The Invisible Harm of Downplaying a Romantic Partner s Aggression

Transcription

1 754198CDPXXX / Arriaga et al.downplaying Partner Aggression research-article2018 ASSOCIATION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE The Invisible Harm of Downplaying a Romantic Partner s Aggression Current Directions in Psychological Science 1 6 The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: Ximena B. Arriaga 1, Nicole M. Capezza 2, Wind Goodfriend 3, and Katherine E. Allsop 4 1 Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University; 2 Psychology Department, Stonehill College; 3 Psychology Department, Buena Vista University; and 4 Department of Counseling Psychology, Social Psychology, and Counseling, Ball State University Abstract Nonphysical forms of partner aggression are common and more harmful than is widely recognized. Such aggression does not leave physical marks but nonetheless predicts invisible harm, including unhappiness and psychological distress. Most individuals do not end their relationship the moment a partner becomes aggressive. Instead they may deny, minimize, or justify the aggression, particularly when they are strongly committed to their relationship. Perceptions that downplay a partner s aggression may protect and prolong a relationship, putting individuals at risk for greater harm. This article presents a model of the causes and consequences of downplaying partner aggression and describes the relevance of commitment for understanding aggression-related perceptions and interventions. Keywords partner aggression, relationship commitment, downplaying aggressive behavior, invisible harm, psychological aggression Being belittled, insulted, bullied, or on the receiving end of other acts that are intended to inflict harm is particularly hurtful when it comes from a romantic partner. Experiencing partner aggression typically does not result in immediately ending a relationship. These painful experiences pose a paradox: The person who is expected to provide intimacy, security, and support instead is being hurtful (Arriaga & Capezza, 2011). Existing theoretical models account for causes of partner aggression. It is equally important, however, to understand how individuals on the receiving end manage aggression once it occurs. This article draws attention to specific beliefs that individuals adopt when they are motivated to continue a relationship despite their partner s aggression. Commitment-driven beliefs downplay the occurrence and effects of partner aggression. Committed individuals often do not recognize how they are being harmed, making such harm invisible. Recent research suggests that (a) experiencing partner aggression predicts distress (e.g., unhappiness, anxiety, depression), even among individuals who do not necessarily perceive their relationship as distressing; (b) people downplay a partner s aggression reinterpreting, minimizing, or justifying partner acts when they are motivated to continue their relationship; and (c) perceptions that downplay a partner s aggression are likely to prolong the distress caused by such aggression. Why Examine Common Forms of Partner Aggression? Partner aggression is distinct from other destructive relational behavior. Couples may feel angry during conflicts or engage in norm violations (betrayal, infidelity, being neglectful), which may hurt but are not intended to cause harm. Partner aggression, in contrast, involves direct efforts aimed at harming or diminishing a partner (Lawrence, Yoon, Langer, & Ro, 2009; Richardson, 2014). Table 1 lists various forms of partner aggression. For example, being ignored by someone watching television would not reflect aggression, whereas being punished by getting the silent treatment reveals hurtful intentions and thus reflects aggression (hostile withdrawal; Zadro, Arriaga, & Williams, 2008). Excessive Corresponding Author: Ximena B. Arriaga, Purdue University, 703 Third St., West Lafayette, IN arriaga@purdue.edu

2 2 Arriaga et al. Table 1. Forms of Partner Aggression That Are Frequently Studied Form of partner aggression Examples 1. Verbal abuse to diminish a partner Belittling, insulting, denigrating the partner in front of other people 2. Intimidation Breaking things, tantrums, threats to cause fear 3. Hostile withdrawal Stomping out of a room, using the silent treatment as punishment, other ways of severing a connection 4. Being overly controlling or restrictive Undermining contact with other people, monitoring whereabouts, controlling behavior that threatens the other s autonomy 5. Physical abuse Slapping, pushing, hitting with something that could hurt Note: The forms of aggression listed in the table have been assessed using several established scales. For example, Forms 1 through 4 have been assessed using the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (Murphy & Hoover, 1999), the Follingstad Psychological Aggression Scale (Follingstad, Coyne, & Gambone, 2005), and the Measure of Psychologically Abusive Behaviors (Follingstad & Rogers, 2014). Forms 1, 2, 3, and 5 have been assessed using the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). partner control may not cause immediate harm but eventually leads to losing one s sense of self and auto nomy. Not all forms of partner aggression are equally common. Acts of verbal abuse, hostile withdrawal, and