, RMSEA=.049) was also similar to the model
for the complete sample except there was not a significant path between child maltreatment and
self-control (see Figure 5).

53

Table 4
Follow-up regression results for hypothesis 1b.
Predictor

Outcome

B

SE B

β

Sexual Abuse

Arousal Symptoms

.339

.069

.162*

Emotional Abuse

-.074

.013

-.166*

Physical Abuse

.094

.048

.064*

1.71

.321

.174*

Emotional Abuse

-.416

.062

-.198*

Physical Abuse

.381

.223

.056

.104

.042

.082*

Emotional Abuse

-.034

.008

-.128*

Physical Abuse

.006

.029

.007

.137

.048

.097*

-.024

.009

-.081*

.047

.033

.048

a

b

Sexual Abuse

Emotion Dysregulation

Sexual Abuse

Impulsivity

Sexual Abuse

c

Volatile Temper

d

Emotional Abuse
Physical Abuse
a 2

b 2

c 2

d 2

Note. *p < .05; R = .069; R = .084; R = .025; R = .023.
54

Table 5
Follow-up regression results for hypothesis 1d.
Predictor

Outcome

Emotion Dysregulation

Impulsivity

B

Volatile Temper

Arousal Symptoms
a 2

b 2

Note. *p < .05; R = .161; R = .093

55

.023

.170*

.027

b

.279*

.005

.211*

.079

Emotion Dysregulation

.005

.114

Arousal Symptoms

β

.040

a

SE B

.021

.131*

PCLS
Arousal

CTS-Female

CTS-Male

0.20

0.22

DERS

0.71

Family
Violence
Exposure

0.77
5
Hyper-arousal
& Emotion
Dysregulation

0.22*

0.33*

1.93*
0.58*

Child
Maltreatment

CTQEmotional

CTS2-Self

ns

0.16*

-0.61

PMWI

0.52
CTQSexual

CTQPhysical

0.98
1.00

Situational
Couple Violence

0.29*

0.43*

0.53

0.92
5

SEA

Self-control
0.71

0.57
ISCImpulsivity

ISCVolatile Temper

Figure 4: Female SCV model with standardized path coefficients and factor loadings reported. *p<.05. All loadings of manifest
variables onto their latent factors are significant.
56

PCLS
Arousal

CTS-Female

CTS-Male

0.18

0.20

0.72

Family
Violence
Exposure

DERS
0.84

PMWI

Hyper-arousal
& Emotion
Dysregulation

0.19*

CTS2-Self
0.89
ns

0.10*
0.42*

2.09*
0.60*

Child
Maltreatment
-0.47
CTQEmotional

0.54
CTQSexual

CTQPhysical

0.96
1.01

Situational
Couple Violence

0.17*

ns

0.56

SEA

Self-control

0.56

0.72

ISCImpulsivity

ISCVolatile Temper

Figure 5: Male SCV model with standardized path coefficients and factor loadings reported. *p<.05. All loadings of manifest
variables onto their latent factors are significant.
57

CCV Results
Because of the limited number of individuals in the sample who reported perpetrating
CCV using the stringent criteria, a full structural model to test hypotheses 2a-2d was not feasible.
Instead, a Euclidean distance-based matching procedure (EuM) was used to create a matched
sample of individuals who did and did not perpetrate CCV. The EuM procedure operates
similarly to the initial steps of a cluster analysis, using Euclidean distances between participants
on selected variables to find the nearest matches. According to Spiel and colleagues (2008) there
are four steps in the matching process: 1) Variable selection, 2) Data preparation, 3) Calculation
of Euclidean distances, and 4) Matching. In step 1, the variables for matching are selected based
on theoretical relevance and must be on a similar scale and collected at least on an interval level.
In the current study, demographic variables were selected because these variables were not
suspected to be directly related to the outcomes in question, which would bias the results of the
study. Indeed, correlation analysis revealed small (<.1) correlations between any demographic
variables and CCV perpetration (see Table 2 below). All other variables in the dataset were
hypothesized to influence the perpetration of IPV in some way. Income, relationship length, and
age were rescaled using a z-transformation. Since ethnicity cannot be collected on an interval
scale, it was dichotomized with white = 1 and non-white = 2 for the match.

58

Table 6
Intercorrelations Between CCV Perpetration and Demographic Variables.
Variable

1

2

3

4

5a

1. CCV Perpetration

--

-.04

-.08*

.06

.08*

--

-.05

-.01

-.02

--

-.01

-.18*

--

.05

2. Gender
3. Income
4. Relationship Length
a

--

5. Ethnicity
(Dichotomous White x Non-white)
Note. N=1073; *p < .05.

a

Point-biserial correlations using Pearson r.

Step 2 is to prepare the data for the match, which includes imputing all missing data. As
stated above, there was a very small amount of missing data to impute (less than 0.5% overall).
Additionally, all variables must be standardized. A simple z-transformation was used for all
variables in this case.
In step 3, the simplest way to calculate Euclidean distances is to perform a hierarchical
cluster analysis using Euclidean distances (or squared Euclidean distances). SPSS software was
used with squared Euclidean distances and Ward’s method for clustering. The program allows
the user to stop the clustering procedure at a specific number of clusters. Ward’s method ensures
that the subjects closest to each other are matched first. Several solutions were considered (400
clusters, 300, 250, 200, 150, 100) before a satisfactory number of clusters was reached. The
solution with 150 clusters provided matches for all but four participants who reported CCV. A
greater number of clusters increased the number of unmatched participants and fewer clusters
began to cluster the CCV group together rather than find matched controls.

59

In step 4, the 150 cluster solution was used to find matched controls within the cluster of
each CCV perpetrator. When possible, two controls were selected for each subject to increase
the sample size for analysis. Only four participants did not have a match in the procedure (i.e.,
were in a cluster of 1 after the procedure). In these cases, the control with the smallest Euclidean
distance to the CCV participant not already in another cluster was used. In essence, these would
have been the closest matches if the entire procedure was performed manually.
This matched sample was used to test each hypothesis 2a-2d. Additionally, the full
sample (N=1073) was used to test any hypothesis where CCV was not included. The reason for
using the matching procedure is to avoid analyses that compare a group of CCV perpetrators
(N=42) to a group of controls over 20 times as large (N=1031) which would likely skew the
results. For analyses which did not include CCV, the full sample was used because all
participants had continuous scores on each of the predictors.
Hypothesis 2a: Exposure to IPV and child maltreatment during childhood will be associated
with physiological hypo-reactivity and numbing relative to non-exposed participants.
Linear regression analysis was used to investigate the relationships between all of the
predictors and outcome variable using the matched sample. In the full sample, paternal IPV,
physical abuse, and sexual abuse all predicted increased numbing symptoms. Sexual abuse was
also related to less emotional expression. Emotional abuse again had the inverse effect and was
associated with increased emotional lability and decreased numbing. When the same analyses
were performed in the matched EuM sample, only sexual abuse predicted increased numbing.
Sexual abuse and physical abuse were associated with decreased emotionality, while emotional
abuse was associated with increased emotional lability. Summary statistics for hypothesis 2a can
be found in Tables 7 and 8.
60

Table 7
Summary of Regression Analysis for Childhood Experiences Predicting Emotional Numbing Using the Full Sample
Predictor

Outcome

B

SE B

β

Maternal IPV

Avoidance/Numbing

.000

.052

.000

.139

.052

.141*

.536

.093

.186*

Emotional Abuse

-.086

.018

-.143*

Physical Abuse

.161

.065

.082*

-.053

.054

-.051

-.019

.054

-.019

-.362

.096

-.123*

Emotional Abuse

.131

.019

.212*

Physical Abuse

-.107

.068

-.053

a

Paternal IPV

Sexual Abuse

Avoidance/Numbing

b

c

Maternal IPV

General Emotionality

Paternal IPV
d

Sexual Abuse

General Emotionality

a 2

b 2

c 2

d 2

Note. N=1073; *p < .05; R = .054; R = .122; R = .023; R = .086.

61

Table 8
Summary of Regression Analysis for Childhood Experiences Predicting Emotional Numbing Using the Matched Sample
Predictor

Outcome

B

SE B

β

Maternal IPV

Avoidance/Numbing

.105

.160

.131

.175

.151

.233

.428

.173

.282*

Emotional Abuse

-.078

.062

-.110

Physical Abuse

.064

.182

.045

-.241

.160

-.307

-.003

.151

-.004

-.375

.095

-.129*

Emotional Abuse

.141

.018

.229*

Physical Abuse

-.137

.066

-.068*

a

Paternal IPV

Sexual Abuse

Avoidance/Numbing

b

c

Maternal IPV

General Emotionality

Paternal IPV
d

Sexual Abuse

General Emotionality

a 2

b 2

c 2

d 2

Note. N=114; *p < .05; R = .126; R = .201; R = .097; R = .161.
62

Table 9
Summary of Regression Analysis for Childhood Experiences Predicting Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Using the Full Sample
Predictor

Outcome

B

SE B

β

Maternal IPV

Primary Psychopathy

.073

.068

.059

.043

.066

.036

.470

.119

.133*

Physical Abuse

.025

.083

.010

Emotional Abuse

-.083

.023

-.112*

.121

.043

.148*

-.028

.043

-.035

.260

.076

.112*

Physical Abuse

.088

.053

.055

Emotional Abuse

-.091

.015

-.188*

a

Paternal IPV

Sexual Abuse

Primary Psychopathy

Maternal IPV

b

Secondary Psychopathy

c

Paternal IPV
d

Sexual Abuse

Secondary Psychopathy

a 2

b 2

c 2

d 2

Note. *p < .05. R = .008; R = .039; R = .036; R = .087.

63

Table 10
Summary of Regression Analysis for Childhood Experiences Predicting Psychopathy Using the Matched Sample
Predictor

Outcome

B

SE B

β

Maternal IPV

Primary Psychopathy

.148

.181

.167

-.122

.171

-.146

.699

.199

.415*

Physical Abuse

-.164

.209

-.102

Emotional Abuse

-.068

.072

-.087

.121

.129

.124*

-.080

.122

-.138

.338

.142

.288*

Physical Abuse

.017

.149

.015

Emotional Abuse

-.081

.051

-.147

a

Paternal IPV

Sexual Abuse

Primary Psychopathy

Maternal IPV

b

Secondary Psychopathy

c

Paternal IPV
d

Sexual Abuse

Secondary Psychopathy

a 2

b 2

c 2

d 2

Note. *p < .05. R = .033; R = .143; R = .027; R = .105.

