Expected Outcomes of Dating Violence: Perspectives From Female Perpetrators

Partner Abuse, Volume 2, Number 4, 2011

404 © 2011 Springer Publishing Company DOI: 10.1891/1946–6560.2.4.404

Expected Outcomes of Dating Violence: Perspectives From Female Perpetrators

Andrew M. Sherrill, BSNicole Wyngarden, MA

Kathryn M. Bell, PhDNorthern Illinois University

Despite recent growth in female dating violence perpetration research, little is known about college women’s expected outcomes of physical aggression perpetra-tion in a dating relationship. Furthermore, no known studies have investigated women’s expected outcomes of dating aggression within the context of a specific dating violence episode or examined the extent to which expected outcomes are consistent or inconsistent with actual dating aggression outcomes. The purpose of this study is to qualitatively investigate the range of dating violence expected and actual outcomes reported by college women with a recent history of physical dating violence perpetration. Twenty female undergraduate students completed individual contextually based interviews regarding their expected and actual outcomes of physical dating aggression perpetration surrounding their most re-cent dating violence episode. Interviews were analyzed using a theoretical the-matic analysis approach. Nine main expected outcome themes reflecting a range of both rewarding and punitive consequences were identified, including no expec-tations—just reacted, nothing would happen, escape or end aversive interaction with partner, modify partner attention, increase partner compliance, increase physical space. facilitate communication, alter emotional state, and partner re-taliation. Interestingly, use of physical aggression to stop or blunt partner’s physi-cal aggression was not an expected outcome reported by any of the participants. Findings indicate that participants’ expected outcomes were often consistent with the actual outcomes of dating aggression. However, a subset of participants also reported actual outcomes inconsistent with expectations and many reported additional unanticipated outcomes. Study limitations, clinical implications, and directions for future research are discussed.

KEYWORDS: physical aggression; thematic analysis; expectations; college women

Expected Outcomes of Dating Violence 405

Dating violence is a significant problem on college campuses, with approximately one-third to one-half of dating individuals reporting the occurrence of physical aggres-sion in a current or past dating relationship (Bell & Naugle, 2007; Makepeace, 1981; Pedersen & Thomas, 1992). Increased attention has recently been paid toward inves-tigating female perpetration of dating violence (e.g., Luthra & Gidycz, 2006; Williams, Ghandour, & Kub, 2008), as more and more studies have shown approximately equal rates of physical dating violence perpetration among men and women (for reviews, see Archer, 2000; Lewis & Fremouw, 2001). Despite the growing research on female dating violence perpetration, few studies have been conducted examining female per-petrators’ expectations regarding outcomes of physical dating violence perpetration (Breslin, Riggs, O’Leary, & Arias, 1990; Foshee, Bauman, & Linder, 1999; Leisring, 2009; Riggs & Caulfield, 1997), and no known studies have examined the extent to which female perpetrators’ expected outcomes of dating violence compare with their actual outcomes of physical dating violence. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to qualitatively explore female perpetrators’ expected outcomes of dating aggression and investigate the extent to which these expectations are consistent or inconsistent with female perpetrators’ actual outcomes of physical dating violence perpetration.

According to behavioral and social learning theories (e.g., Bandura, 1973; Catania, 1984), behavior is determined, in part, by its actual consequences (i.e., whether or not the behavior has previously been reinforced or punished under similar condi-tions) and one’s estimation that a given behavior will likely produce certain imme-diate or d elayed reinforcing or punishing outcomes (i.e., expected outcome; Bandura, 1986). Similarly, behavioral and social learning theories of general and dating aggres-sion (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Bell & Naugle, 2008; Joireman, Anderson, & Strathman, 2003; O’Leary & Arias, 1987; Riggs & O’Leary, 1989) propose that future risk for engaging in aggressive behavior is influenced both by the actual consequences following past aggressive behavior and one’s expectations of the rewarding or punishing outcomes likely to follow a future act of aggression. Dating aggression is thought to be more likely to occur in situations where the individual believes that dating aggression perpetration is likely to achieve certain desirable outcomes (Leisring, 2009). Expected outcomes are theorized to be influenced by the actual consequences following aggres-sive behavior, with reinforcing consequences following aggressive behavior strengthen-ing expected desirable outcomes of dating aggression and increasing risk for future aggression (Breslin et al., 1990).

