and Affect Regulation in Men’s
Perpetration of Psychological
Abuse in Dating Relationships
FELICITY W. K. HARPER AMANDA G. AUSTIN JENNIFER J. CERCONE
ILEANA ARIAS
University of Georgia
This study determines the relationships between shame, anger, and men’s perpetra-tion of psychological abuse in dating relaperpetra-tionships. The authors hypothesize the con-nection between shame proneness and men’s use of psychological abuse with a dat-ing partner, with anger’s mediatdat-ing in this relationship. In addition, the authors hypothesize that affect regulation would moderate the relationship between anger and men’s use of psychological abuse. Results indicate that shame proneness and use of psychological abuse are significantly related and that anger mediates the relation-ship. However, affect regulation does not moderate the effects of anger on men’s use of psychological abuse. These findings are consistent with theoretical conceptualiza-tions of shame and have implicaconceptualiza-tions for intervention and treatment programs for perpetrators of psychological abuse in dating relationships.
Keywords: psychological abuse; anger; shame; affect regulation; dating relationships
Psychological abuse or trauma to victims caused by acts, threats of acts, or
coercive tactics (Saltzman, Fanslow, McMahon, & Shelley, 1999) is a wide-spread phenomenon that has only recently begun to receive attention in dat-ing violence literature. Exact numbers vary, dependdat-ing primarily on the oper-ational definition of each study. However, available data suggest that at least
1648
Authors’ Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Felicity Harper, Communication and Behavioral Oncology Program, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Hud-son Webber Cancer Research Center, 5th Floor, 4100 John R St., Detroit, MI 48201. Electronic mail may be sent to harperf@karmanos.org.
JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE, Vol. 20 No. 12, December 2005 1648-1662 DOI: 10.1177/0886260505278717
90% of high school and college students have experienced psychological abuse (also known as psychological maltreatment or emotional abuse) at some point in their dating history (Jezl, Molidor, & Wright, 1996; Neufeld, McNamara, & Ertl, 1999; White & Koss, 1991). When the definition was restricted to multiple occurrences of psychological abuse, Neufeld et al. (1999) found that 78% of their sample met the criteria.
The high prevalence of psychological abuse is alarming for several rea-sons. First and foremost, psychological abuse has been consistently linked to physical violence both as a precursor and a correlate (Hamby & Sugarman, 1999; Kasian & Painter, 1992; Murphy & O’Leary, 1989; Ronfeldt, Kimerling, & Arias, 1998). Furthermore, several studies suggest that psy-chological abuse is harmful in its own right. For example, Vitanza, Vogel, and Marshall (1995) found that women in abusive relationships identified psy-chological abuse as their primary source of distress. Psypsy-chological abuse has also been linked to poor mental health outcomes. Jezl et al. (1996) and Pipes and LeBov-Keeler (1997) found that for women, self-esteem was negatively correlated with psychological abuse. Similarly, psychological abuse has been positively associated with depression and negatively associated with internal locus of control (Migeot & Lester, 1996). Psychological abuse also has negative physical health consequences for victims. In a study of female college students, psychological abuse by a dating partner was linked to illegal drug use, physical and role limitations, and negative health perceptions (Straight, Harper, & Arias, 2003). Given evidence of the pervasiveness and seriousness of psychological abuse among dating couples, potential predictors of this phenomenon need to be examined.