64

Hypothesis 2b: Exposure to IPV and child maltreatment during childhood will be associated
with higher primary psychopathic traits.
Surprisingly, examination of descriptive statistics demonstrated a relatively even
distribution of psychopathic traits between genders. Although there were significant differences
in mean scores on primary [t (1071)=9.07, p<.05] and secondary [t (1071)=5.42, p<.05] traits,
with males scoring higher on both, the difference is less than would be expected given the
plethora of research on the imbalance in psychopathy between men and women (see review by
Dolan & Vollm, 2009). The mean scores for males (Primary = 33.46, SD = 6.30; Secondary =
21.05, SD = 3.97) were similar to those for females in the current sample (Primary = 29.94, SD =
6.37; Secondary = 19.63, SD = 4.53).
Linear regressions with the full and matched samples revealed that sexual abuse was the
only predictor of primary psychopathic traits. Emotional abuse was inversely related to traits of
primary psychopathy in the full analysis only. Secondary psychopathy was predicted by maternal
IPV (not paternal) and sexual abuse as well in both the full and matched samples. In the full
sample, emotional abuse was negatively associated with secondary psychopathy. Summary
statistics from regressions testing hypothesis 2b can be found in Tables 9 and 10.
Hypothesis 2c: Primary psychopathic traits will fully mediate the relationship between
physiological hypo-arousal/numbing and CCV perpetration.
Because CCV was included in the mediation, only the matched sample was used to test
hypothesis 2c. In testing mediation, Baron and Kenny (1986) describe a four step process using
regression analyses. The first step is to establish a relationship between the first variable and the
outcome. In this case, emotional numbing/avoidance is the primary variable and CCV is the
outcome. Using the EuM sample, emotional numbing/avoidance significantly predicts CCV
65

perpetration, accounting for 28% of the variance in CCV. The second step is to establish a
relationship between the primary variable and the mediator (in this case primary psychopathy).
Analyses reveal that emotional numbing/avoidance significantly predicts traits of primary
psychopathy, accounting for 20% of the variance. The third step is to establish a relationship
between the mediator and the outcome. Primary psychopathy is a significant predictor of CCV
and accounts for almost 25% of the variance in CCV perpetration. The final step is to evaluate
whether the relationship between the predictor and the outcome changes or becomes nonsignificant when the mediator is introduced. A hierarchical regression was used with
numbing/avoidance entered in the first step and primary psychopathy entered in the second step.
The first regression is identical to the one in step 1 of the mediation testing process, the second
contains all three predictors together. In this case, partial mediation is supported as both steps of
the regression significantly increase the variance in CCV explained by the regression model and
the relationship between general emotionality and CCV perpetration becomes non-significant
when primary psychopathy is added into the regression. Together, emotional
numbing/avoidance and primary psychopathy account for 40% of the variance in CCV for the
current sample.

66

Table 11
Summary of Regression Analysis to Test Mediation Using the Matched Sample
Predictor

Outcome

B

SE B

β

3.441

.724

.426*

-1.455

.736

-.177*

.088

.105

.079

-.453

.107

-.402*

3.653

.595

.502*

3.190

.664

.395*

General Emotionality

-.163

.726

-.020

Primary Psychopathy

2.851

.598

.392*

Step 1
Avoidance/Numbing

CCV Perpetration

a

General Emotionality
Step 2
Avoidance/Numbing

Primary Psychopathy

b

General Emotionality
Step 3
Primary Psychopathy

CCV Perpetration

c

Step 4
Avoidance/Numbing

a 2

CCV Perpetration

b 2

c 2

d

d 2

Note. *p < .05. R = .280; R = .196; R = .252; R = .403.
67

Hypothesis 2d: The model will fit male data significantly better than female data.
Due to the small sample size, bootstrapping was used in conjunction with linear
regression to allow for testing of differences between males and females within the EuM sample.
Bootstrapping allows for a large number of random samples to be taken from the data and many
regressions are run and averaged to produce the solution. For the current analyses, SPSS was
instructed to use 1000 samples with a 95% confidence interval.
For males, CCV was significantly predicted by both emotional numbing/avoidance and
traits of primary psychopathy. Avoidance/numbing accounted for 37% of the variance in CCV,
while primary psychopathy accounted for 17%. In the sample of females, avoidance/numbing
and primary psychopathy were also significantly related to CCV; however, avoidance/numbing
accounted for 22% of the variance in CCV, while primary psychopathy accounted for 36%. In a
combined hierarchical regression, the predictors accounted for 40% of the variance in male CCV
while 52% of the variance in female CCV was accounted for. Contrary to the hypothesis that the
predictors would fit male data better than female data, the current results suggest the opposite in
that a significantly greater proportion of variance in female CCV was accounted for with almost
identical sample sizes (56 males, 58 females).

68

Table 12
Summary of Bootstrapped Regression Analysis by Gender Using the Matched Sample
Males
____________________________

Females
_____________________________

Predictor
Outcome
B
SE B
B
SE B
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Avoidance/Numbing

3.226*

1.056

3.210*

.762

General Emotionality

-2.435

1.261

1.402

.806

Primary Psychopathy

1.543

1.049

3.662*

.632

2

CCV Perpetration

2

Note. *p < .05. R for males = .398; R for females = .516. Standardized β are not produced in the bootstrapping procedure.

69

CHAPTER 7
Discussion
The results of the current study demonstrated that SCV and CCV have separate pathways
and related individual characteristics such as behavioral self-control and emotional reactivity, but
are associated with common childhood experiences of family violence and childhood
maltreatment. Findings both support previous research which demonstrated the deleterious
impact of family violence and maltreatment on later involvement of IPV (Ireland & Smith, 2009)
and further our understanding of the role of individual differences in the types of violence which
might be perpetrated later in life. The current study also found relatively equal distribution of
both psychopathy traits and CCV across genders, findings which differ from previous research.
Implications of these findings are discussed below.
The primary goal was to investigate two separate, but complementary, models of IPV in a
mixed-gender adolescent sample. The models included data on childhood exposure to violence
and aggression, levels of physiological arousal, self-control, and traits of psychopathy to
examine two different subtypes of IPV, coercive controlling violence (CCV) and situational
couple violence (SCV). The most important aspect of this study is the interplay between the
groups of variables and their influence on the IPV subtypes. Both sets of analyses reveal a
complex interplay between the variables in the study and multiple pathways to perpetration of
SCV and CCV. With respect to gender, the SCV models for males and females demonstrated
similar results and suggest that, supportive of previous research, SCV is a phenomenon that
functions similarly in males and females. One difference in the models was that child
maltreatment significantly predicted problems with self-control for females, but not for males.
In the CCV analyses, it was unexpected to find that not only was there a relatively equal number
70

of males and females who reported perpetrating SCV, but the analyses were better able to predict
female CCV than male CCV.
Implicit in the design of this study was an investigation of the frequency of CCV and
SCV within a college sample. The findings suggested that IPV occurs frequently within college
dating relationships and in the proportions of CCV and SCV suggested by theory (Johnson,
1995) and previous research (e.g., Graham-Kevin & Archer, 2003; Johnson & Leone, 2005).
Twenty-three percent of the total sample reported perpetrating SCV, while 4% of the sample
reported perpetrating CCV. The current study applied a more strict set of criteria for perpetration
of CCV than in previous research due to a lack of cohesion between the theory of CCV posited
by Johnson (1995) and previous measurement. The impact of applying the stricter criteria for
CCV was that the number of individuals meeting the criteria was reduced from 51 to 42. Of
those who reported perpetrating IPV, 85% reported SCV. Previous research has consistently
found similar ratios of CCV to SCV, but a novel finding in the current study is the frequency
with which female participants perpetrated CCV. Although previous research has suggested that
over 90% of CCV is perpetrated by males (Johnson, 2005), there was no statistical difference in
the number of males and females who self-reported perpetrating CCV in the current sample. In
reviewing previous findings regarding the gender disparity in perpetration of CCV, Johnson
strongly suggests that males account for the majority of this behavior (Johnson, 1995; Kelly &
Johnson, 2008); however, previous studies have reported mixed results. Many of the studies
which have confirmed Johnson’s theory have used samples consisting of primarily prison or
shelter populations (e.g., Graham-Kevin & Archer, 2003) or have used older samples of married
couples (e.g., Johnson, 2006; Leone, Johnson, & Cohan, 2007). The impact of using a male
prison population or a women’s shelter sample is that, by definition, the perpetrator is male.
71

This is a rather obvious inflation of the gender disparity of CCV since those who are imprisoned
for their IPV are logically much more likely to have perpetrated chronic IPV. Some studies
which have investigated female IPV in married couples have found a high degree of controlling
and manipulative behavior. For instance, Hines, Brown, and Dunning (2007) reported on a
sample of males who called domestic violence hotlines and found that over 90% reported their
female partner was controlling, using many tactics characteristic of CCV.
A further reason why CCV may be portrayed as a male-perpetrated problem is Johnson’s
theoretical framework for how to define CCV. Part of his definition is “the assertion of male
privilege” (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). As an illustration of the behaviors involved in CCV,
Johnson cited Pence and Paymar’s (1993) power and control wheel, which was developed from a
feminist perspective interested in explaining and quantifying male-perpetrated IPV. Because the
current study used a community sample of unmarried adolescent participants, it may be that
partner violence in early dating relationships is much more balanced in terms of CCV
perpetration than previously thought. If so, the current study argues against the view that CCV is
a misogynistic or belief-based phenomenon related to male assertion of dominance and more for
personality or individual characteristics as a driving force behind the behavior.
Situational Couple Violence Findings
The findings of the current study support several hypotheses related to SCV and do not
support others. The model suggests that there may be multiple pathways to SCV. There was
support for the hypotheses that childhood exposure to IPV and experience of maltreatment are
associated with deficits in self-control, poor emotion regulation, and physiological hyper-arousal.
Factor loadings in the model suggested that exposure to maternal and paternal IPV were equally
influential in the outcomes. Previous studies have produced similar findings but have typically
72

employed analytic techniques in which the influence of one predictor on a single outcome
variable was assessed (i.e., regression analysis) (e.g., Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000).
The current study utilized structural modeling to investigate the interrelationships between all of
the above variables as part of a single system. The benefit of such a technique is that the
interplay between all of the variables can be observed simultaneously and the results can be
evaluated as a system. Regression analysis can then be used to further explore the relationships
between individual predictors and outcomes. The results suggest that an early experience of
violence, either directly experienced or observed, leads to future difficulties with emotion
regulation and behavioral self-control. In turn, problems with behavioral self-control lead to
perpetration of SCV. This is the first study to apply developmental theory to Johnson’s subtypes
and establish a relationship between childhood experiences, underlying individual characteristics
such as emotion regulation, and SCV perpetration. Understanding the experiential and
behavioral correlates of SCV is important for developing prevention and intervention plans for
IPV. For example, given that SCV results from problems with self-control and emotion
regulation, intervention programs could target these skills for improvement as a way to prevent
future incidences of violence. The influence of childhood experiences in the model can also help
to identify those at risk for SCV perpetration and provide prevention services in the same regard.
One interesting finding in the model is that the influence of emotional abuse is different
than the influence of either physical or sexual abuse. Some research exists in the literature that
suggests a different influence of emotional abuse compared to physical or sexual abuse, but this
evidence is sparse. Kaplan, Pelcovitz, and Labruna (1999) suggested that emotional abuse may
have a stronger influence on externalizing behaviors and social impairment such as emotion
regulation and self-control than physical or sexual abuse. They did not, however, posit an
73

