The interactive effects of emotion regulation and alcohol intoxication on lab-based intimate partner aggression.

Abstract

This study draws on Finkel and Eckhardt’s (2013) I3 framework to examine the interactive effects of two emotion regulation strategies, anger rumination (an impellance factor) and reappraisal (an inhibition factor), and alcohol intoxication (a disinhibition factor), on intimate partner aggression (IPA) perpetration as measured with an analogue aggression task. Participants were 69 couples recruited from a large Midwestern university (total N = 138). Participants’ trait rumination and reappraisal were measured by self-report. Participants were randomized individually to an alcohol or placebo condition, then recalled an anger event while employing one of three randomly assigned emotion regulation conditions (rumination, reappraisal, or uninstructed). Following this, participants completed an analogue aggression task involving ostensibly assigning white noise blasts to their partner. Participants in the alcohol condition displayed greater IPA than participants in the placebo condition for provoked IPA, but not unprovoked IPA. Results also revealed interactions such that for those in the alcohol and rumination group, higher trait reappraisal was related to lower unprovoked IPA. For provoked IPA, higher trait rumination was related to greater IPA among those in the alcohol and rumination condition and those in the placebo and uninstructed condition. In general, results were consistent with I3 theory, suggesting that alcohol disinhibits, rumination impels, and trait reappraisal inhibits IPA. The theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are discussed in the context of current knowledge about the influence of alcohol intoxication and emotion regulation strategies on IPA perpetration.

Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beer Holder: An Initial Investigation of the Effects of Alcohol, Attractiveness, Warmth, and Competence on the Objectifying Gaze in Men

“…Furthermore, participants in the alcohol condition reported feeling more intoxicated than participants in the placebo condition immediately after consumption (M alcohol = 4.04, SD = 2.16; M placebo = 1.08 SD = 1.14), t(45) = −5.91, p < .001, d = 1.71, and after the eye-tracking task (M alcohol = 4.29, SD = 2.22; M placebo = .67, SD = 1.37), t(46) = −6.81, p < .001, d = 1.96. These differences are consistent with prior alcohol administration research (e.g., Giancola et al 2009a, b;Watkins et al 2015).…”

“…During this brief phone call, participants were screened for their gender, minimum age of 21 years-old, and sexual attraction to women. Furthermore, due to risks associated with alcohol consumption, participants were also excluded for (a) current/past alcohol dependence, alcohol-related treatment, or hospitalization, (b) not being a social drinker-consuming two or more drinks at least twice monthly, (c) any past serious head injuries, (d) serious psychological symptoms, and (e) medical or legal contradictions to the consumption of alcohol (Watkins et al 2015). Once screened, participants were emailed a link to complete an online survey prior to the in-lab session.…”

“…While the research assistant was obtaining this information from participants, a second research assistant mixed drinks for participants based on condition (procedure following Giancola 2002;Giancola et al 2009a, b;Watkins et al 2015). The manipulation of alcohol condition was a single-blind procedure; however, the research assistants were unaware of the specific hypotheses regarding alcohol and objectification, reducing the possibility of experimenter effects.…”

Role of learning potential in cognitive remediation: Construct and predictive validity

“…Techniques for neurocognitive LP assessment are not limited to the CVLT-II and WCST (Boosman et al, 2014), and it may be possible to develop dynamic assessments in other domains to predict different types of skill acquisition. For example, existing brief intervention-like emotion regulation techniques could be adapted for use as dynamic assessments (Maldonado et al, 2015; Scott et al, 2015; Watkins et al, 2015). Further, proof-of-concept single-session social cognitive training techniques could provide dynamic assessment of theory of mind (Kayser et al, 2006; Sarfati et al, 2000), affect recognition (Combs et al, 2008; Penn & Combs, 2000; Russell et al, 2008; Silver et al, 2004), and social perception (Corrigan & Toomey, 1995).…”

Intimate Partner Violence on College Campuses: An Appraisal of Emerging Perspectives

“…Alcohol increases perpetration of aggression through its psychopharmacological effects on perception and thought (Watkins, DiLillo, & Maldonado, 2015). In situations involving intimate partner aggression, the most salient cue tends to be an act of provoking; something as small as hearing an insult can trigger someone that is intoxicated.…”