The connection between anger and abusive behavior is well documented. In child abuse literature, for example, anger expression has shown a robust link with parental physical violence (Rodriguez & Green, 1997). In marital violence literature, violent husbands were more likely than nonviolent hus-bands to report anger in response to written descriptions and videotapes of various wife behaviors (Holtzworth-Munroe & Smutzler, 1996). In addition, Boyle and Vivian (1996) found that severely violent men reported higher lev-els of spouse-specific anger than nonviolent men and spouse-specific anger was a significant predictor of men’s violence. Although there is a strong asso-ciation between physical and psychological abuse, it is not clear to what extent anger plays a role in the perpetration of psychological abuse. Like-wise, it is not clear what may predispose an individual to experience anger and to psychologically abuse an intimate partner in response to such anger. Shame has received relatively little attention in interpersonal violence lit-erature. It may, however, be an important predictor of psychological abuse, particularly because of its relationship with anger. Shame is a powerful
nega-tive emotion believed to result from a heightened awareness (whether real or imagined) of negative evaluation from others (Gilbert, 1989; Lewis, 1971). When shamed, individuals experience an overall negative sense of self-worth and powerlessness, especially in relation to the source of the negative evalua-tion (Gilbert, 1989; Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1996). Shame often results in feelings of humiliation and the desire to shrink or hide away. Lewis (1971), however, hypothesized that shamed individuals may also become hostile, especially toward the source of the threat, perhaps in an attempt to regain feelings of self-worth and control. Empirical research supports this hypothesized relationship between shame and anger. For exam-ple, Tangney et al. (1996) showed that shame is associated with increased anger arousal in samples ranging from children to adults. Similarly, in a case study, Retzinger (1991) analyzed the dialogue of an abusive couple and found that occurrences of shame during an argument were followed by increased levels of anger. Furthermore, Dutton, van Ginkel, and Starzomski (1995) found that shame was significantly correlated with levels of both abusiveness and anger among male perpetrators of intimate partner violence.
Not all individuals, however, respond to their experience of anger by engaging in abusive behavior. Individual differences in the ability to regulate emotions may affect the likelihood of such behavior. That is, deficits in affect regulation or an inability to manage emotional responses may explain why some men’s anger escalates to abuse. Affect regulation has been conceptual-ized in a number of ways. Kopp (1989) defined emotion regulation as the pro-cesses by which an individual copes with strong emotions, whether negative or positive. Campos, Campos, and Barrett (1989) stressed the individual’s evaluation of, and reaction to, situations as key components of affect regula-tion. Walden and Smith (1997) focused on context and suggested that affect regulation is tied to the individual’s ability to cope with interpersonal situa-tions. Nevertheless, all these theories share a common emphasis on the importance of the individual’s ability to deal effectively with his or her emo-tional responses. Accordingly, well-developed affect regulation should allow angered individuals to modulate their emotional responses, thereby preventing anger escalating to abusive behavior.
There is little research on the role of emotion regulation in the perpetration of abuse. However, existing research does suggest that poor affect regulation is predictive of negative adjustment. For example, Bradley (1990) proposed that poor affect regulation is a central component in the development of psychopathology. Similarly, in a study of approximately 500 college stu-dents, lower levels of affect regulation were correlated with increased com-plaints of dysphoria and somatic symptoms (Kirsch, Mearns, & Cantanzaro, 1990). Other studies provide support for the role of affect regulation in the
management of externalizing responses. Eisenberg, Fabes, Nyman, Bernzweig, and Pinuelas (1994) found that in young children, poor emotion management was correlated with the use of nonconstructive methods (e.g., aggression) of dealing with anger. Cole, Zahn-Waxler, Fox, Usher, and Welsh (1996) also found that preschoolers with poor emotion regulation had higher rates of behavior problems. Although these two latter studies focused on the relation-ship between affect regulation and aggression in children, the findings sug-gest that a similar relationship may also be characteristic of adults.
In the current study, we examined the relationship between shame and men’s perpetration of psychological abuse with a dating partner. It was hypothesized that anger would mediate the relationship between shame and psychological abuse and, furthermore, that affect regulation would moderate the relationship between anger and men’s use of psychological abuse with a dating partner. Specifically, it was expected that men with higher levels of anger and poor affect regulation skills would display more psychological abuse than those men with higher levels of anger but more effective affect regulation skills. Men with lower levels of anger were expected to engage in uniformly low levels of psychological abuse regardless of level of affect regulation.