inverse relationship with outcome variables when compared to physical and sexual abuse. When
comparing the effects of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse on adolescent development,
Briere and Runtz (1990) found that emotional abuse was related to low self-esteem while
physical/sexual maltreatment was related to aggressive behavior toward others. In another study,
Mullen and colleagues (1996) found no difference in outcomes for the three types of
maltreatment. More recent studies do not tend to parse out the differences between emotional
abuse and physical abuse because they so frequently co-occur (Kaplan, Pelcovitz, & Labruna,
1999; Maughan & Cicchetti, 2002). Findings of the current study suggest that more research is
needed to understand the influence of different forms of child maltreatment on the development
of emotion regulation and behavioral self-control. One possible distinction between emotional
and physical/sexual abuse might be that emotional abuse does not directly involve physical
assault, whereas physical and sexual abuse both involve threats to physical safety. The current
study does not suggest that emotional abuse has a positive influence on these systems whereas
physical/sexual abuse have a negative influence. The inverse relationships do suggest, however,
that in the current sample, emotional abuse does not function in a similar way to physical/sexual
abuse in the development of self-regulatory capacities.
Results of the current study did not support the hypothesis that hyper-arousal symptoms
and emotion dysregulation directly influence the perpetration of SCV; however, there was a
direct relationship of self-control deficiencies with increased SCV, which is consistent with its
hypothesized function as a mediator. It is possible that the lack of direct influence of emotion
regulation and autonomic hyper-arousal on the perpetration of SCV in the current study was
influenced by the measurement choices made. The current findings seem to support the theory
proposed by Finkel and colleagues (2009) in which they suggest that emotional states and
74

emotional impulses only have an influence on behavior when there is a breakdown in behavioral
self-control. Therefore, measuring perpetrated SCV is a behavioral outcome which, Finkel and
colleagues would propose, requires a breakdown in behavioral self-control as well. If the current
study had measured the underlying desire to perpetrate IPV (e.g., aggressive impulses), there
may have been a stronger relationship between emotion regulation and SCV.
Coercive Controlling Violence Findings
Results of multiple hierarchical linear regressions revealed at least partial support for
each of the hypotheses related to CCV. The first hypothesis was that IPV exposure and child
maltreatment would be associated with physiological hypo-reactivity and numbing. There was
partial support for this hypothesis. Using the full sample, regression analysis revealed that
paternal IPV, physical abuse, and sexual abuse all predicted increased numbing symptoms. Only
sexual abuse predicted increased numbing in the smaller, matched sample analysis. Two
possible reasons for the difference in findings between the large sample and matched sample are
that (1) the larger sample size allowed for detection of smaller effect sizes, or (2) matching the
samples removed any influence of individual characteristics such as SES, thereby lowering the
association between the predictors and outcome. A post-hoc power analysis demonstrated that
the power to detect a beta of .15 was increased from approximately .81 to 1.0 when the sample
size was increased from 120 to 1000; thus, the change in sample size would allow for smaller
effect sizes to be detected. A third possibility is that the matched sample analyses were better
able to capture the true relationships between the variables because of the matching of
demographic characteristics. If so, the current study suggests that the influence of sexual abuse
specifically on development of social and emotional competency is stronger than other types of
abuse or exposure to family violence.
75

The next hypothesis was that IPV exposure and child maltreatment were related to more
primary psychopathic traits. One finding of the current study which is disparate from extant
literature is the relatively even distribution of self-reported psychopathic traits between males
and females. There is extensive research which suggests a significantly higher prevalence of
such traits in males (see Dolan & Vollm, 2009). Although there were statistical differences
between genders, the actual score difference on the measure of traits was not as large as would
be expected. The LSRPS used in the current study to assess for primary and secondary traits of
psychopathy was designed specifically for use with a typical population (Levenson, Kiehl, &
Fitzpatrick, 1995), whereas most other instruments are designed for use with adjudicated
populations. Although there are no studies demonstrating gender equality using the measure
(Brinkley, Diamond, Magaletta, & Heigel, 2008), the LSRPS is the only psychopathy measure
that this author could find that had validity and norming data for both genders rather than males
exclusively. Brinkley and colleagues (2008) have suggested that males and females may report
similar levels of symptoms on the LSRPS because it is designed to assess indicators of
psychopathy in “community life rather than explicit criminal behavior” (p. 466). In Levenson
and colleagues’ (1995) original validation of the LSRPS using a mixed-gender college sample,
they reported statistically different, but similar, levels of both primary and secondary
psychopathology between males and females in the sample. Studies in which males and females
tend to differ significantly in their scores on measures of psychopathy use either adjudicated
samples and measure more explicit behavior or use adult samples (Brinkley, Diamond,
Magaletta, & Heigel, 2008). It may be that measuring “lifestyle” indicators of psychopathy
rather than criminal behavior leads to similar rates of psychopathic behavior in men and women,
especially in a college-aged sample.
76

Linear regressions provided partial support for the hypothesis that sexual abuse was
significantly related to increased traits of primary psychopathy in the full sample. When using
the matched sample, none of the hypothesized variables were related to differences in
psychopathic traits. The influence of sexual abuse is consistent with previous research on the
development and formation of psychopathic traits (e.g., Diversa, 2010; Pollack, Cicchetti, &
Klorman, 1998). The influence of life experience on the development of psychopathic traits
supports a developmental, rather than adevelopmental, theory about psychopathy (Lynam &
Gudonis, 2005).
These first two hypotheses were tested to establish a relationship between early life
experience, and individual characteristics which might become risk factors for perpetration of
CCV. Results suggest that early experience of IPV, especially male-perpetrated, and physical
and sexual abuse are particularly influential in the development of decreased emotionality and
arousal, and that sexual abuse may foster the development of primary psychopathic traits. The
third hypothesis tested was that traits of primary psychopathy would fully mediate the
relationship between numbing symptoms and CCV perpetration. The current study demonstrated
that primary psychopathy partially mediated the relationship between numbing and CCV.
Together, numbing and primary psychopathy accounted for 40% of the variance in CCV
perpetration.
Taken together, the results of the CCV analyses support the proposed model as a source
for future research. The proposed negative life experiences during childhood significantly
predicted individual characteristics, which are risk factors for perpetrating CCV, and those risk
factors accounted for almost half of the variance in CCV perpetration. These results support
many other previous studies which have investigated some part of this system independently, but
77

this is the first instance known to the author in which all of these findings have been
demonstrated in a single study. The current study highlights for both CCV and SCV the
importance of taking a developmental approach to understanding partner violence and that
similar childhood experiences (i.e., IPV exposure and maltreatment) can follow divergent paths
to influence personal characteristics which are risk factors for perpetrating either CCV or SCV.
Gender Analysis Findings
The final hypotheses for each model related to gender differences and there were some
unexpected findings in the current study given prior theory and extant research. This is the first
study to systematically investigate developmental correlates of these two IPV subtypes in a
mixed-gender sample. Perhaps the most significant finding is the proportion of male and female
participants who endorsed having perpetrated CCV. The literature suggests that approximately
90% of CCV is perpetrated by males (Graham-Kevin & Archer, 2003); however, the current
study found that an equal number of males and females reported CCV perpetration. There are
several possible reasons for this. One possibility is that CCV in females is more common in a
college-aged sample than in samples of older married subjects typically used in IPV research.
Previous research suggests that females tend to follow the adolescent-onset trajectory of
antisocial behaviors in similar numbers to their male peers (Xie, Drabick, & Chen, 2011), but are
less likely to persist in this behavior over time. Other research also suggests that females are
equally represented in the trajectory characterized by increasing delinquency during adolescence
and that this is a significant predictor of IPV at age 19 (Miller, Malone, & Dodge, 2010). This
means that females may be represented in relatively equal numbers to males in adolescent
samples, but less frequently in middle- and late-adulthood samples typical of IPV research.

78

Structural models for SCV were completed separately for each gender and suggested that
pathways function similarly for males and females in the current sample. One significant
difference in the model was that child maltreatment was significantly related to poor self-control
in females but not in males. Post-hoc analyses showed that there were no differences in the
frequency of IPV exposure, sexual abuse, or physical abuse between males and females, but
females reported a greater incidence of emotional abuse. The difference, however, was less than
two points on a scale ranging from actual scores of 5 to 46 with a standard deviation of 8 points.
Few studies could be located that directly investigated the influence of emotional abuse on
behavioral self-control. One study which used a developmental psychopathology model to test
the influence of emotional abuse on socioemotional competence in early adolescence found that
emotional abuse was related to social withdrawal, but only in boys (Shaffer, Yates, & Egeland,
2009). Another study on the influence of emotional maltreatment on psychological distress in
college students found that the relationship between abuse in childhood and later functioning was
related to schemas of vulnerability and shame (Wright, Crawford, and Del Castillo, 2009). There
was no gender difference found.
Results from analyses with CCV data did not support the hypothesis that male CCV
perpetration would be better explained than female CCV perpetration. In fact, the opposite was
found. Whereas 40% of the variance in male CCV was accounted for by the hypothesized
variables, 52% of the variance in female CCV was accounted for. As discussed above, the
relatively equal distribution of both primary psychopathic traits and CCV between males and
females in the current sample was contrary to expectations and previous research. There has
been some precedent in previous research that, using a measure designed to capture psychopathic
traits in the community, males and females are more evenly distributed on the scale. For
79

instance, a recent article using the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R)
demonstrated that male and female college students did not significantly differ on most scales of
psychopathy (Anestis, Caron, & Carbonell, 2011). It is important to keep in mind that the
measure used in the current study is not diagnostic and measures traits of psychopathy along a
continuum.
As for perpetration of CCV, there is no study that implies an even distribution of
behavior across gender. Thus, this is the first study to suggest that women also perpetrate
chronic, manipulative, and violent partner violence at similar levels to men.
Limitations
There were several limitations to the current investigation which may have affected the
findings. First, the current study was only able to recruit a small number of individuals who
reported perpetrating CCV. The base rate proposed by Johnson (1995) and, for the most part,
borne out in previous community-based studies, suggests that less than 3% of the general
population likely engage in CCV. Therefore, a significantly large sample would be necessary to
obtain enough statistical power to be able to analyze a complex model such as the one proposed
in the current study. It may have been too ambitious to plan such a sample-size dependent
analytic model, but, the model was able to serve the purpose of being a guideline for a set of
regressions which were able to address the hypotheses.
The current sample was also limited to a Midwestern college population. While this
fulfilled the aims of the study, such a sample may not be generalizable to non college-educated
or minority populations in the same age range. Future studies could recruit a community sample
with more varied SES range and focus on identifying minority samples to investigate the
similarities and differences between these groups in SCV and CCV.
80