Preliminary research on actual and expected outcomes of dating aggression lends sup-port to behavioral and social learning theories of dating aggression that emphasize the role of expected and actual outcomes of dating aggression on future risk for aggressive behavior. For example, in a study of male and female undergraduate students, research-ers found a significant relationship between consequences of dating aggression and frequency of dating aggression perpetration, suggesting that actual outcomes of dating aggression may influence rates of dating aggression perpetration (Breslin et al., 1990). Additional research on expected outcomes of dating aggression indicates that male and female perpetrators of dating aggression endorse more rewarding and fewer punitive

406 Sherrill et al.

expected outcomes of dating aggression than respondents without a history of dating aggression perpetration (Breslin et al.; Foshee et al., 1999; Riggs & Caulfield, 1997).

Leisring (2009) conducted the only known study examining expected outcomes of dating aggression among female dating violence perpetrators. The author administered a measure of dating aggression expected outcomes developed by Riggs & Caulfield (1997) to college women with and without a history of dating violence perpetration. Study results indicated that dating aggressive women had significantly higher per-petrator-wins-argument scores and partner-retaliates scores than dating nonaggres-sive women. Higher frequency of physical aggression was negatively associated with perpetrator-guilt scores. Expected outcomes most commonly endorsed by both dating aggressive and dating nonaggressive women included perpetrator apologizing, perpe-trator feeling guilty, partner yelling, partner stops talking to perpetrator, perpetrator making up with partner, partner avoiding perpetrator, and physical injury to partner.

The existing literature on expected and actual outcomes of dating aggression is lim-ited in several ways. First, existing measures of dating aggression expected outcomes include a restricted number of possible outcomes, particularly rewarding outcomes, that respondents can endorse. It is possible that additional expected outcomes of dating aggression exist that have not been captured in previous expected outcome measures, which are influential in predicting risk for future dating aggressive behavior. As such, researchers (Leisring, 2009; Riggs & Caulfield, 1997) have advocated for future studies exploring the wider array of dating violence expected outcomes. Additionally, existing measures of expected outcomes have been criticized for their hypothetical, noncontextu-alized assessment of expected outcomes (Leisring) and a priori classification of outcomes as either punishing or rewarding (Riggs & Caulfield). Because it has been suggested that the function of a given outcome is likely context-dependent and not universal (Bell & Naugle, 2008), it is likely that outcomes will be differentially reinforcing or punishing depending on the individual and circumstances surrounding the aggressive behavior. To date, no known studies have taken a qualitative, contextually based approach to examining expected outcomes associated with dating violence perpetration. Research that takes a more idiographic approach to examining expected outcomes of dating ag-gression is needed to examine individual differences in the types, valence (i.e., positive or negative), and function (i.e., reinforcing or punishing) of specific expected outcomes. Furthermore, most research on dating aggression expected outcomes has included male or combined gender samples. Given the recent support for gender symmetry in dating violence perpetration (Archer, 2000; Lewis & Fremouw, 2001), there is a need for greater research to explore expected outcomes of female-perpetrated dating aggression. Lastly, although outcome expectancy theory suggests that expected outcomes are influenced by the actual consequences of behavior, no known studies have examined the extent to which expected outcomes of dating aggression correspond with actual outcomes of dat-ing aggression perpetration (Breslin et al., 1990; Riggs & Caulfield). Future research is needed to provide a clearer understanding of how “outcome expectations and actual and perceived consequences of interpartner aggression serve to increase or decrease the likehood of future dating aggression” (Breslin et al., p. 256).