METHOD Participants
One hundred and fifty heterosexual males were recruited from introduc-tory psychology courses at a large southeastern university. Participants were required to have been in an exclusive dating relationship for at least 4 weeks. The length of relationships for participants ranged from 4 weeks to 9 years, with an average length of 56.86 weeks (SD = 67.19). Eighty-five percent of participants were Caucasian, 6% African American, 6% Asian American, and 3% of another ethnicity. Age of participants ranged from 18 to 28, with an average age of 19.41 (SD = 1.55). Respondents received research credit in partial fulfillment of course requirements for their participation in the study.
Procedure
Participants completed a packet that included a demographic question-naire and self-report paper-and-pencil instruments in groups ranging from 10 to 50 participants. They were assured that their responses were anonymous and that their participation was completely voluntary. A researcher was
avail-able throughout the study to answer any questions from participants. On completion of the questionnaire packet, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Variables
Shame. The 15-item Shame subscale of the Test of Self-Conscious Affect
(Tangney, Wagner, & Gramzow, 1989) uses hypothetical scenarios to mea-sure shame-based responses to situations encountered in daily living (e.g., “You make a big mistake on an important project at work. People were depending on you and your boss criticizes you.”). Using a 5-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = not at all likely to 5 = very likely), participants rated the likeli-hood that they would respond in the given manner. An overall score was cre-ated by summing responses across the 15 items. Possible scores ranged from 15 to 75, with higher scores indicating greater likelihood of shame responses. In past research, alpha coefficients for the Shame subscale have ranged from .74 to .78 (Tangney et al., 1996; Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Gramzow, 1992; Tangney, Wagner, & Gramzow, 1992). A test-test reliability of .85 and a mean score of 44.3 (SD = 8.43) have been reported for the Shame subscale (Tangney et al., 1992). Cronbach’s alpha for the Shame subscale in this study was .67.
Anger. The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Spielberger, 1988)
was designed to measure a range of anger responses (Fuqua et al., 1991). Using a 4-point Likert-type scale, participants rated the likelihood of responding in two situations: generally (e.g., “I am quick tempered”) and when angry (e.g., “When angry or furious, I say nasty things”). Responses are rated on a scale of 1 (not at all or almost never) to 4 (very much so or almost always). Two subscales, Trait Temperament and Trait Reaction, were used in this
study and were combined into a composite Trait Anger score.1
Trait anger reflects a general predisposition to become angry or the extent to which an individual tends to respond with anger when feeling that he or she is being treated unfairly or criticized by others. Responses were summed across the nine items to create an overall score. Possible scores ranged from 9 to 36, with higher scores indicating a greater likelihood of trait anger responses. In past research, alpha coefficients have ranged from .82 and .89 for Trait Anger scales (Spielberger, 1988). For the scales in this study, Cronbach’s alphas were .72 for Trait Reaction, .90 for Trait Temperament, and .85 for the Trait Anger composite that was used in all subsequent analyses.
Affect regulation. The 30-item Negative Mood Regulation Scale
(Cantanzaro & Mearns, 1990) measures participants’ ability to control nega-tive emotions. Items assess both general ability to regulate mood and specific cognitive and behavioral strategies used. The items are based on a common stem phrase (“When I’m upset, I believe that . . .”) with a range of completion phrases (e.g., “I can usually find a way to cheer myself up” and “It won’t be long before I can calm myself down”). Participants rated items on a 5-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = strong disagreement to 5 = strong agreement), and responses were summed to create an overall score. Possible scores ranged from 30 to 150, with higher scores indicating greater affect regula-tion. In past research, alpha coefficients have ranged from .86 to .91 (Cantanzaro & Mearns, 1990). Test-retest reliability has ranged from .74 (for women) and .76 (for men) during a 3- to 4-week period to .78 (women) and .67 (men) during a 6- to 8-week period. Cronbach’s alpha for the sample in this study was .88.
