Intimate partner aggression (IPA) is a significant public health problem. In the United States, 1 in 5 women and 1 in 7 men report experiencing severe IPA at some point in their lifetime (1). Experience of IPA is associated with a range of poor mental health outcomes (2) and a population economic burden of approximately $3.5 trillion USD over a survivor’s lifetime (3). While research has historically examined how one’s disposition and situational context contributes to IPA, advancements in analytic methods now allow us to consider how both partners’ characteristics play a role (4-6) that may ultimately help inform prevention and treatment efforts. Indeed, both partners’ dispositional characteristics, relationship context, and situational contexts influences IPA, and it is important that researchers address these factors using a dyadic framework (7).
Intimate Partner Aggression: The Perfect Storm
Numerous theories have been proposed to explain how non-aggressive interaction can evolve into an aggressive one. However, one of the most prominent is the I3 (I cubed) meta-theoretical model (8). According to the I3 model, the likelihood of partner conflict is best conceptualized in terms of three process factors: (1) instigating triggers, (2) impelling influences, and (3) inhibiting influences. Instigating triggers are contextual or situational (e.g., verbal provocation) factors that result in an urge to behave aggressively. Impelling influences are individual or situational factors that alone may not lead to aggression, but when combined with an instigating influence, increases the aggressive urge (e.g., poor martial functioning). Instigating and impelling factors in tandem lead to aggressive behaviour unless there is an equally strong inhibiting influence. Inhibiting influences are those which increase the likelihood that an individual will resist an urge to behave aggressively (e.g., adaptive emotion regulation skills, relationship commitment). On the other hand, disinhibiting influences compromise inhibitory control and thus decrease the likelihood that an individual will resist an aggressive urge (e.g., pain, alcohol intoxication). Derived from the I3 model, the “perfect storm theory” suggests that IPA is most likely to occur when there are instigating triggers and impelling influences are strong and inhibiting influences are weak. This model, along with analytic methods that consider dyadic influences on behaviour, allow researchers to examine how these factors interact within and between partners to facilitate or buffer against IPA.
How Can We Prevent Intimate Partner Aggression?
Many couples choose to remain together despite experience of IPA in the relationship. However, intervention efforts to reduce intimate partner aggression disproportionately focus on treating perpetrators and victims independently. Batterer intervention programs aimed at reducing perpetration and promoting victim safety disproportionately target individuals referred by the criminal justice system, often as an alternative to incarceration (9). Unfortunately, these programs have little impact on curbing IPA recidivism (10), likely because they are unable to account for and target the dyadic nature of aggression that occurs within a relationship. As such, a couples-based approach to treatment is worthy of consideration, particularly for situationally violent couples. However, couple-based treatment for IPA has been controversial. Many risks associated with the delivery of interventions for IPA have been identified (11), including that it contradicts the feminist perspective of IPA which is based on an inequality of power in a relationship; that it assumes that each partner plays an equal role in the aggressive or violent behaviour; the risk of the therapist colluding with the perpetrator; an increased risk of harm for the victim; and the inability to effectively develop safety plans.
In contrast, many benefits of couple’s treatment have been identified (11). The most important of these is that gender-specific interventions have not been able to effectively reduce IPA, and as such different approaches are required (12). Further, the importance of addressing the reciprocal patterns of violence in both partners may be necessary, as is understanding the instigating, impelling, and inhibiting factors that may precipitate or perpetuate violence (i.e. relationship dynamics, marital discord, emotion distress). Importantly, these factors may not only occur within the perpetrator of IPA, but may also interact across partners and lead to unidirectional or bidirectional IPA. These factors can only be identified and addressed if both members of the couple are present.