The purpose of this study was to further investigate expected outcomes of female-perpetrated physical dating violence and their relationship to actual dating violence outcomes using in-depth, contextually based semistructured interviews with 20 female undergraduate students reporting recent physical dating violence perpetration. Each participant was interviewed separately and asked to describe the events leading up to her most recent episode of physical dating violence perpe-tration, her expectations about what she thought would happen if she physically aggressed against her dating partner, and the events following her most recent dating violence perpetration episode. The goals of the study were to use a theoreti-cal thematic analysis approach (as described by Braun & Clarke, 2006) to explore the range of expected outcomes reported by female perpetrators of physical dating violence, develop a more detailed account of female perpetrators’ expected outcomes of dating aggression, and examine the extent to which the actual outcomes of physi-cal dating violence perpetration were consistent or inconsistent with participants’ expectations. By providing a more detailed, idiographic account of female dating violence perpetrators’ outcome expectations and examining the correspondence be-tween expected and actual outcomes of dating aggression, it is hoped that results from this study will contribute to the improvement of existing expected outcome measures and inform future research targeted at understanding the functional re-lationship between expected and actual outcomes of dating violence on future risk for dating aggression perpetration.

METHOD

Participants and Screening Process

This study was part of a larger project investigating the context and dynamics of violent dating relationships. Individuals were recruited from a participant pool of approximately 2,000 students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a large Midwestern university. In total, 458 female students completed an online screening form assessing participants’ demographic background, current relationship status, and dating violence history in the past 6 months. Eligible participants for inclusion in this study were women older than the age of 18 who were currently in a heterosexual dating relationship and who reported perpetration of at least one act of physical dat-ing violence in the past 6 months. Forty-three female students meeting eligibility cri-teria based on the online screening form agreed to participate in the in-person second phase of the study. During the second phase, participants were further screened to verify presence of physical dating violence perpetration in the past 6 months. Upon further screening, 23 of the 43 participants no longer met eligibility criteria.1 Thus, a total of 20 female students were included in the study’s final analyses. Mean age of the sample was 19.05 years (SD .999). Fifty percent of the sample were White, 30% were African American, 10% were Hispanic, 5% were Asian, and 5% did not report ethnicity. Participants were compensated with either course credit or $10.00.

408 Sherrill et al.

Measures

Demographics Questionnaire (DQ). The DQ was a measure developed for the purposes of this study to screen for eligibility and gather information regarding the participant’s demographic background, including age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and relationship status during the past 6 months.

Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) and Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2). The CTS (Straus, 1979) is an 18-item questionnaire that assesses the occurrence of physi-cal, sexual, and psychological aggression within an intimate relationship. The CTS2 (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) is a 78-item revised version of the CTS that also assesses the occurrence of physical, sexual, and psychological aggres-sion within an intimate relationship. Each measure assesses both perpetration and victimization rates for each aggressive act. On both measures, participants are asked to rate on a 6-point scale (1 once; 6 more than 20 times) the number of times a particular act was used by the participant and her partner in the past year. For the purposes of this study, participants were instructed to indicate how frequently each item occurred within their current dating relationship in the past 6 months. The CTS2 has demonstrated good construct and discriminant validity and good reliabil-ity, with internal consistency ranging from .79 to .95 (Straus et al., 1996).

Modified Version of the Timeline Follow Back–Spousal Violence (TLFB-SV). The TLFB-SV (Fals-Stewart, Birchler, & Kelley, 2003) is an interview that was derived from the timeline calendar originally developed for use with individuals with alco-hol and drug use problems (Sobell & Sobell, 1996). Individuals are presented with a daily calendar dating back for a specified time interval with standard U.S. holidays and other days of personal significance (e.g., anniversaries, birthdays) noted. The in-dividual is asked to report days in which partner aggression happened in the indi-vidual’s current relationship and what type of violence occurred. For the purposes of this study, participants were asked to report on days of aggression perpetration and victimization occurring within their current dating relationship in the past 6 months. The TLFB-SV interview has demonstrated excellent temporal stability and concur-rent and discriminant validity (Fals-Stewart et al., 2003).