Psychological abuse. The 58-item Psychological Maltreatment of Women
Inventory (PMWI; Tolman, 1989) is designed to measure perpetration of partner psychological abuse (e.g., “I yelled or screamed at my partner” and “I called my partner names”). The majority of participants were not cohabiting with their partners, and therefore, 17 items implying cohabitation, parent, or marital relationships (e.g., “I did not do a fair share of child care”) were excluded from the study. For the remaining 41 questions, participants used a 5-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = never to 5 = very frequently) to indicate the frequency of using the behaviors in the past month. An overall score was created by summing responses across the items. Possible scores ranged from 41 to 205, with higher scores indicating greater frequency of psychological abuse against a current dating partner. Previous studies have established the psychometric properties of the PMWI (Arias & Pape, 1999; Dutton & Hemphill, 1992; Tolman, 1989). Cronbach’s alpha was .87 for the PMWI in this sample.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows correlations, means, and standard deviations for all vari-ables used in the analyses. Participants on average reported low to moderate levels for all variables assessed. With regard to psychological abuse, the most frequently reported behaviors were those constituting humiliation or degra-dation (i.e., swearing at a partner, saying something spiteful, labeling feel-ings as irrational or crazy, and treating a partner as if he or she were stupid),
emotional neglect or rejection (i.e., insensitivity to feelings, using the silent treatment, and withholding affection), and emotional control (i.e., jealousy of others in partner’s life). The behaviors with the lowest rates of endorse-ment focused on social isolation (e.g., limiting interaction with friends and family, limiting time outside the home, restricting access to phone or medical care) and emotional manipulation (e.g., threatening self-harm).
Anger as a Mediator
In the first set of analyses, anger was examined as a mediator of shame and partner psychological abuse. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), media-tion is supported when (a) the predictor predicts the mediating variable, (b) the predictor predicts the criterion, (c) the mediator predicts the criterion, and (d) the effect of the predictor on the criterion is reduced to nonsignificance with the simultaneous introduction of the mediating variable. Using these procedures, psychological abuse was first regressed on shame, followed by anger regressed on shame, and then psychological abuse regressed on anger and shame simultaneously.
As shown in Table 1, anger was significantly related to both shame and partner psychological abuse, and regression analyses showed that anger mediated the relationship between shame and psychological abuse (see Table 2). Anger was a significant predictor of partner psychological abuse (Full
model: F[2, 85] = 17.61, p = .000, R2
= .29), and the direct relationship between shame and psychological abuse was no longer significant (p = .35)
when anger was entered into the model.2
The indirect effect of anger was
tested using Sobel’s formula3
(Baron & Kenny, 1986; Holmbeck, 1997; Preacher & Leonardelli, 2001; Sobel, 1982, 1988) and was significant (z = 2.88, p =.004). These results suggest that the effects of shame on partner
psy-TABLE 1: Zero-Order Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Variables
1 2 3 M SD
1. Shame 37.87 7.64
2. Anger .35*** 19.13 5.29 3. Affect regulation –.28** –.42*** 109.40 15.27 4. Psychological abuse .26* .47*** –.35*** 58.12 13.22 NOTE: Shame = Test of Self-Conscious Affect Shame subscale; Anger = Composite of State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory State-Trait Temperament and State-Trait Reaction subscales; Affect Reg-ulation = Negative Mood RegReg-ulation Scale total score; Psychological abuse = Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory total score.
chological abuse are mediated by levels of anger. In short, higher shame was related to more anger, which in turn was associated with greater use of psychological abuse with a dating partner.
Affect Regulation as a Moderator
In the next set of analyses, the role of affect regulation was examined as a moderator of anger and psychological abuse, using the procedures for testing moderation outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). The main effects of anger and affect regulation were entered on the first step of the regression equation followed by the interaction of anger and affect regulation on the second step. Contrary to expectations, affect regulation did not moderate that relationship,
F(3, 126) = 14.67, R2
change = .00,β = .09, p = .84, suggesting that
differ-ences in affect regulation are not a key determinant of whether men’s high levels of anger escalate to psychological abuse.
