Understanding Why: Investigating Justifications for the Use of Intimate Partner Psychological Aggression
Creators: name: Leclerc, Marie-Eve
Publisher: name: Université d'Ottawa / University of Ottawa
Year: 2023
Subjects: Justification
Intimate partner psychological aggression

description: Love and romantic relationships have the capacity to influence one's welfare in the most profound ways. Intimate partner psychological aggression (IPPA), defined as verbal and nonverbal behaviours that aim to belittle, coerce, isolate, or control (Baldry, 2003; Shorey et al., 2012), is the most prevalent form of partner aggression (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019), and can have significant negative outcomes on its victims. The detrimental outcomes of IPPA warrant additional research on factors that may be associated with its sustained prevalence in men and women. While various studies have revealed that justifying a harmful behaviour can maintain and, in some cases, aggravate the behaviour (e.g., Martens &amp; Kosloff, 2012; Mulder &amp; van Dijk, 2020), few have explored its associations to IPPA. This doctoral dissertation focuses on IPPA and how it is justified. Specifically, the two complementary studies investigated how justifications for using IPPA relate to other features of psychological functioning (e.g., adult romantic attachment, relationship satisfaction, anger management, psychopathy, childhood trauma, drug and alcohol use) to better understand the IPPA phenomenon. The present dissertation is in article format and contains four sections: a general introduction, two articles, and a general discussion. The general introduction presents the topic of the dissertation, defines the primary constructs, states the problem statement, provides a robust theoretical basis, and specifies its main objectives. The two articles contain the following sections: introduction, objectives and hypotheses, method, analyses, results and discussion. Both articles are presented according to the format requested by their respective peer-reviewed journal. Lastly, the general discussion summarizes the findings of both articles, presents their implications and outlines limitations and future directions for prospective studies. All study materials (i.e., ethics approval notice, consent form, self-report measures) are included as appendices. The first study explored the association between how individuals justify their use of IPPA and their adult romantic attachment (i.e., defined through levels of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance) in Canadian community couples experiencing bi-directional aggression. The sample consisted of 162 adult participants (81 mixed-sex couples). The data were analyzed using structural equation modelling (i.e., actor-partner interdependence model) to test the study's hypotheses, as it is one of few statistical models to account for variances between and within partners. Path analysis based on the APIM model revealed statistically meaningful associations between attachment anxiety and all types of justifications, as well as no statistically significant associations between attachment avoidance and the justifications. In addition, a small but significant association was found between men's attachment avoidance and women's use of external justifications for their use of IPPA. The results are discussed using the theoretical lenses of attachment theory and cognitive dissonance, and highlight the significance of justifications in adults with higher levels of attachment anxiety. The second study investigated a new typology of men's use of IPPA. A sample of 456 men seeking therapeutic services for their couple relationship problems was recruited to complete a battery of questionnaires. Latent profile analyses revealed a final five-profile solution model. The five profiles were then compared on a series of IPPA-related variables to offer more descriptive information on each profile. Overall, the results emphasize the importance of inquiring about the justifications accompanying men's use of IPPA to support the conceptualization and orient treatment for this population. Taken together, these independent studies provide a complementary overview of the associations between justification for IPPA use and other features of psychological functioning. While the first study focuses on the associations between justifications and romantic attachment, the second uses justifications as an indicator variable to classify participants and then compares the profiles on a multitude of variables, including adult romantic attachment. Moreover, the studies' complementary analytical and methodological approaches offer results that, combined, refer to men and women, individuals and couples, and investigates justification across a community and a middle-ground sample (i.e., sharing characteristics of both a community and a clinical sample). Moreover, the combination of the studies’ variable-centered analyses (i.e., study 1; focus the analysis on the relationship among variables) and person-centered analyses (i.e., study 2; focus the analysis on the classification of individuals) reflects an important strength of this dissertation. The results highlight the importance of considering the justifications for using IPPA and stress its relevance with other dimensions of psychological functioning. The results contribute to the literature and overall understanding justifications for intimate partner aggression and add support to some of the theories that inform conceptualizations and treatment of individuals who are dealing with IPPA.