Relationship Violence Contextual Interview (RVCI). The RVCI (Bell & Cornelius, 2011) is a semistructured interview using a series of open- and closed-ended questions to gather comprehensive qualitative and quantitative information on the context and dynamics surrounding a specific episode (e.g., most recent episode) of partner violence perpetration or victimization. The interview is based on a contextual framework of inti-mate partner violence (IPV; Bell & Naugle, 2008) that highlights various contextual fac-tors thought to be associated with IPV episodes, including antecedent stimuli preceding the aggressive episode, motivating factors, verbal rules, behavioral repertoire, discrimi-native stimuli (i.e., environmental signals), and consequences following the IPV episode.

A subset of open-ended questions from the overall RVCI2 was selected for analysis in this study and used to examine characteristics of the physically aggressive acts and


identify expected and actual outcomes of the physically aggressive acts. Responses to the following questions were analyzed:

How were you physically aggressive to your partner? What specifically did you do to your partner?

Describe for me, step by step, the events that led up to you acting physically aggressive3 toward your partner on this particular day. (Possible follow-up questions: How did the interaction begin? What were you doing? What was your partner doing? Then what happened? What next?)

What were you thinking just before you were physically aggressive toward your partner?

What did you think would happen if you were physically aggressive toward your partner?

How did you think your partner would react toward you after you were physi-cally aggressive toward him or her?

Describe for me, step by step, the events that followed after you acted physi-cally aggressive toward your partner on this particular day. (Possible follow-up questions: What happened immediately after you were physically aggressive? What were you doing? What was your partner doing? Then what happened? What next?)

Interviewers were instructed to use the RVCI as a guide and were encouraged to ask follow-up questions (primarily open-ended questions) as needed to help ensure com-pleteness of the data collected. RVCI administration took approximately 1–1.5 hours to complete. All interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim by trained research assistants. All transcripts were reviewed by a trained, graduate-level research assistant to ensure accuracy and thoroughness of transcriptions.

Procedures

This study was divided into two phases: a screening phase and an in-person phase. Gender-matched, trained research assistants under the close supervision of the study’s authors conducted the in-person sessions and administered all interviews. Prior to conducting the in-person sessions, each research assistant underwent exten-sive training on administration of the study materials. Training consisted of group instruction on the study’s objectives and in-person session protocol, self-report mea-sure and interview procedures (including training on how to interview about sensi-tive information), and a review of miscellaneous study materials. Research assistants were then required to observe and repeatedly practice administration of the in-per-son session protocol (including practice administration of all interviews). At least one practice administration was required to occur in the presence of a doctoral-level clini-cal psychology graduate student, during which time feedback was provided on how to improve delivery of the study materials. When available, research assistants were also encouraged to listen to audiorecordings of administered interviews and review

410 Sherrill et al.

previously transcribed interviews. Prior to training completion, research assistants were required to audiorecord administration of the interviews. Audiorecordings were reviewed by a doctoral-level clinical psychology graduate student and the principal investigator of the study, and additional feedback was provided to each research as-sistant. If necessary, research assistants were required to continue practicing admin-istration of the study materials and complete another audiorecording of interview administration for review. Approval to begin conducting in-person sessions, including administration of all interviews, was provided by the principal investigator when the audiorecording indicated satisfactory administration of the interviews.

During the screening phase, participants completed an online survey consisting of the DQ and CTS to determine initial eligibility to participate in the second phase of the study. Eligible participants were invited to attend individual, in-person ses-sions, during which time the DQ and CTS2 were completed to verify eligibility to participate. Those continuing to meet eligibility criteria then completed the TLFB-SV interview to confirm presence of physical dating violence perpetration in the past 6 months and identify the most recent episode of physical dating violence perpetration. Lastly, eligible participants completed the RVCI, during which time additional infor-mation was gathered on the characteristics of physically aggressive acts occurring during the most recent episode of dating violence perpetration, events preceding and following dating violence perpetration, and expected outcomes of dating violence per-petration. Following completion of the RVCI, participants were debriefed and given a list of local mental health and dating violence resources. The entire in-person session took 2–3 hours to complete.