controlling behavior are particularly prevalent. Most individuals (80% 90%) report experiencing one or more forms of the psychological aggression indicated in Table 1, as assessed with established scales (e.g., Hines & Saudino, 2003; Taft et al., 2006). Are such common acts consequential? Perhaps surprisingly, being belittled or humiliated by a partner can be more difficult to overcome than being physically abused (Estefan, Coulter, & VandeWeerd, 2016; Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, & Polek, 1990). Even common forms of aggression predict increased unhappiness and personal distress (Fig. 1, Path A; Arriaga, Capezza, Goodfriend, Rayl, & Sands, 2013; Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015). The common forms of aggression observed in college and community samples often involve mutual aggression between partners, blurring distinctions between the perpetrator and the target or victim (Lawrence et al., 2009). The occurrence of aggression may not affect each partner equally. Recent research with romantically involved college students isolated the unique effects associated with perpetrating versus receiving psychological aggression (Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015). Participants were assessed multiple times to measure new instances of aggression across 3 Partner Aggression (See Table 1) Relationship Commitment Having or Recalling Satisfying Moments Daily Relational Routines or Habits Extended History Together Joint Friends, Memories, Plans That Would Be Lost if a Relationship Ends C B A Downplaying Aggression by a Partner For Example: Reinterpreting Aggressive Behavior as Joking Around Justifying a Partner s Aggressive Behavior Shifting Standards for What Is Acceptable D Negative Personal Outcomes For Example: Unhappiness Anxiety and Depression Lowered Self-Esteem Fig. 1. Causes and consequences of downplaying partner aggression. Common forms of partner aggression predict increased negative personal outcomes (Path A). Being in an aggressive relationship is stigmatizing, which encourages downplaying the meaning and impact of aggression (Path B). Strong commitment and dependence are unrelated to aggression but enable these perceptions (Path C) and sustain the risks associated with aggressive relationships (Path D).

3 Downplaying Partner Aggression 3 months; most reports concerned nonphysical aggression. Prospectively experiencing new instances of psychological aggression uniquely predicted a subsequent increase in distress, whereas enacting new aggression did not. Moreover, these effects held when accounting for scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (e.g., quarreling, regretting being together), which did not predict psychological distress beyond victimization. Aggression from a partner is uniquely distressing, beyond nonaggressive forms of couple dysfunction and beyond effects of physical aggression (Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015; Lawrence et al., 2009). Although partner aggression and distress are connected, targets do not necessarily make that connection, especially when motivated to continue their relationship. In the research just described (Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015), committed individuals who experienced partner aggression were no more likely than other individuals to perceive their relationship as a source of stress. Common forms of aggression often remain under the radar. By not resulting in physical bruises or marks, common aggression is not perceived to be as serious as physical aggression despite its negative consequences (Capezza & Arriaga, 2008). Downplaying Partner Aggression How do people make sense of their partner s aggressive behavior? Individuals in aggressive relationships often attribute the causes of aggression to substance problems, stress, or dysfunctional communication (Flynn & Graham, 2010). But they enact other perceptions to manage aggression. Individuals often deny aggressive partner behavior, as when a person hides it from others (Dunham & Senn, 2000). Individuals also justify a partner s aggressive acts, for example by taking personal responsibility for the partner s behavior. Being in an aggressive relationship is stigmatizing, which encourages downplaying the meaning and impact of aggression (Fig. 1, Path B; Arriaga, Capezza, & Daly, 2016, Study 1). As discussed next, the relational context moderates these perceptions (Fig. 1, Path C). The relational context matters Why do individuals who endure partner aggression continue their relationship? Commitment powerfully predicts these dynamics. Relationship commitment typically is assessed by self-report items tapping the intention to continue a relationship into the long-term future and feeling connected to a partner (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). Decades ago, abuse victims were perceived as irrational. Rusbult and Martz (1995) challenged this belief, drawing attention to logical reasons for persistence, such as being married or financially dependent, which predict shelter victims return to an abusive partner. However, many people remain puzzled that dating relationships persist despite aggression. Individuals who experience common forms of aggression are no different from those who do not in terms of sustaining their commitment. People feel