The current study was also limited because it is a cross-sectional design with only selfreport data available. Although participants did not seem hesitant to identify themselves as
having perpetrated IPV against a partner, corroborating evidence from partners could help
further classification accuracy in CCV and SCV groups as well as discover differences between
perpetrator and “victim” perceptions. The cross-sectional nature of the data means that all
reports of childhood exposure to family violence and child maltreatment are retrospective. As
such, the current study was unable to speak to the etiology of SCV and CCV directly. Although
the assessment procedures are designed for retrospective reporting, we were limited in our ability
to determine the influence of timing of exposure on any of the outcomes. Future studies could
gather either second reporter data from parents or siblings, or use a longitudinal design to assess
these experiences with more specificity and study the etiology of these behaviors.
The analyses chosen for the current study also did not test whether the proposed
pathways to SCV and CCV are specific to those outcomes. Additional analyses and statistical
modeling would be required to rule out equifinality and multifinality with regard to the
constructs in the current study.
Despite these limitations, the current study was able to recruit over 1000 undergraduate
students and obtained a significantly large number of participants who reported perpetrating
partner violence. This is one of a very few studies which have investigated the role of IPV in
college students specifically and can shed light on IPV behavior in general as well as specifically
for SCV and CCV in this population.
Conclusion
The current study contributes to and extends current understanding of IPV in several
ways. First, the a priori goals of the current study were to investigate antecedents and individual
81

differences related to CCV and SCV as well as to assess gender differences. Separate original
models were proposed and analyzed for CCV and SCV using a mixed-gender sample of college
undergraduates. Perhaps the most compelling aspect of the findings was that the proposed
pathways functioned well in explaining both CCV and SCV despite difficulties in recruiting a
large enough sample size of CCV perpetrators. One implication of these findings is that there
are separate individual characteristics that are particularly relevant to CCV and SCV, which
strengthens the need to investigate subtypes of IPV rather than treating it as a unitary construct.
Not only are SCV and CCV different behaviors, they seem to have separate underlying structures
as far as development and genesis. SCV is borne from impulsivity and poor emotion regulation,
while CCV is influenced by callousness and emotional numbness. Importantly, both of these
sets of outcomes were influenced by negative childhood experiences such as maltreatment and
exposure to family violence.
Although previous literature had suggested that CCV was primarily a male-perpetrated
behavior, the current study challenges that notion in demonstrating a similar number of male and
female participants reporting CCV perpetration. This adds to the already heated debate about
gender differences in perpetration of IPV and whether these differences exist only in theory or in
practice as well (See Kelly & Johnson, 2008). Importantly, some underlying influences of CCV,
such as traits of primary psychopathy, were also found to be more equivalent across gender than
previous research suggests. Thus, Johnson’s (1995) theory about the underlying individual traits
associated with CCV and SCV may have been accurate, but the rate of these behaviors in men
and women may be different (i.e., more equal) than he expected. The influence of age in the
current sample may account for some of the differences with prior research, as adolescent
females have been shown to be much more similar to males in antisocial behavior than adult
82

females (Miller, Malone, & Dodge, 2010). Further research is needed on this topic to assess
whether, as trajectories of antisocial behavior in females decline, CCV declines as well. If so,
intervention programs for IPV in adolescents may need to focus on both males and females,
rather than adapting the same treatment programs used in adult populations, where males
dominate the offender pools.
Future research may also be able to further understanding about the specific influence of
different types of early childhood experience as well as assessing for more specific timing in
regards to critical periods (e.g., exposure during first 5 years of life, versus age 5-10 years). The
current study found that emotional abuse tended to have an opposite effect on several
developmental outcomes as compared to physical and sexual abuse. There is very little existing
research which differentiates between the influences of specific types of child maltreatment on
negative outcomes.
Overall, the current study significantly adds to the existing research on IPV subtypes by
not only addressing CCV and SCV from the perspective of developmental theory, but
challenging previously held conceptions about gender disparity in these subtypes. Results
suggest an individual differences approach to studying CCV and SCV may be more fruitful,
rather than a gender differences approach typically seen in past research. Another future
direction may be to include a behavioral-genetics design using twin research to assess whether
any of these traits are heritable and to what degree these heritable traits influence perpetration of
SCV and CCV.

83

APPENDICES

84

APPENDIX A

MEASURES

85

Demographics
1. Please indicate your gender:

M

F

2. What is your current age? __________
3. How would you identify your ethnicity? Please circle all that apply.
Caucasian
Black/African-American
Hispanic/Latin/Chicano
Asian/Pacific-Islander
Multi-racial
Not listed ______________
4. Please estimate your family’s income over the past year:
Less than $10,000
$10,000 – $29,999
$30,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $69,999
$70,000 - $89,999
$90,000 - $109,999
Greater than $110,000
5. Please indicate your current relationship status:
Single
Dating
Cohabitating (living together)
Married
Separated/Divorced
Not listed ____________
6. Length of current or most recent relationship (in months) __________________

86

THE CTS2 - SF Parent-Report
No matter how well parents get along, there are times when they disagree, get annoyed
with each other, want different things from each other, or just have spats or fights because they
are in a bad mood, are tired, or for some other reason. Parents also have many different ways of
trying to settle their differences with each other. This is a list of things that might happen when
your parents had differences or were angry with each other.
If your mother and father (or step-mother or step-father) were not living together when
you were about in middle school (age 11-14) and you were living with your mother, please
answer about your mother and the man she was living with then. If you were living with your
father or step father, but not your mother, please answer about your father and the woman he was
living with then. Please circle how many times each of them did 'the things on this list while you
were in middle school. If a parent did not do one of these things when you were in middle school
but it happened some other year before or after that, circle "9".
How often did this happen?
1 = Once or twice during that period
2 = 3-5 times during that period
3 = 6-10 times during that period
4 = 11-20 times during that period
5 = More than 20 times during that period
9 = Not during that period, but it did happen before
10 = This has never happened
1. Mother explained her side or suggested a compromise
for a disagreement with Father.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

2. Father explained his side or suggested a compromise
for a disagreement with Mother.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

3. Mother insulted or swore or shouted or yelled at
Father.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

4. Father insulted or swore or shouted or yelled at
Mother.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

87

5. Mother had a sprain, bruise, or small cut, or felt pain
the next day because of a fight with Father.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

6. Father had a sprain, bruise, or small cut or felt pain the
next day because of a fight with Mother.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

7. Mother showed respect for, or showed that she cared
about Father’s feelings about an issue they disagreed on.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

8. Father showed respect for, or showed that he cared
about mothers feelings about an issue they disagreed on.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

9. Mother pushed, shoved, or slapped Father.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

10. Father pushed, shoved, or slapped Mother.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

11. Mother punched or kicked or beat-up Father.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

12. Father punched or kicked or beat Mother up.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

13. Mother destroyed something belonging to Father or
threatened to hit Father.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

14. Father destroyed something belonging to Mother or
threatened to hit Mother.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

15. Mother went see a doctor (M.D.) or needed to see a
88

doctor because of a fight with Father.

16. Father went to see a doctor (M.D.) or needed to see a
doctor because of a fight with Mother.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

17. Mother did something to spite Father.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

18. Father did something to spite Mother.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

19. Mother choked or tried to choke Father.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

20. Father choked or tried to choke Mother.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

89

CTQ
These questions ask about some of your experiences growing up as a child and a teenager.
Although these questions are of a personal nature, please try to answer as honestly as you
can. For each question, circle the response that best describes how you feel.
WHEN I WAS GROWING UP…
1. I didn’t have enough to eat.
Never True
Rarely True

Sometimes True

Often True

Very Often

2. I knew that there was someone to take care of me and protect me.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True

Very Often

3. People in my family called me things like “stupid,” “lazy,” or “ugly.”
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True

Very Often

4. My parent(s) were too drunk or high to take care of the family.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True

Very Often

5. There was someone in my family who helped me feel that I was important or special.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True
Very Often
6. I had to wear dirty clothes.
Never True
Rarely True

Sometimes True

Often True

Very Often

7. I felt loved.
Never True

Sometimes True

Often True

Very Often

8. I thought that my parent(s) wished I had never been born.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True

Very Often

Rarely True

9. I got hit so hard by someone in my family that I had to see a doctor or go to the hospital.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True
Very Often
True
10. There was nothing I wanted to change about my family.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True

WHEN I WAS GROWING UP…
90

Often True

Very Often

11. People in my family hit me so hard that it left me with bruises or marks.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True

Very Often

12. I was punished with a belt, a board, a cord, or some other hard object.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True

Very Often

13. People in my family looked out for each other.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True

Often True

Very Often

14. People in my family said hurtful or insulting things to me.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True

Very Often

15. I believe that I was physically abused.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True

Often True

Very Often

16. I had the perfect childhood.
Never True
Rarely True

Often True

Very Often

Sometimes True

17. I got hit or beaten so badly that it was noticed by someone like a teacher, neighbor, or
doctor.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True
Very Often
18. I felt that someone in my family hated me.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True

Often True

Very Often

19. People in my family felt close to each other.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True

Often True

Very Often

20. Someone tried to touch me in a sexual way, or tried to make me touch them.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True
Very Often
WHEN I WAS GROWING UP…
21. I had the best family in the world.
Never True
Rarely True

Sometimes True

Often True

Very Often

22. Someone tried to make me do sexual things or watch sexual things.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True

Very Often

23. Someone molested me.
Never True
Rarely True

Very Often

Sometimes True
91

Often True

24. I believe that I was emotionally abused.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True

Often True

Very Often

25. There was someone to take me to the doctor if I needed it.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True
Often True

Very Often

26. I believe that I was sexually abused.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True

Often True

Very Often

27. My family was a source of strength and support.
Never True
Rarely True
Sometimes True

Often True

Very Often

92

PCLS
Instructions: Below is a list of problems and complaints that people sometimes have in response
to stressful life experiences. Please read each one carefully, then circle one of the numbers to the
right to indicate how much you have been bothered by that problem in the past 3 months.
1=Not at all

2=A little bit

3=Moderately

4=Quite a bit

5=Extremely

1. Repeated, disturbing memories, thoughts or
images of the stressful experience?

1

2

3

4

5

2. Repeated, disturbing dreams of the stressful
experience?

1

2

3

4

5

3. Suddenly acting or feeling as if the stressful
experience were happening again (as if you
were reliving it)?

1

2

3

4

5

4. Feeling very upset when something
reminded you of the stressful experience?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

6. Avoiding thinking about or talking about
your stressful experience or avoiding having
feelings related to it?

1

2

3

4

5

7. Avoiding activities or situations because
they reminded you of your stressful
experience?

1

2

3

4

5

5. Having physical reactions (e.g. heart
pounding, trouble breathing, sweating) when
something reminded you of the stressful
experience?

93

8. Trouble remembering important parts of the
stressful experience?

1

2

3

4

5

9. Loss of interest in activities that you used to
enjoy?

1

2

3

4

5

10. Feeling distant or cut off from other
people?

1

2

3

4

5

11. Feeling emotionally numb or being unable
to have loving feelings for those close to you?

1

2

3

4

5

12. Feeling as if your future somehow will be
cut short?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

13. Trouble falling or staying asleep?

14. Feeling irritable or having angry outbursts?

15. Having difficulty concentrating?

16. Being ‘super-alert’ or watchful or on
guard?

17. Feeling jumpy or easily startled?
94

DERS
Please indicate how often the following statements apply to you by writing the appropriate
number from the scale below on the line beside each item:
______________________________________________________________________________
1---------------------------2---------------------------3-----------------------------4--------------------------5
almost never
sometimes
about half the time
most of the time almost always
(0-10%)
(11-35%)
(36-65%)
(66-90%)
(91-100%)

1) I am clear about my feelings.