DISCUSSION
The current study was conducted to explore mediators and moderators of the relationship between shame and men’s perpetration of psychological abuse in dating relationships. It was expected that anger would mediate this relationship, with more shame-based feelings leading to greater anger, which in turn would be associated with increased levels of partner psychological abuse. It was also expected that affect regulation would moderate the rela-tionship between anger and partner psychological abuse such that poor affect regulation would interact with high anger to predict higher levels of
psycho-TABLE 2: Multiple Regression Analyses Testing Anger as a Mediator of Shame and Men’s Perpetration of Psychological Abuse
Variable β ∆R2 F Step 1 .07 6.69 Shame .27* Step 2 .22 17.61 Shame .09 Anger .50**
NOTE: Shame = Test of Self-Conscious Affect Shame subscale; Anger = Composite of State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory State-Trait Temperament and State-Trait Reaction subscales; Psychologi-cal abuse = PsychologiPsychologi-cal Maltreatment of Women Inventory total score.
logical abuse. The results of this investigation provide partial support for these hypotheses.
Consistent with previous research (Dutton et al., 1995; Retzinger, 1991; Tangney et al., 1996), shame was positively related to increases in anger and reports of psychological abuse with dating partners. The effect of shame on levels of psychological abuse was also mediated by anger. In short, feelings of shame were related to levels of anger, which was in turn related to psycho-logical abuse with a dating partner. According to theoretical conceptualiza-tions of shame (Lewis, 1971), anger is thought be a defensive maneuver to avoid confronting negative self-evaluation, and it is possible that the increased use of psychological abuse in individuals with high anger is a means to dis-tance themselves from negative evaluations of the self. For example, an argu-ment with a partner leads to self-criticism (e.g., “I am a bad person for not calling her when I said that I would”). To diffuse or deflect these negative self-feelings, the individual becomes angry (“Why should I have to call her?”). The anger is then expressed through psychological abuse, such as swearing, saying something spiteful (“You’re too needy”), or putting down the partner (“You’re not worth a phone call”).
This study also attempted to address why anger, although linked to abuse (Boyle & Vivian, 1996; Holtzworth-Munroe & Smutzler, 1996), does not always result in partner psychological abuse. To clarify the conditions under which an angered individual might escalate to partner psychological abuse, affect regulation was examined as a moderating variable. Affect regulation, however, did not moderate the effects of anger on psychological abuse. The level of anger predicted psychological abuse regardless of how well (or how poorly) men were able to regulate their anger, suggesting that whether shame proneness is related to the use of psychological abuse with a dating partner may be based on a dispositional tendency toward anger. That is, men who experience shame also tend to experience more anger, and this anger seems to predict their use of psychological abuse better than their ability to manage their anger. It is possible that the distinction between anger and affect regula-tion is somewhat tautological such that men with high levels of anger also have poor affect regulation skills. A significant correlation (r = –.42, p < .001) between anger and affect regulation in this sample provides some
sup-port for this explanation.4In short, men with high levels of anger may be
get-ting angry because they have poor affect regulation skills. As a consequence, whether they have effective affect regulation skills may be a moot point in determining level of abuse if their anger has already exceeded a threshold of intensity. Another possibility is that psychologically abusive actions may be the result of deliberate attempts at control and manipulation rather than impulsive acts borne out of anger. Men’s use of psychological abuse with
partners may be premeditated and, as such, may not be influenced by the abil-ity to regulate affect in anger situations. We also cannot discount the possibil-ity that our measure of affect regulation failed to adequately capture men’s ability to regulate affect. Although the Negative Mood Regulation Scale assesses both general ability and specific strategies used to regulate affect, it is based on participants’ expectancies about future situations rather than actual behavior. Other measures of affect regulation may have provided a more valid and/or sensitive test of affect regulation skills, which could have yielded a different pattern of results. Finally, although not a focus of this investigation, it is possible that affect regulation may mediate or moderate the relationship between shame and anger and serve an important function in determining extent or frequency of anger. Future studies may benefit from exploring the connection between anger and affect regulation to clarify this rela-tionship and its impact on the use of psychological abuse among young men.