committed because they have had gratifying moments with their partner and anticipate more in the future, their habits and routines become intertwined, they share an extended history together, or they hope to sustain ties with friends or family, memories, and future plans that would be lost if their relationship ends (Goodfriend & Agnew, 2008; Tan, Arriaga, & Agnew, 2018). These conditions create the dependence that fuels subjective feelings of commitment. Although the term dependence can trigger ideas of weakness or lack of autonomy, the reality is that relationship partners regularly rely on each other for various needs and desires. Not only is dependence typical and normative, it is logical in that without it, most relationships would be fleeting (Rusbult et al., 1998). This extends to people in aggressive relationships (Tan et al., 2018). Once people are dependent and feel committed, they withstand negative relationship behavior (Rusbult et al., 1998), including aggression. This means that commitment may precede but not predict aggression. Nor does the onset of aggression necessarily cause people to become less or more committed. Indeed, the amount of aggression experienced and self-reported commitment do not exhibit a consistent association (see Arriaga et al., 2016, Note 4). However, partner aggression does make people less likely to base their commitment on current feelings of satisfaction (Rusbult & Martz, 1995; Tan et al., 2018). Regulating relationship persistence Individuals endure partner aggression because they perceive that being in their relationship is better than being out of their relationship despite current aggression. When aggression occurs, people experience unhappiness but also anticipate experiencing even greater unhappiness without their partner. In a 3-month study with multiple assessments, individuals started the study by predicting how they would feel if their relationship were to end (Arriaga et al., 2013). Although everyone anticipated greater unhappiness than they experienced later when their relationship ended, highly committed individuals were particularly susceptible to this error: In their early predictions, they greatly overestimated how unhappy they would feel from breaking up. The prediction reality gap also was magnified for

4 4 Arriaga et al. individuals who reported relatively higher levels of partner aggression: They became much happier after their relationship ended than they had been previously. But everyone anticipated unhappiness, preferring a known and imperfect path over an unknown path. Such forecasting errors have been studied extensively. Individuals incorrectly forecast how they will feel after negative events because they focus only on the impact of events (e.g., breakups) and underestimate their coping skills (Wilson & Gilbert, 2005). Our research suggests an additional explanation: Individuals in aggressive relationships make errors in judging their current circumstances, overestimating both how happy they currently feel (given how much happier they eventually felt) and how much they need their partner. The relational context, as captured by subjective feelings of commitment, matters in how people manage their persistence. Rusbult and Martz s (1995) classic work on shelter victims elevated the importance of commitment bases (alternatives, investments) in predicting returning to an abusive partner. But more common forms of aggression may not even lead to temporarily leaving a partner; financially independent and unmarried partners remain together. A new generation of research increasingly examines how people interpret aggression that is common and pervasive but nonetheless predicts distress, as reviewed above. Thought patterns that downplay aggression are important because they may blind people to increasingly negative outcomes. Regulating perceptions of aggression Committed individuals are more likely than noncommitted individuals to deny aggression or justify it. When they do this, the harmful effects of aggression become invisible. One established thought pattern is to reinterpret objectively aggressive acts as joking around. For example, community participants in a study reported specific partner acts of physical aggression during conflicts (Arriaga, 2002). Then they considered joking contexts and were asked about the same partner acts. Violent acts in conflict and joking contexts were correlated (e.g., being jokingly kicked or beaten up), but only among highly committed participants. This suggests that committed individuals deny their partner s violent behavior by reinterpreting it as merely joking, which diminishes reasons one might have to change the status quo in a relationship. Another thought pattern that sustains aggressive relationships is to adopt increasingly lenient standards of what is considered acceptable. In a recent study, individuals who had never experienced partner aggression were asked to judge whether specific partner acts would be grounds for ending a relationship (e.g., insults and swearing, threats, physical force; Arriaga et al., 2016, Study 2). Thereafter, they were tracked prospectively; 38% experienced partner aggression for the first time during the study (mostly nonphysical aggression). Among them, only highly committed participants revised their judgments of the same aggressive acts to be more