1

2

3

4

5

2) I pay attention to how I feel.

1

2

3

4

5

3) I have no idea how I am feeling.

1

2

3

4

5

4) I have difficulty making sense out of my
feelings.

1

2

3

4

5

5) I am attentive to my feelings.

1

2

3

4

5

6) I know exactly how I am feeling.

1

2

3

4

5

7) I care about what I am feeling.

1

2

3

4

5

8) I am confused about how I feel.

1

2

3

4

5

9) When I’m upset, I acknowledge my
emotions.

1

2

3

4

5

10) When I’m upset, I become angry with
myself for feeling that way.

1

2

3

4

5

11) When I’m upset, I become embarrassed for
feeling that way.

1

2

3

4

5

95

12) When I’m upset, I have difficulty getting
work done.

1

2

3

4

5

13) When I’m upset, I believe that I will remain
that way for a long time.

1

2

3

4

5

14) When I’m upset, I believe that I’ll end up
feeling very depressed.

1

2

3

4

5

15) When I’m upset, I believe that my feelings
are valid and important.

1

2

3

4

5

16) When I’m upset, I have difficulty focusing
on other things.

1

2

3

4

5

17) When I’m upset, I can still get things done.

1

2

3

4

5

18) When I’m upset, I feel ashamed with myself
for feeling that way.

1

2

3

4

5

19) When I’m upset, I know that I can find a
way to eventually feel better.

1

2

3

4

5

20) When I’m upset, I feel like I am weak.

1

2

3

4

5

21) When I’m upset, I feel guilty for feeling that
way.

1

2

3

4

5

22) When I’m upset, I have difficulty
concentrating.

1

2

3

4

5

23) When I’m upset, I believe that there is
nothing I can do to make myself feel better.

1

2

3

4

5

96

24) When I’m upset, I become irritated with
myself for feeling that way.

1

2

3

4

5

25) When I’m upset, I start to feel very bad
about myself.

1

2

3

4

5

26) When I’m upset, I believe that wallowing in
it is all I can do.

1

2

3

4

5

27) When I’m upset, I have difficulty thinking
about anything else.

1

2

3

4

5

28) When I’m upset, I take time to figure out
what I’m really feeling.

1

2

3

4

5

29) When I’m upset, it takes me a long time to
feel better.

1

2

3

4

5

30) When I’m upset, my emotions feel
overwhelming.

1

2

3

4

5

97

ERNS
Important Instructions
With this questionnaire, we are trying to get a sense of the kinds of different emotional reactions
you are able to experience. Using the numbers below, rate how much each of the statements
describes your tendency to experience these feelings.
1 - Not at all typical of me
2 - A little typical of me
3 - Somewhat typical of me
4 - Very typical of me
5 - Entirely typical of me
Please note, we are NOT asking about how likely you would be to show these feelings to other
people. Instead, we are asking how you would feel inside. Please keep this in mind as you read
each item.
1. I am able to feel a wide range of emotions (e.g.,

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

5. If a loved one was in danger, I would be scared.

1

2

3

4

5

6. I get angry if someone threatens me.

1

2

3

4

5

7. I feel cut off from my emotions.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

happiness, sadness, anger, and fear).
2. I get angry when someone treats me badly.
3. I become angry when someone has done
something to hurt me.
4. Even after a significant loss, I don’t have
feelings of sadness.

8. In situations when other people have strong
responses, I don’t feel anything at all.

98

9. There are certain emotions that I cannot feel.

1

2

3

4

5

10. I think of myself as a very emotional person.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

12. I feel like I am emotionally numb.

1

2

3

4

5

13. I feel afraid when I am in dangerous situations.

1

2

3

4

5

14. I get really annoyed when someone hassles me.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

16. I would be afraid if I was being threatened.

1

2

3

4

5

17. I don’t get angry.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

11. I have a hard time feeling close to people, even
my friends or family.

15. I get angry if I don’t get something I really
want and deserve.

18. There are some negative emotions that I rarely
feel even when there is reason to.
19. I feel somewhat nervous in new, unfamiliar
situations.
20. I get annoyed when I am insulted.

99

21. It is very hard to push my buttons.

1

there are reasons for me to feel that way.
23. I feel tense when I watch suspenseful movies.

24. I get angry if someone criticizes me.

25. I feel scared when I think I may be hurt or
harmed in some way.

100

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

22. I have a hard time feeling angry, even when

2

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

ISC
Please indicate how well each of the following statements typically describes you.
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree Somewhat
3 = Agree Somewhat
4 = Strongly Agree
Strongly
Disagree Agree
Disagree

Strongly
Agree

1. I do not devote time and effort to preparing for
the future.

1

2

3

4

2. If I have a choice, I will do something physical
rather than something mental.

1

2

3

4

3. I lose my temper easily.

1

2

3

4

4. I act on the spur of the moment without stopping
to think.

1

2

3

4

5. I feel better when I am on the move than when I
am sitting and thinking.

1

2

3

4

6. When I am angry at people I feel more like
hurting them than talking to them about why I am
angry.

1

2

3

4

7. I do things that bring me pleasure here and now,
even at the cost of future goals.

1

2

3

4

8. I’d rather go out and do things than read and
contemplate ideas.

1

2

3

4

9. When I am really angry, other people better stay
away from me.

1

2

3

4

101

10. I base my decisions on what will happen to me
in the short run rather than the long run.

1

2

3

4

11. Compared to other people my age, I have a
greater need for physical activity.

1

2

3

4

12. When I have a serious disagreement with
someone, it’s usually hard for me to talk calmly
about it without getting upset.

1

2

3

4

102

LSRPS
These questions are designed to help us learn more about you and the way you think about things
in general. Please read the following questions and tell us how much you agree that each
statement describes you.
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree Agree
Disagree
Agree
1. Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am
not concerned about the losers.

1

2

3

4

2. For me, what's right is whatever I can get away
with.

1

2

3

4

3. I don't plan anything very far in advance.

1

2

3

4

4. In today's world, I feel justified in doing anything
I can get away with to succeed.

1

2

3

4

5. My main purpose in life is getting as many
goodies as I can.

1

2

3

4

6. Making a lot of money is my most important goal.

1

2

3

4

7. I quickly lose interest in tasks I start.

1

2

3

4

8. When I get frustrated, I often "let off steam" by
blowing my top.

1

2

3

4

9. I let others worry about higher values; my main
concern is with the bottom line.

1

2

3

4

10. People who are stupid enough to get ripped off
usually deserve it.

1

2

3

4

11. Cheating is not justified because it is unfair to
others.

1

2

3

4

12. Looking out for myself is my top priority.

1

2

3

4

13. I find myself in the same kinds of trouble, time
after time.

1

2

3

4

103

14. I would be upset if my success came at someone
else's expense.

1

2

3

4

15. I am often bored.

1

2

3

4

16. I often admire a really clever scam.

1

2

3

4

17. Most of my problems are due to the fact that
other people just don't understand me.

1

2

3

4

18. Love is overrated.

1

2

3

4

19. I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone
else to feel emotional pain.

1

2

3

4

20. Before I do anything, I carefully consider the
possible consequences.

1

2

3

4

21. I have been in a lot of shouting matches with
other people.

1

2

3

4

22. Even if I were trying very hard to sell something,
I wouldn't lie about it.

1

2

3

4

23. I find that I am able to pursue one goal for a long
time.

1

2

3

4

24. I enjoy manipulating other people's feelings.

1

2

3

4

25. I make a point of trying not to hurt others in
pursuit of my goals.

1

2

3

4

26. I tell other people what they want to hear so that
they will do what I want them to do.

1

2

3

4

104

THE CTS2-SF Self-report
No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree, get annoyed
with the other person, want different things from each other, or just have spats or fights because
they are in a bad mood, are tired or for some other reason. Couples also have many different
ways of trying to settle their differences. This is a list of things that might happen when you have
differences. Please mark how many times you did each to these things in the past year, and how
many times your partner did them in the past year. If you or your partner did not do one of these
things in the past year, but it happened before that, mark a “9" on your answer sheet for that
question. If it never happened, mark “10" on your answer sheet.
How often did this happen?
1 = Once or twice during that period
2 = 3-5 times during that period
3 = 6-10 times during that period
4 = 11-20 times during that period
5 = More than 20 times during that period
9 = Not during that period, but it did happen before
10 = This has never happened

1. I explained my side or suggested a compromise for a
disagreement with my partner.

2. My partner explained his or her side or suggested a
compromise for a disagreement with me.

3. I insulted or swore or shouted or yelled at my partner.

4. My partner insulted or swore or shouted or yelled at me.

5. I had a sprain, bruise, or small cut, or felt pain the next
day because of a fight with my partner.

105

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

6. My partner had a sprain, bruise, or small cut or felt pain
the next day because of a fight with me.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

7. I showed respect for, or showed that I cared about my
partner’s feelings about an issue we disagreed on.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

8. My partner showed respect for, or showed that he or she
cared about my feeling about an issue we disagreed on.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

13. I destroyed something belonging to my partner or
threatened to hit my partner.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

14. My partner destroyed something belonging to me or
threatened to hit me.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

15. I went see a doctor (M.D.) or needed to see a doctor
because of a fight with my partner.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

9. I pushed, shoved, or slapped my partner.

10. My partner pushed, shoved, or slapped me.

11. I punched or kicked or beat-up my partner.

12. My partner punched or kicked or beat-me-up.

106

16. My partner went to see a doctor (M.D.) or needed to
see a doctor because of a fight with me.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

17. I used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a
weapon) to make my partner have sex.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

18. My partner used force (like hitting, holding down, or
using a weapon) to make me have sex.

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

19. I insisted on sex when my partner did not want to or
insisted on sex without a condom (but did not use physical
force).

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

20. My partner insisted on sex when I did not want to or
insisted on sex without a condom (but did not use physical
force).