These results, although representing an important initial study in this area, should be interpreted in light of several considerations. First, this sample of college men may not adequately represent the dating population of men. As such, the role of shame, anger, and affect regulation in predicting partner psy-chological abuse may not generalize to men of different ethnicities, socio-economic status, or educational level. Moreover, these findings may not gen-eralize to community samples, including couples who are married or men who engage in more severe domestic violence (e.g., batterers). Second, issues of measurement may have influenced the findings. The data were lected via self-report measures, and it is possible that this method of data col-lection may have introduced a reporting bias, which could have influenced the accuracy of reporting. Concerns about social desirability in particular may have attenuated reported levels of shame, anger, and psychological abuse. There has also been much debate in violence literature about the most appropriate and accurate definition of psychological abuse. We attempted to minimize these concerns by using a well-standardized measure; however, it is possible that other definitions of psychological abuse may have yielded a different pattern of results. Similarly, the scenario-based approach used to measure shame may also have led to underreporting of shame. Although shame is thought to be best measured in a situation-specific context (Tangney et al., 1996), it is possible that the scenarios used did not represent realistic situations or were not sufficiently emotional in nature to evoke feelings of shame. Ideally, measurement of emotional experience would be conducted using a real-time paradigm to ensure accurate reporting of emotional responses. Finally, the correlational design of the study limits inferences about causal relationships, and although hypotheses were based on theoretical consider-ations, other interpretations of the data are possible. Future studies will likely
benefit from using alternative methods of assessment, prospective designs, and more diverse populations to provide additional support for the findings of this investigation.
Limitations aside, this investigation of predictors of psychological abuse among young men represents one of the first studies of this important social problem and offers several key findings. Shame and anger, which have been linked in previous studies (Tangney et al., 1996), also contribute to men’s use of psychological abuse with dating partners. More specifically, and consis-tent with theoretical conceptualizations (e.g., Lewis, 1971), anger appears to serve as a pathway through which shame is expressed as psychological abuse. These findings also have important clinical implications for designing treatment and intervention programs aimed at college-age populations. There has been much controversy regarding the appropriate treatment for perpetrators of interpersonal violence, and most of the research to date has been conducted with married men who have committed serious acts of physi-cal violence against their wives. This study provides greater understanding of the psychological abuse used by college-age men and offers clues about the function of psychological abuse in this population, which may lead to greater treatment success (Jennings & Jennings, 1991; Prince & Arias, 1994). Men with high anger may use psychological abuse with a partner when they are angry regardless of how well they are able to modulate their anger in response to anger-provoking situations. As such, intervention and prevention may need to focus on decreasing overall levels of anger and generalized anger arousal to avoid exceeding a threshold of anger intensity. Although appropri-ate and effective affect regulation may benefit men with high levels of trait anger, the disposition to experience anger itself may be a more critical focus.
Given the high base rate of psychological abuse among dating partners, it is important to better understand predictors and avenues for intervention. The findings of this investigation contribute to this goal by reflecting important associations between shame, anger, and affect regulation in predicting men’s psychological abuse. Future studies will undoubtedly further our general understanding of partner psychological abuse in dating relationships and offer potentially efficacious ways for preventing its occurrence.
NOTES
1. Although Fuqua et al. (1991) suggest that Trait Reaction and Trait Temperament should not be combined into a single composite, analyses using the individual subscales yielded an iden-tical pattern of results as a composite of the two scales. For ease of interpretation, a Trait Anger composite score was used in the analyses.