tolerant. The onset of aggression predicted increased tolerance, whereas the reverse was not supported (initially lenient standards did not cause the onset of aggression). In an experiment, even when judging the exact same aggressive behavior, individuals were more lenient if the behavior was enacted by their partner than by someone else, and this was especially true of highly committed individuals (Arriaga et al., 2016, Study 3). Although committed individuals become increasingly tolerant of their partner s aggression, there are limits to what people will tolerate. Most individuals judge severe acts (e.g., beating) to be unacceptable regardless of their level of commitment or first-time experiences (Arriaga et al., 2016). However, those in the minority who already have experienced severe aggression judge such aggression to be tolerable (Arriaga et al., 2016, Study 1). This suggests that with time and experience, even severely aggressive behavior can become the new normal. Consequences of downplaying aggression Committed individuals reinterpret behavior commonly judged to be violent as merely joking around, and they change how they judge specific and objective acts. Less committed individuals do not exhibit these downplaying patterns. These examples suggest that relationship outsiders may perceive certain acts to be aggressive or even violent, but their perceptions shift once they become insiders of a committed relationship. Is downplaying aggression consequential (Fig. 1, Path D)? A few existing studies lead us to speculate that the answer is yes: Downplaying aggression sustains aggressive relationships. In one of the previously reviewed longitudinal studies (Arriaga et al., 2016, Study 2), the only variable that predicted relationship persistence was commitment. In contrast, persistence was not predicted from initial standards regarding aggressive behavior, perceptions of aggression as normative, or, importantly, experiencing partner aggression for the first time. If an aggressive relationship causes unhappiness and personal distress, commitment prolongs these conditions. When people experience common forms of aggression, the amount they experience does not predict whether their relationship will persist over the short

5 Downplaying Partner Aggression 5 term (see Arriaga et al., 2013). Rather, commitmentrelevant factors predict whether relationships persist, even when there are costs of experiencing aggression. Conclusions and Implications Most individuals will eventually experience partner aggression, which makes them susceptible to negative outcomes. Strong commitment prolongs aggressive relationships through perceptions that downplay aggression and underestimate its effects. On a practical level, interventions may be more effective when they account for each partner s level of commitment. Reinterpreting aggressive partner behavior as joking around or being increasingly tolerant of aggression could function as diagnostic signals to other people. Individuals who downplay aggression may be unlikely to accept interventions, shun others who offer support, and balk at efforts to change the status quo. Understanding commitment also can improve existing theories, which primarily predict perpetration and characterize aggression (frequency, severity) but overlook whether partners deny aggression or underestimate its outcomes. Just as partners affect each other s commitment, they may affect their tendencies to downplay aggression. Future research could examine dyadic patterns that may create a couple culture in which mutual aggression becomes common. Eventually, distressed individuals seek to change the status quo (Johnson, 2006), which could entail couples or individual therapy. Not all aggressive partners, however, are willing or able to change their aggressive behavior. This raises several unresolved issues of how people might address partner aggression. Less committed individuals may simply end their relationship. More committed individuals, however, may not perceive the effects of infrequent aggression that nonetheless causes momentary pain or distress. When frequent aggression causes significant distress, most individuals eventually prioritize their own well-being. Changing partner (or mutual) aggressive patterns requires significant effort (e.g., therapy addressing deep-seated issues), which may strengthen a relationship but also could end it. More research is needed on resolving such uncertainty. Another issue concerns developing interventions for individuals who have left chronically abusive partners. Many exhibit depression and diminished self-esteem/ efficacy (Kirkwood, 1993). Much would be gained from developing straightforward interventions that undo tendencies to downplay aggression and restore expectations of caring and constructive relational behavior. Most people eventually will experience and perpetrate common forms of partner aggression. There is no clear answer suggesting at what point aggression becomes too harmful. Strong commitment keeps relationships intact through thick and thin; therefore, it may mask aggression-related harm. However, eventually individuals realign their personal and relational needs and harmonize their goals. Recommended Reading Arriaga, X. B., Capezza, N. M., & Daly, C. A. (2016). (See References). A series of empirical studies examining how standards toward specific and objective aggressive acts become more lenient after a relationship becomes aggressive. Arriaga, X. B., Cobb, R. J., & Daly, C. A. (2018). Aggression and violence in romantic relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp ). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. A review of research on intimate partner aggression, including causes, contexts, responses, and intervention efforts. Lawrence, E., Yoon, J., Langer, A., & Ro, E. (2009). (See References). An empirical study demonstrating unique effects of psychological aggression in predicting distress beyond the effects of physical aggression. Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). (See References). A classic study reframing why individuals remain with abusive partners, suggesting relational bonds as a cause rather than victim irrationality. Action Editor Randall W. Engle served as action editor for this article. Acknowledgments We thank Lucy Hunt for her insights and helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this article. Eduardo and Regina Arriaga also provided useful comments and support. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article. References Arriaga, X. B. (2002). Joking violence among highly committed individuals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, Arriaga, X. B., & Capezza, N. M. (2011). The paradox of partner aggression: Being committed to an aggressive partner. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), Understanding and reducing aggression and their consequences (pp ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Arriaga, X. B., Capezza, N. M., & Daly, C. A. (2016). Personal standards for judging aggression by a relationship partner: How much aggression is too much? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, Arriaga, X. B., Capezza, N. M., Goodfriend, W., Rayl, E. S., & Sands, K. J. (2013). Individual well-being and relationship

6 6 Arriaga et al. maintenance at odds: The unexpected perils of maintaining a relationship with an aggressive partner. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4, Arriaga, X. B., & Schkeryantz, E. L. (2015). Intimate relationships and personal distress: The invisible harm of psychological aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, Capezza, N. M., & Arriaga, X. B. (2008). You can degrade but you can t hit: Differences in acceptability of psychological versus physical aggression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, Dunham, K., & Senn, C. Y. (2000). Minimizing negative experiences: Women s disclosure of partner abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, Estefan, L. F., Coulter, M. L., & VandeWeerd, C. (2016). Depression in women who have left a violent relationship: The unique impact of frequent emotional abuse. Violence Against Women, 22, Flynn, A., & Graham, K. (2010). Why did it happen? A review and conceptual framework for research on perpetrators and victims explanations for intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, Follingstad, D. R., Coyne, S., & Gambone, L. (2005). A representative measure of psychological aggression and its severity. Violence and Victims, 20, Follingstad, D. R., & Rogers, M. (2014). The nature and prevalence of partner psychological abuse in a national sample of adults. Violence and Victims, 29, doi: / Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S., & Polek, D. S. (1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 1, Goodfriend, W., & Agnew, C. R. (2008). Sunken costs and desired plans: Examining different types of investments in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales. Violence and Victims, 18, Johnson, M. P. (2006). Violence and abuse in personal relationships: Conflict, terror, and resistance in intimate partnerships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (1st ed., pp ). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kirkwood, C. (1993). Leaving abusive partners: From the scars of survival to the wisdom for change. London, England: SAGE. Lawrence, E., Yoon, J., Langer, A., & Ro, E. (2009). Is psychological aggression as detrimental as physical aggression? The independent effects of psychological aggression on depression and anxiety symptoms. Violence and Victims, 24, Murphy, C. M., & Hoover, S. A. (1999). Measuring emotional abuse in dating relationships as a multifactorial construct. Violence and Victims, 14, Richardson, D. S. (2014). Everyday aggression takes many forms. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 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, Taft, C. T., O Farrell, T. J., Torres, S. E., Panuzio, J., Monson, C. M., Murphy, M., & Murphy, C. M. (2006). Examining the correlates of psychological aggression among a community sample of couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, doi: / Tan, K., Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2018). Running on empty: Measuring psychological dependence in close relationships lacking satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, doi: / Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, Zadro, L., Arriaga, X. B., & Williams, K. D. (2008). Relational ostracism. In J. P. Forgas & J. Fitness (Eds.), Social relationships: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (pp ). New York, NY: Psychology Press.