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

107

PMWI – SF - partner
Please rate how often a romantic partner did each of the following behaviors to you in the last
year using the following scale:
Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Frequently

Very

1

2

3

4

Frequently
5

1. My partner called me names.

1

2

3

4

5

2. My partner swore at me.

1

2

3

4

5

3. My partner yelled and screamed at me.

1

2

3

4

5

4. My partner treated me like an inferior.

1

2

3

4

5

5. My partner monitored my time and made me
account for where I was.

1

2

3

4

5

6. My partner used our money or made important
financial decisions without talking to me about it.

1

2

3

4

5

7. My partner was jealous or suspicious of my
friends.

1

2

3

4

5

8. My partner accused me of having an affair
(cheating) with another person.

1

2

3

4

5

9. My partner interfered in my relationships with
other family members.

1

2

3

4

5

108

10. My partner tried to keep me from doing things to
help myself.

1

2

3

4

5

11. My partner restricted my use of the telephone.

1

2

3

4

5

12. My partner told me my feelings were irrational or
crazy.

1

2

3

4

5

13. My partner blamed me for his/her problems.

1

2

3

4

5

14. My partner tried to make me feel like I was
crazy.

1

2

3

4

5

15. Restricted your use of social networking sites
(Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc.).

1

2

3

4

5

16. Monitored who you communicated with online.

1

2

3

4

5

17. Made you give him/her your online passwords to
monitor your eMail/Facebook/etc.

1

2

3

4

5

18. Checked your computer browsing history.

1

2

3

4

5

19. Checked your call and text history on your
phone.

1

2

3

4

5

20. Read your eMail or other personal
communications without your permission and/or
knowledge.

1

2

3

4

5

109

PMWI – SF - self
Please rate how often you did each of the following behaviors to your romantic partners in the
last year using the following scale:
Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Frequently

Very

1

2

3

4

Frequently
5

1. I called my partner names.

1

2

3

4

5

2. I swore at my partner.

1

2

3

4

5

3. I yelled and screamed at my partner.

1

2

3

4

5

4. I treated my partner like an inferior.

1

2

3

4

5

5. I monitored my partner’s time and made
him/her account for where he/she was.

1

2

3

4

5

6. I used our money or made important financial
decisions without talking to my partner about it.

1

2

3

4

5

7. I was jealous or suspicious of my partner’s
friends.

1

2

3

4

5

8. I accused my partner of having an affair
(cheating) with another person.

1

2

3

4

5

9. I interfered in my partner’s relationships with
other family members.

1

2

3

4

5

110

10. I tried to keep my partner from doing things to
help himself/herself.

1

2

3

4

5

11. I restricted my partner’s use of the telephone.

1

2

3

4

5

12. I told my partner his/her feelings were
irrational or crazy.

1

2

3

4

5

13. I blamed my partner for my problems.

1

2

3

4

5

14. I tried to make my partner feel like he/she was
crazy.

1

2

3

4

5

15. Restricted your partner’s use of social
networking sites (Facebook, Myspace, Twitter,
etc.).

1

2

3

4

5

16. Monitored who your partner communicated
with online.

1

2

3

4

5

17. Made your partner give you his/her online
passwords to monitor their eMail/Facebook/etc.

1

2

3

4

5

18. Checked your partner’s computer browsing
history.

1

2

3

4

5

19. Checked your partner’s call and text history
on their phone.

1

2

3

4

5

20. Read your partner’s eMail or other personal
communications without their permission and/or
knowledge.

1

2

3

4

5

111

SEA
_____________________________________________________________________________
Directions: Please read the following list of things some people do to hurt their partner or expartner financially. Could you tell me, to the best of your recollection, how frequently your
partner or ex-partner has done any of the following things since your relationship began?
1 = never, 2 = hardly ever, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = quite often
______ 1. Do things to keep you from going to your job.
______ 2. Threaten you to make you leave work.
______ 3. Demand that you quit your job.
______ 4. Take money from your purse, wallet, or bank account without your permission and/or
knowledge.
______ 5. Force you to give him/her money or let them use your checkbook, ATM card, or credit
card.
______ 6. Steal your property.
______ 7. Take your paycheck, financial aid check, tax refund check, disability payment, or
other support payments from you.
______ 8. Decide how you could spend money rather than letting you spend it how you saw fit.
______ 9. Demand to know how money was spent.
______ 10. Demand that you give him/her receipts and/or change when you spent money.
______ 11. Gamble with your money or your shared money.
______ 12. Have you ask your family or friends for money but not let you pay them back.
______ 13. Convince you to lend him/her money but not pay it back.
______ 14. Pay bills late or not pay bills that were in your name or in both of your names.
______ 15. Pawn your property or your shared property.

112

SEA
______________________________________________________________________________
Directions: Please read the following list of things some people do to hurt their partner or expartner financially. Could you tell me, to the best of your recollection, how frequently you have
done any of the following things to your most recent partner since your relationship began?

1 = never, 2 = hardly ever, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = quite often

______ 1. Do things to keep him/her from going to their job.
______ 2. Threaten to make him/her leave work.
______ 3. Demand that they quit their job.
______ 4. Take money from his/her purse, wallet, or bank account without their permission
and/or knowledge.
______ 5. Force them to give you money or let you use their checkbook, ATM card, or credit
card.
______ 6. Steal his/her property.
______ 7. Take his/her paycheck, financial aid check, tax refund check, disability payment, or
other support payments from them.
______ 8. Decide how they could spend money rather than letting them spend it how they saw
fit.
______ 9. Demand to know how money was spent.
______ 10. Demand that they give you receipts and/or change when they spent money.
______ 11. Gamble with their money or your shared money.
______ 12. Have them ask their family or friends for money but not let them pay it back.
______ 13. Convince them to lend you money but not pay it back.
______ 14. Pay bills late or not pay bills that were in their name or in both of your names.
______ 15. Pawn his/her property or your shared property.

113

APPENDIX B

CONSENT FORM

114

Consent
Study Description: This research, titled “College Dating Relationships Study,” is a survey of
undergraduates at Michigan State University. We hope to gather information about how childhood
experiences can impact people as they become adults and about some of your personal experiences in
recent romantic relationships. If you decide to take part in this research study, you will be asked
questions about how you have been feeling recently, some ways you describe yourself, events that you
experienced during childhood, and about any romantic relationships you have had in the past year. Some
of the questions are regarding sensitive topics such as family violence. The total interview will take 6090 minutes. Participation is voluntary.
Compensation: You will have a choice to be compensated with either 1.5 HPR research credit hours or
be entered into a drawing for one of three $50 cash prizes for your participation.
Confidentiality: All information that you give us will be kept strictly confidential among the project staff
and the Institutional Review Board of Michigan State University (IRB), who oversees the conduction of
research at this university. Your name will not be on any questionnaires. All of your answers will be kept
in a password protected computer file located on the Psychology Department secured server, accessible
only by research project staff and the IRB, and maintained for a minimum period of 3 years. Your identity
will not be revealed in any reports written about this study. We will summarize information from all study
participants and will not report information about yourself or any individuals. Your confidentiality will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
Risks: Risks associated with this study are minimal. Many of the questions are personal and some of the
questionnaires ask about experiences that can be psychologically distressing; however, in our experience,
the use of similar questionnaires has not contributed to significant distress in other participants. If you
experience distress during or after completing the study, referrals for psychological services are available.
Benefits: You may directly benefit from your participation in this study if you are awarded one of the
three cash prizes. Your participation in this study may also contribute to the understanding of romantic
relationships.
Participant Rights: You have the right to refuse to answer any questions or to withdraw from this study
at any point with no penalty or negative consequences. If you choose to withdraw, your data will be
permanently deleted and you will receive research credits equal to the amount of time you have spent
completing the questionnaires up to 1.5 credit hours. You may not be entered to receive a cash prize until
you complete the entire study. Your decision about whether to participate or not will not affect your
relationship with any agencies or Michigan State University.
Contact Information: If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how
to do any part of it, or to report an injury (psychological, physical, social, or financial), please contact the
researchers, Anne G. Bogat or Parker Huston [44 Psychology Bldg., Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI 48824; (517) 432-1447; Bogat@msu.edu or hustonp1@msu.edu].

115

If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant,
would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this
study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University's Human Research
Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at
207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I have read the above information and agree to participate in this study:

___________________________________
Participant signature

___________
Date

116

APPENDIX C

FIGURES NOT INCLUDED IN THE TEXT

117

PCLS
Arousal
CTS-Male

CTS-Female

EDA

DERS
PMWI

Family
Violence
Exposure

Hyper-arousal
& Emotion
Dysregulation

CTS2-Self

Situational
Couple Violence

Child
Maltreatment

CTQEmotional

CTQPhysical/Sexual

Self-control

ISCImpulsivity

Figure 6: Conceptual Model for SCV.
118

ISCVolatile Temper

SEA

CTS-Male

CTS-Female

EDA

PCLS
Numbing

ENRS
PMWI

Autonomic
Hypo-arousal
& Numbing

Family
Violence
Exposure

CTS-Self

Coercive
Controlling
Violence

Primary
Psychpathy
Traits

Child
Maltreatment

CTQEmotional

CTQPhysical/Sexual

LSRPS
Secondary
LSRPS
Primary

Male
Gender

Figure 7: Conceptual Model for CCV.
119

SEA

REFERENCES

120

References
Adams, A.E., Sullivan, C.M., Bybee, D., & Greeson, M.R. (2008). Development of the
Scale of Economic Abuse. Violence Against Women, 14, 563-588.
Ali, F., Amorim, I.S., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Empathy deficits and trait
emotional intelligence in psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 47, 758-762.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous, X. & Warden, D. (2008). Physiologically-indexed and
self-perceived affective empathy in conduct-disordered children high and low on
callous-emotional traits. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 39, 503-517.
Anestis, J.C., Caron, K.M., & Carbonelli, J.L. (2011). Examining the influence of gender
on the factor structure of the psychopathic personality inventory-revised.
Assessment, 18(3), 340-349.
Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. The American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
Ashby Wills, T. & Dishion, T.J. (2004). Temperament and adolescent substance use: A
transactional analysis of emerging self-control. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 33, 69-81.
Babcock, J.C., Green, C.E., Webb, S.A., & Yerington, T.P. (2005). Psychophysiological
profilesof batterers: Autonomic emotional reactivity as it predicts the antisocial
spectrum of behavior among intimate partner abusers. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 114, 444-455.
Bandurra, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Oxford, England: Prentice-Hall.
Barkley, R.A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and self-control
functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121,
65-94.