Approximately 50 percent of individuals attending couples therapy report some form of IPA in the past year (13). Addressing IPA in couples therapy has been most effective in the context of treating substance use problems (14). For example, Behavioural Couples Therapy (BCT) has consistently demonstrated strong outcomes in reducing alcohol use problems in couples, where one partner has an alcohol use issue (15). Importantly, research has demonstrated that BCT leads to reductions in IPA when problematic alcohol use is addressed (16); however, more work is needed to target the contributing factors for aggression within couples treatment. Given the association between IPA and alcohol use, it is unlikely that addressing each in isolation, or with only one member of a couple, will result in positive outcomes. Developing new interventions, or modifying existing efforts, that seek to identify and target the interaction between instigating, impelling, and inhibiting factors from a dyadic perspective are needed to provide evidence for a new way forward in this space.
Ashlee Curtis, Ph.D, is a Research Fellow in the Centre for Drug use, Addictive, and Anti-social Behaviour Research in the School of Psychology at Deakin University. Ruschelle Leone, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral fellow in the School of Public Health at Georgia State University.
1. Black MC, C. BK, J. BM, G. SS, L. WM, T. MM, et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA; 2011. Report No.: 9780199940264.
2. Afifi TO, MacMillan H, Cox BJ, Asmundson GJG, Stein MB, Sareen J. Mental Health Correlates of Intimate Partner Violence in Marital Relationships in a Nationally Representative Sample of Males and Females. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2008;24(8):1398-417.
3. Peterson C, Kearns MC, McIntosh WL, Estefan LF, Nicolaidis C, McCollister KE, et al. Lifetime Economic Burden of Intimate Partner Violence Among U.S. Adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2018;55(4):433-44.
4. Crane CA, Testa M, Derrick JL, Leonard KE. Daily associations among self-control, heavy episodic drinking, and relationship functioning: An examination of actor and partner effects. Aggressive Behavior. 2014; (February):1-11.
5. Testa M, Crane CA, Quigley BM, Levitt A, Leonard KE. Effects of Administered Alcohol on Intimate Partner Interactions in a Conflict Resolution Paradigm. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2013;75(2):249-58.
6. Watkins LE, Maldonado RC, DiLillo D. Hazardous alcohol use and intimate partner aggression among dating couples: The role of impulse control difficulties. Aggressive Behavior. 2014; 30(7),: 1112-1127
7. Eckhardt CI, Parrott DJ, Crane CA. Alcohol, conflict, and aggression in intimate relationships: A dyadic approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2019;36(5):1459-75.
8. Finkel EJ. Chapter One - The I3 Model: Metatheory, Theory, and Evidence. In: Olson JM, Zanna MP, editors. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 49: Academic Press; 2014;1-104.
9. Aaron SM, Beaulaurier RL. The Need for New Emphasis on Batterers Intervention Programs. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2017;18(4):425-32.
10. Eckhardt CI, Murphy CM, Whitaker DJ, Sprunger J, Dykstra R, Woodard K. The Effectiveness of Intervention Programs for Perpetrators and Victims of Intimate Partner Violence. Partner Abuse. 2013;(2):196-231.
11. Maharaj N. Perspectives on Treating Couples Impacted by Intimiate Partner Violence. Journal of Family Violence. 2017;32:431-7.
12. Babcock JC, Green CE, Robie C. Does batterers’ treatment work?: A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment outcome research. Clinical Psychology Review. 2004;23:1023-53.
13. Jose A, O'Leary KD. Prevalence of partner aggression in representative and clinic samples. Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2009; 15-35.
14. Stover CS, Meadows AL, Kaufman J. Interventions for intimate partner violence: Review and implications for evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2009;40(3):223-33.
15. Powers MB, Vedel E, Emmelkamp PM. Behavioral couples therapy (BCT) for alcohol and drug use disorders: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. 2008;28:952-62.
16. Ruff S, McComb JL, Coker CJ, Sprenkle DH. Behavioral couples therapy for the treatment of substance abuse: A substantive and methodological review of O'Farrell, Fals‐Stewart, and colleagues' program of research. Family Process. 2010 Dec;49(4):439-56.