2. Ethnicity, age, number of previous dating partners, length of current relationship, and use of physical violence with partner were unrelated to reports of shame, anger, and psychological abuse. These variables did not significantly change the pattern of results when entered as covariates and were excluded from further analysis.
3. The significance of the indirect effect was also tested using the Goodman (I) version (Goodman, 1960) of Sobel’s (1982) test. The Goodman (I) formula (z = ab/(b2sa
2 + a2sb 2 + sa 2 sb 2 )1/2) includes the product of the squared standard errors (sa
2
sb
2) as discussed in Baron and Kenny
(1986). Although this second test yields more conservative estimates, the pattern of results was identical to those found using Sobel’s (1982) formula (z = ab/(b2sa
2
+ a2sb 2
)1/2).
4. We also dichotomized anger scores using a median split, and a t test showed that the high-anger group had significantly lower affect regulation skills, t(128) = 3.74, p < .000, than the low-anger group.
REFERENCES
Arias, I., & Pape, K. T. (1999). Psychological abuse: Implications for adjustment and commit-ment to leave violent partners. Violence and Victims, 14, 55-67.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psy-chological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Person-ality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Boyle, D. J., & Vivian, D. (1996). Generalized versus spouse-specific anger/hostility and men’s violence against intimates. Violence and Victims, 11, 293-317.
Bradley, S. J. (1990). Affect regulation and psychopathology: Bridging the mind-body gap.
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 540-546.
Campos, J. J., Campos, R. G., & Barrett, K. C. (1989). Emergent themes in the study of emotional development and emotion regulation. Developmental Psychology, 25, 394-402.
Cantanzaro, S. J., & Mearns, J. (1990). Measuring generalized expectancies for negative mood regulation: Initial scale development and implications. Journal of Personality Assessment,
54, 546-563.
Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., Fox, N. A., Usher, B. A., & Welsh, J. D. (1996). Individual differ-ences in emotion regulation and behavior problems in preschool children. Journal of
Abnor-mal Psychology, 105, 518-529.
Dutton, D. G., & Hemphill, K. J. (1992). Patterns of socially desirable responding among perpe-trators and victims of wife assault. Violence and Victim, 7, 29-39.
Dutton, D. G., van Ginkel, C., & Starzomski, A. (1995). The role of shame and guilt in the intergenerational transmission of abusiveness. Violence and Victims, 10, 121-131. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Nyman, M., Bernzweig, J., & Pinuelas, A. (1994). The relations of
emotionality and regulation to children’s anger-related reactions. Child Development, 65, 109-128.
Fuqua, D. R., Leonard, E., Masters, M. A., Smith, R. J., Campbell, J. L., & Fischer, P. C. (1991). A structural analysis of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Educational and
Psy-chological Measurement, 51, 439-446.
Gilbert, P. (1989). Human nature and suffering. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goodman, L. A. (1960). On the exact variance of products. Journal of the American Statistical
Hamby, S. L., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). Acts of psychological aggression against a partner and their relation to physical assault and gender. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 959-970.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples for the child-clinical and pediatric psychology liter-atures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-610.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Smutzler, N. (1996). Comparing the emotional reactions and behav-ioral intentions of violent and nonviolent husbands to aggressive, distressed, and other wife behaviors. Violence and Victims, 11, 319-339.
Jennings, J. P., & Jennings, J. L. (1991). Multiple approaches to the treatment of violent couples.
American Journal of Family Therapy, 19, 351-362.
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
Adoles-cent Social Work Journal, 13, 69-87.
Kasian, M., & Painter, S. L. (1992). Frequency and severity of psychological abuse in a dating population. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 350-364.
Kirsch, I., Mearns, J., & Catanzaro, S. J. (1990). Mood-regulation expectancies as determinants of dysphoria in college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 306-312. Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view.