121

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Baumeister, R.F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C.N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and
personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion
moderates the effects of trait on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74, 1773-1802.
Bernstein, D. P., Fink, L., Handelsman, L., Foote, J., Lovejoy, M.,Wenzel, K., Sapareto,
E., & Ruggiero, J. (1994). Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective
measure of child abuse and neglect. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 1132–
1136.
Bernstein D.P., Stein, J.A., et al. (2003). Development and validation of a brief screening
version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 169190.
Blanchard, E.B., Jones-Alexander, J., Buckley, T.C., & Forneris, C.A. (1996).
Psychometric properties of the PTSD Checklist (PCL). Behavioral Research and
Therapy, 34, 669-673.
Blandon, A.Y., Calkins, S.D., Keane, S.P., & O’Brien, M. (2008). Individual differences
in trajectories of emotion regulation processes: The effects of maternal depressive
symptomatology and children’s physiological regulation. Developmental
Psychology, 44, 1110-1123.
Bogat, G. A., DeJonghe, E. S., Levendosky, A. A., Davidson, W. S., & von Eye, A.
(2006). Trauma symptoms among infants who witness domestic violence toward
their mothers. Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal, 30, 109-125.
Boutwell, B.B. & Beaver, K.M. (2010). The role of broken homes in the development of
self-control: A propensity score matching approach. Journal of Criminal Justice,
38, 489-495.
Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization.
Briere, J. & Runtz, M. (1990). Differential adult symptomatology associated with three
types of child abuse histories. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 357-364.
122

Brinkley, C.A., Diamond, P.M., Magaletta, P.R., & Heigel, C.P. (2008). Cross-validation
of Levenson’s psychopathy scale in a sample of federal female inmates.
Assessment, 15(4), 464-482.
Caetano, R., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Field, C.A. (2005). Unidirectional and bidirectional
intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United
States. Violence and Victims, 20, 393-406.
Campos, J.J., Frankel, C.B., & Camras, L. (2004). On the nature of emotion regulation.
Child Development, 75, 377-394.
Casada, J.H. & Roache, J.D. (2006). Dissociation of physiology and behavior in PTSD.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62, 243-248.
Caspi, A. (2000). The child is father of the man: Personality continues from childhood to
adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 158-172.
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K.A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in
relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family
Psychology, 17, 598-606.
Cicchetti, D., & Curtis,W. J. (2006). The developing brain and neural plasticity:
Implications for normality, psychopathology, and resilience. In D. Cicchetti & D.
Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 2. Developmental
neuroscience (2nd ed., pp. 1–64). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Cicchetti, D. & Toth, S.L. (2005). Child Maltreatment. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 1, 409-438.
Cicchetti, D. & Rogosch, F.A. (2001a). Diverse patterns of neuroendocrine activity in
maltreated children. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 677-693.
Cicchetti, D. & Rogosch, F.A. (2001b). The impact of child maltreatment and
psychopathology on neuroendocrine functioning. Development and
Psychopathology, 13, 783-804.
Cole, P.M., Martin, S.E., & Dennis, T.A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific
construct: Methodological challenges and directions for child development
research. Child Development, 75, 317-333.
College portrait of Michigan State University for Fall 2011. (2011, October). Retrieved
Novermber 19, 2011, from http://www.collegeportraits.org/
MI/MSU/characteristics.
123

Colman, R.A. & Widom, C.S. (2004). Childhood abuse and neglect and adult intimate
relationships: A prospective study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(11), 1133-1151.
Coyne, S.M., Nelson, D.A., Graham-Kevan, N., Keister, E., & Grant, D.M. (2010). Mean
on the screen: Psychopathy, relationship aggression, and aggression in the media.
Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 288-293.
Coyne, S.M. & Thomas, T.J. (2008). Psychopathy, aggression, and cheating behavior: A
test of the Cheater-Hawk hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
1105-1115.
Crockenberg, S. C., Leerkes, E. M., & Lekka, S. K. (2007). Pathways from marital
aggression to infant emotion regulation: The development of withdrawal in
infancy. Infant Behavior & Development, 30, 97–113.
Cummings, E.M., Davies, P.T., & Campbell, S.B. (2000). Developmental
psychopathology and family process. New York: Guilford Press.
Daversa, M.T. (2010). Early environmental predictors of the affective and interpersonal
constructs of psychopathy. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 54, 6-21.
Dawson, M.E., Schell, A.M., & Filion, D.L. (2007). The electrodermal system. In J.T.
Cacioppo, L.G. Tassinary, & G. Bernston (Eds.), Handbook of Psychophysiology
(pp. 159-181). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
DeLisi, M., Hochstetler, A., & Murphy, D. S. (2003). Self-control behind bars: A
validation of the Grasmick et al. scale. Justice Quarterly, 20, 241-263.
DeWall, C.N., Baumeister, R.F., Stillman, T.F., & Gailliot, M.T. (2007). Vilence
restrained: Effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 62-76.
Dodge, K.A., & Coie, J.D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in proactive and
reactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53(6), 1146-1158.
Dolan, M. & Vollm, B. (2009). Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in
women: A literature review on the reliability and validity of assessment
instruments. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32, 2-9.

124

Douglas, K., Strand, S., Belfrage, H., Fransson, G., & Levander, S. (2005). Reliability
and validity evaluation of the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:
SV) in Swedish correctional and forensic psychiatric samples. Assessment, 12,
145−161.
Eckhardt, C.I., Barbour, K.A., & Davison, G.C. (1998). Articulated thoughts of martially
violent and nonviolent men during anger arousal. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 66, 259-269.
Elliott, G. C., Avery, R., Fishman, E., & Hoshiko, B. (2002). The encounter with family
violence and risky sexual activity among young adolescent females. Violence and
Victims, 17, 569–592.
Fabes, R.A., & Eisenberg, N. (1992). Young children’s coping with interpersonal anger.
Child Development, 63, 116–128.
Falkenbach, D., Poythress, N., & Creevy, C. (2008). The exploration of subclinical
psychopathic subtypes and the relationship with types of aggression. Personality
and Individual Differences, 44, 821-832.
Finkel, E.J. & Campbell, W.K. (2001). Self-control and accommodation in close
relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 263-277.
Finkel, E.J., DeWall, C.N., Slotter, E.B., Oaten, M., & Foshee, V.A. (2009). Selfregulatory failure and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 483-499.
Fite, J.E., Bates, J.E., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Dodge, K.A., Nay, S.Y., & Pettit, G.S.
(2008). Social information processing mediates the intergenerational transmission
of aggressiveness in romantic relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 22,
367-376.
Foshee, V.A., Benefield, T., Suchindran, C., Ennett, S.T., Bauman, K.E., Karriker-Jaffe,
K.J., Reyes, H.L.M., & Mathias, J. (2009). The development of four types of
adolescent dating abuse and selected demographic correlates. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 19, 380-400.
Frewen, P.A. & Lanius, R.A. (2006). Toward a psychobiology of posttraumatic selfdysregulation: Reexperiencing, hyperarousal, dissociation, and emotional
numbing. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1071, 110-124.
125

Frick, P.J. (2004). The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits, Unpublished rating
scale.
Frick, P.J., Cornell, A.H., Barry, C.T., Bodin, S.D., & Dane, H.E. (2003a). Callousunemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem
severity, aggression, and self-report delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 31 (4), 457-470.
Frick, P.J., Cornell, A.H., Bodin, S.D., Dane, H.E., Barry, C.T., & Loney, B.R. (2003b).
Callous-unemotional traits and developmental pathways to severe conduct
problems. Developmental Psychology, 39, 246-260.
Frick, P. J.,Kimonis, E.R., Dandreaux, D. M.,&Farell, J.M. (2003). The 4-year stability of
psychopathic traits in non-referred youth. Behavioral Science Law, 21, 713–736.
Gao, Y., Raine, A., Chan, F., Venables, P.H., & Mednick, S.A. (2010). Early maternal
and paternal bonding, childhood physical abuse and adult psychopathic
personality. Psychological Medicine, 40, 1107-1016.
Gibson, C.L., Ward, J.T., Wright, J.P., Beaver, K.M., & Delisi, M. (2010). Where does
gender fit in the measurement of self-control? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37,
883-903.
Gottman, J.M., Jacobson, N.S., et al. (1995). The relationship between heart rate
reactivity, emotionally aggressive behavior, and general violence in batterers.
Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 227-248.
Graham-Kevin, N. & Archer, J. (2003). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence:
A test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 18, 1247-1270.
Grasmick, H.G., Tittle, C.R., Bursik, Jr., R.J., & Arneklev, B.J. (2003). Testing the core
empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime.
Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29.
Gratz, K.L. & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation
and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41-54.
126

Handwerger, K. (2009). Differential patterns of HPA activity and reactivity in adult
posttraumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. Harvard Review of
Psychiatry, 17, 184–205.
Hawes, D.J., Brennan, J., & Dadds, M.R. (2009). Cortisol, callous-unemotional traits,
and pathways to antisocial behavior. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 22, 357-362.
Heim, C., & Nemeroff, C.B. (2009). Neurobiology of posttraumatic stress disorder. CNS
Spectrums, 14, 13–24.
Hines, D.A., Brown J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of callers to the domestic
abuse hotline for men. Journal of Family Violence, 22(2), 63-72.
Holden, G.W. (2003). Children exposed to domestic violence and child abuse:
Terminology and taxonomy. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6,
151-160.
Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The influence of exposure to domestic
violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 32, 797-810.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2008). Male versus female intimate partner violence: Putting
controversial findings into context. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67,
1120-1125.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Meehan, J.C. (2004). Typologies of men who are martially
violent: Scientific and clinical implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
19, 1369-1389.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Stuart, G.L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three
subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476-497.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity
to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424453.
Huss, M.T. & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2000). Identification of the psychopathic
batterer: The clinical, legal, and policy implications. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 5, 403-422.

127

Ireland, T.O. & Smith, C.A. (2009). Living in partner-violent families: Developmental
links to antisocial behavior and relationship violence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 38, 323-339.
Ireland, T.O., Smith, C.A., & Thornberry, T.P. (2002). Developmental issues in the
influence of child maltreatment on later delinquency and drug use. Criminology,
40, 359–399.
Jezl, D. R., Molidor, C. E., & Wright, T. L. (1996). Physical, sexual and psychological
abuse in high school dating relationships: Prevalence rates and self-esteem issues.
Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 13, 69-87.
Johnson, M.P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of
violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-298.
Johnson, M.P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in
domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003-1018.
Johnson, M.P. & Ferraro, K.J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990’s:
Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 948-963.
Johnson, M.P. & Leone, J.M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and
situational couple violence: Findings from the national violence against women
survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 322-349.
Jones, S., Davidson II, W.S., Bogat, G.A., Levendosky, A.A., & von Eye, A. (2005).
Validation of the Subtle and Overt Psychological Abuse Scale: An examination of
construct validity. Violence and Victims, 20, 407-416.
Jöreskog, K.G. & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer software].
Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Kaplan, S.J., Pelcovitz, D., & Labruna, V. (1999). Child and adolescent abuse and
neglect research: A review of the past 10 years. Part I: Physical and emotional
abuse and neglect. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 38 (10), 1214-1222.
Kearney, C.A., Wechsler, A., Kaur, H., & Lemos-Miller, A. (2010). Posttraumatic stress
disorder in maltreated youth: A review of contemporary research and thought.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 13, 46-76.
128

Kelly, J.B. & Johnson, M.P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner
violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court
Review, 46, 476-499.
Kemp, A.H., Felmington, K.L., Falconer, E., Liddell, B.J., Bryant, R.A., & Williams,
L.M. (2009). Heterogeneity of non-conscious fear perception in posttraumatic
stress disorder as a function of physiological arousal: An fMRI study. Psychiatry
Research: Neuroimaging, 174, 158-161.
Kerley, K.R., Xu, X., & Sirisunyaluck, B. (2008). Self-control, Intimate partner abuse,
and intimate partner victimization: Testing the general theory of crime in
Thailand. Deviant Behavior, 29, 503-532.
Kim, H.K., Pears, K.C., Capaldi, D.M., & Owen, L.D. (2009). Emotion dysregulation in
the intergenerational transmission of romantic relationship conflict. Journal of
Family Psychology, 23, 585-595.
Kim-Cohen, J., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., Williams, B., Newcombe, R., Craig, I. W., et al.
(2006). MAOA, maltreatment, and gene–environment interaction predicting
children’s mental health: New evidence and a meta analysis. Molecular
Psychiatry, 11, 903–913.
Kimonis, E.R., Frick, P.J., et al. (2008). Assessing callous-unemotional traits in
adolescent offenders: Validation of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 241-252.
Knickerbocker, L., Heyman, R.E., Smith-Slep, A.M., Jouriles, E.N., & McDonald, R.
(2007). Co-occurrence of child and partner maltreatment; Definitions, prevalence,
theory, and implications for assessment. European Psychologist, 12(1), 36-44.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K.T., & Harlan, E.T. (2000). Effortful control in early
childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social
development. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220-232.
Leone, J.M., Johnson, M.P., & Cohan, C.L. (2007). Victim help seeking: Differences
between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Family Relations, 56,
427-439.