Devel-opmental Psychology, 25, 343-354.
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International Universities Press. Migeot, M., & Lester, D. (1996). Psychological abuse in dating, locus of control, depression, and
suicidal preoccupation. Psychological Reports, 79, 682.
Murphy, C., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 579-582.
Neufeld, J., McNamara, J. R., & Ertl, M. (1999). Incidence and prevalence of dating partner abuse and its relationship to dating practices. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 125-137. Pipes, R. B., & LeBov-Keeler, K. (1997). Psychological abuse among college women in
exclu-sive heterosexual dating relationships. Sex Roles, 36, 585-603.
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2001). Calculation for the Sobel Test. Retrieved June 13, 2005, from http://www.unc.edu/~preacher/sobel/sobel.htm
Prince, J. E., & Arias, I. (1994). The role of perceived control and the desirability of control among abusive and nonabusive husbands. American Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 126-134. Retzinger, S. M. (1991). Shame, anger, and conflict: Case study of emotional violence. Journal
of Family Violence, 6, 37-59.
Rodriguez, C. M., & Green, A. J. (1997). Parenting stress and anger expression as predictors of child abuse potential. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 367-377.
Ronfeldt, H. M., Kimerling, R., & Arias, I. (1998). Relationship power satisfaction and perpetra-tion of dating violence in the context of paternal marital violence. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 60, 70-78.
Saltzman, L. E., Fanslow, J. L., McMahon, P. M., & Shelley, G. A. (1999). Intimate Partner
Vio-lence Surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements, Version 1.0.
Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sobel, M. E. (1988). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. In J. S. Long (Ed.), Common problems/common solutions: Avoiding error in quantitative research (pp. 47-64). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Scale (STAX). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Straight, E. S., Harper, F. W. K., & Arias, I. (2003). The impact of partner psychological abuse on health behaviors and health status in college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1035-1054.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., Fletcher, C., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Shamed into anger? The relation of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported aggression. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 669-675.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (1989). The Test of Self-Conscious Affect. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Proneness to shame, proneness to guilt, and psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 469-478.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Hill-Barlow, D., Marschall, D. E., & Gramzow, R. (1996). Relation of shame and guilt to constructive versus destructive responses to anger across the lifespan.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 797-809.
Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4, 159-177.
Vitanza, S., Vogel, L. C. M., & Marshall L. L. (1995). Distress and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in abused women. Violence and Victims, 10, 23-34.
Walden, T. A., & Smith, M. C. (1997). Emotion regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 7-25. White, J. W., & Koss, M. P. (1991). Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher
education students. Violence and Victims, 6, 247-256.
Felicity W. K. Harper received her M.S. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the Uni-versity of Georgia. She is currently an assistant professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Wayne State University School of Medicine and a scientist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit, Michigan. Her research focuses on the role of family relationships in patients’ adjustment to cancer diagnosis and treatment. Amanda G. Austin received her B.S. in psychology from the University of Georgia. Jennifer J. Cercone, Ph.D., a recent graduate of the clinical psychology program at the University of Georgia, is currently a National Institute of Mental Health sponsored post-doctoral fellow at the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center (NCVC), Medical University of South Carolina. Prior to her training at the NCVC, she was inter-ested in investigating aspects of gender symmetry and asymmetry in the perpetration of and victimization from intimate partner violence. That work was grounded in behavior analytic and feminist theory and emphasized the importance of considering proximal and distal contexts of behavior when ascribing meaning and ascertaining function and impact. Now as a fellow at the NCVC, she is interested in applying this stance to the inte-gration of the often distinct research domains of intimate partner violence and sexual assault.
Ileana Arias is currently acting director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). At CDC, she manages, directs, coordinates, and evaluates the activities of the NCIPC; develops goals and objectives; and provides leadership, policy formation, scientific oversight, and guid-ance in program planning and development.