129

Levenson, M.R., Kiehl, K.A., & Fitzpatrick, C.M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic
attributes in a non-institutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 151-158.
Lewis, S.F. & Fremouw, W. (2001). Dating violence: A critical review of the literature.
Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 105-127.
Lichter, E.L., & McCloskey, L.A. (2004). The effects of childhood exposure to marital
violence on adolescent gender-role beliefs and dating violence. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 28, 344-357.
Lorber, M.F. (2004). Psychophysiology of aggression, psychopathy, and conduct
problems: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 531-552.
Lynam, D.R., Charingo, R., Moffitt, T.E., Raine, A., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber,
M. (2009). The stability of psychopathy across adolescence. Development and
Psychopathology, 21, 1133-1153.
Lynam, D.R., Derefinko, K.J., Caspi, A., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2007).
The content validity of juvenile psychopathy: An empirical examination.
Psychological Assessment, 19, 363–367.
Lynam, D.R. & Gudonis, L. (2005). The development of psychopathy. Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology, 1, 381-407.
Lynam, D.R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: A validation
study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 110-132.
Magdol, L., Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Newman, D.L., Fagan, J., & Silva, P.A. (1997).
Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21-year-olds: Bridging
the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 65, 68-78.
Matud, M.P. (2007). Dating violence and domestic violence. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 40, 295-297.
Maughan, A. & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Influence of child maltreatment and interadult
violence on children’s emotion regulation abilities and socioemotional
adjustment. Child Development, 73, 1525-1542.

130

McDonald, R., Jouriles, R.N., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Caetano, R., & Green, C.E. (2006).
Estimating the number of American children living in partner-violent families.
Journal of Family Psychology, 20 (1), 137-142.
McKinney, C.M., Caetano, R., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Nelson, S. (2009). Childhood
family violence and perpetration and victimization of intimate partner violence:
Findings from a national population-based study. Annals of Epidemiology, 19, 2532.
Mead, H.K., Beauchaine, T.P., & Shannon, K.E. (2010). Neurobiological adaptations to
violence across development. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 1-22.
Miller, S., Malone, P.S., & Dodge, K.A. (2010). Developmental trajectories of boys’ and
girls’ delinquency: Sex differences and links to later adolescent outcomes.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1021-1032.
Moretti, M.M., Obsuth, I., Odgers, C.L., & Reebye, P. (2006). Exposure to maternal vs.
paternal partner violence, PTSD, and aggression in adolescent girls and boys.
Aggressive Behavior, 32, 385-395.
Mullen, P.E., Martin, J.L., Anderson, J.C., Romans, S.E., & Herbison, G.P. (1996). The
long-term influence of the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of children: A
community study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 7-21.
Munoz-Rivas, M.J., Grana, J.L., O’Leary, K.D., & Gonzalez, M.P. (2007). Aggression in
adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, Justification, and health
consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 298-304.
Muraven, M., Tice, D.M., & Baumeister, R.F. (1998). Self-control as limited resource:
Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
774–789.
Orsillo, S.M., Theodore-Oklata, C., Luterek, J.A., & Plumb, J. (2007). Development and
psychometric evaluation of the Emotional Reactivity and Numbing Scale.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 195, 830-836.
Osumi, T., Shimazaki, H., Imai, A., Sigura, Y., & Ohira, H. (2007). Psychopathic traits
and cardiovascular responses to emotional stimuli. Personality and Individual
Differences, 42, 1391-1402.

131

Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B.,&Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial Boys. Eugene, OR:
Castalia.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth
model. New York: Springer.
Pollak, S., Cicchetti, D., & Klorman, R. (1998). Stress, memory, and emotion:
Developmental considerations from the study of child maltreatment. Development
and Psychopathology, 10, 811-828.
Pulkkinen, L. (2009). Personality – a resource or risk for successful development.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 602-610.
Rafaelli, M., Crockett, L.J., & Shen, Y. (2005). Developmental stability and change in
self-regulation from childhood to adolescence. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 166, 54-75.
Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C.L. (1998). Rates of intimate partner violence in the
United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1702-1704.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime reference guide:
Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Schulz, M.C., Waldinger, R.J., Hauser, S.T., & Allen, J.P. (2005). Adolescents’ behavior
in the presence of interparental hostility: Developmental and emotion regulatory
influences. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 489-507.
Seah, S.L. & Ang, R.P. (2008). Differential correlates of reactive and proactive
aggression in Asian adolescents: Relations to narcissism, anxiety, schizotypal
traits, and peer relations. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 553-562.
Segiun, J.R., Arseneault, L., & Tremblay, R.E. (2007). The contribution of “cool” and
“hot” components of decision-making in adolescence: Implications for
developmental psychopathology. Cognitive Development, 22, 530-543.
Shaffer, A., Yates, T.M., & Egeland, B.R. (2009). The relation of emotional maltreatment
to early adolescent competence: Developmental processes in a prospective study.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 36-44.

132

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental
studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422445.
Speil, C., Lapka, D., Gradinger, P., Zodlhofer, E.M., Reimann, R., Schober, B., Wagner,
P., & von Eye, A. (2008). A euclidean distance-based matching procedure for
nonrandomized comparison studies. European Psychologist, 13(3), 180-187.
Sroufe, A. (1997). Psychopathology as an outcome of development. Development and
Psychopathology, 9, 251–268.
Stith, S.M., Rosen, K.H., Middleton, K.A., Busch, A.L., Lundeberg, K., & Carlton, R.P.
(2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 640-654.
Straus, M.A. (1999). Child report and adult recall versions of the revised Conflict Tactics
Scales. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Family Research
Laboratory.
Straus, M.A. (2007). Conflict tactics scales. In N.A. Jackson (Ed.) Encyclopedia of
Domestic Violence (pp. 190-197). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
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.
Straus, M.A. & Mattingly, M.J. (2007). A short form and severity level types for the
Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales. Durham, NH: University of New
Hampshire, Family Research Laboratory.
Stucke, T.S. & Baumeister, R.F. (2006). Ego depletion and aggressive behavior:
Is the inhibition of aggression a limited resource? European Journal of Social
Psychology, 36, 1-13.
Swogger, M. T., Walsh, Z., & Kosson, D. S. (2007). Domestic violence and psychopathic
traits: Distinguishing the antisocial batterer from other antisocial offenders.
Aggressive Behavior, 33, 253–260.
Tangney, J.P., Baumeister, R.F., & Boone, A.L. (2004). High self-control predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
Personality, 72, 272-324.
133

Tarullo, A. R., & Gunnar, M. R. (2006). Child maltreatment and the developing HPA
axis. Hormones and Behavior, 50, 632–639.
Teicher, M.H., Andersen, S.L., Polcari, A., Anderson, C.M., Navalta, C.P., & Kim, D.M.
(2003). The neurobiological consequences of early stress and childhood
maltreatment. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, 27, 33-44.
Teisl, M. & Cicchetti, D. (2007). Physical abuse, cognitive and emotional processes, and
aggressive/disruptive behavior problems. Social Development, 17, 1-23.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and
consequences of violence against women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Tolman, R.M. (1999). The validation of the psychological maltreatment of women
inventory. Violence and Victims, 14, 25-37.
van der Kolk, B.A. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder: Toward a rational diagnosis
for children with complex trauma histories. Psychiatric Annals, 35, 401–408.
Vanman, E.J., Mejia, V.Y., Dawson, M.E., Schell, A.M., & Raine, A. (2003).
Modification of the startle reflex in a community sample: Do one or two
dimensions of psychopathy underlie emotional processing? Personality and
Individual Differences, 35, 2007-2021.
Vasilev, C.A., Crowell, S.E., Beauchaine, T.P., Mead, H.K., & Gratzke-Kopp, L.M.
(2009). Correspondence between physiological and self-report measures of
emotion dysregulation: A longitudinal investigation of youth with and without
psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 1357-1364.
Veenema, A.H. (2009). Early life stress, the development of aggression and
neuroendocrine and neurobiological correlates: What can we learn from animal
models? Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 30, 497-518.
Ventureyra, V.A.G., Yao, S., Cottraux, J., Note, I., & De Mey-Guillard, C. (2002). The
validation of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Scale in posttraumatic
stress disorder and nonclinical subjects. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 71,
47-53.

134

Vohs, K.D., Baumeister, R.F., Schmeichel, B.J., Twenge, J.M., Nelson, N.M., & Tice,
D.M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource
account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Personality
Process and Individual Differences, 94, 883-898.
Vohs, K.D. & Heatherton, T.F. (2000). Self-regulatory failure: A resource-depletion
approach. Psychological Science, 11, 249-254.
Wareham, J., Boots, D.P., & Chavez, J.M. (2009). A test of social learning and
intergenerational transmission among batterers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37,
163-173.
Weathers, F.W., Litz, B.T., Herman, D.S., Huska, J.A., & Keane, T.M. The PTSD
Checklist; Reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, San
Antonio, TX, October 1993.
Weinberg, A. & Klonsky, E.D. (2009). Measurement of emotion dysregulation in
adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 21, 616-621.
Whitaker, D.J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L.S. (2007). Differences in
frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal
and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health,
97, 941-947.
Widom, C.S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244, 160–166.
Widom, C.S., Czaja, S.J., & Dutton, M.A. (2008). Childhood victimization and lifetime
revictimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(8), 785-796.
Williams, J.R., Ghandour, R.M., & Kub, J.E. (2008). Female perpetration of violence in
heterosexual intimate relationships: Adolescence through adulthood. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 9, 227-249.
Wolfe, D.A., Crooks, C.V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P.G. (2003). The
effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 6 (3), 171-187.

135

Wright, M.O., Crawford, E., & Del Castillo, D. (2009). Childhood emotional
maltreatment and later psychological distress among college students: The
mediating role of maladaptive schemas. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 59-68.
Xie, H., Drabick, D.A.G., & Chen, D. (2011). Developmental trajectories of aggression
from late childhood through adolescence: Similarities and differences across
gender. Aggressive Behavior, 37 (5), 387-404.

136