Analysis

The interviews were analyzed using a theoretical thematic analysis approach as defined by Braun and Clarke (2006). Two of the study’s investigators developed an initial coding tree with preliminary themes, subthemes, and dimensions4 defined based on the exist-ing expected outcomes literature and the Bell and Naugle (2008) contextual framework. Transcripts were then imported, coded, and analyzed using the qualitative data analy-sis software package NVivo 8 (QSR International, 2008) following the NVivo analysis guidelines described by Bazeley (2007). NVivo is advantageous in providing qualitative researchers with computer assistance in storing and organizing large transcripts, devel-oping and modifying coding trees, independently coding data, facilitating examination of coding discrepancies, querying coded data, computing interrater reliability, and graphi-cally modeling the project’s thematic levels and relationships between those levels.

All 20 transcripts were systematically reviewed and independently coded by three reviewers. Participant responses to the questions were examined to identify charac-teristics of the aggressive acts perpetrated by participants and their partners (includ-ing examination of the temporal sequencing of aggressive acts perpetrated by each person within the dating couple), participants’ expected outcomes following dating aggression perpetration, and the sequence of actual consequences that reportedly followed participants’ use of physical dating aggression (including examination of


the immediate vs. delayed outcomes of dating aggression). To reduce the potential influence of coder gender on coding and analysis (Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, & Tolin, 1997), both male and female coders were used. Analysis took place over a 5-month period. During the first month, the coding team met on at least three separate oc-casions to refine research questions, develop an analysis plan, and create an initial coding tree. Over the next 3 months, the coding team met regularly to discuss coding discrepancies and refine the overall coding scheme. Coding discrepancies and theme/subtheme/dimension categories were discussed and resolved through repeated tran-script reviews and a process of consensus. Each coding meeting lasted 2–6 hours and reviewed 4–6 transcripts per meeting, depending on the complexity of the transcripts being reviewed. Following initial coding completion, all transcripts were indepen-dently reviewed by all three coders again to ensure completeness and accuracy of coding. Remaining coding discrepancies were discussed and resolved through further transcript review and a process of consensus. During the final month, an initial the-matic map was developed and reviewed by the coding team using the steps outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) to further define and refine themes, subthemes, and di-mensions. Where necessary, certain themes, subthemes, and dimensions were merged or discarded in attempt to develop a final thematic map with distinct, internally con-sistent, and coherent themes, subthemes, and dimensions (Braun & Clarke).5

Interrater reliability, as measured by percentage agreement and kappas, was gen-erally high using criteria set forth by Landis and Koch (1977). Average kappas for each coding pair fell between .94 and .95 with overall percentage agreement averag-ing 99.67% across the three coding pairs. Information collected during this study suggests that saturation was reached in identifying the main expected outcomes themes using the 20 participants. Specifically, a review of the coding notes and cod-ing scheme indicates that all major expected outcome themes were created within the first month of coding after reviewing seven transcripts. Furthermore, the large majority of subthemes and dimensions (i.e., all but one subtheme) were developed by the time 18 transcripts had been reviewed by all coders.

RESULTS

Characteristics of Physical Dating Violence Acts

Consistent with previous research on physical dating aggression among college women (Arias, Samios, & O’Leary, 1987), most women in the current sample reported perpetration of relatively mild acts of physical aggression during their most recent episode of dating violence perpetration. Acts of physical dating aggression by 70% of the sample included pushing, shoving, grabbing, or throwing something at one’s partner. Thirty percent of participants described engaging in more moderate acts of physical aggression, such as slapping, hitting, or punching. None of the partici-pants reported that their partner was injured as a result of their physical aggres-sion. In one third of the cases, the participant’s partner also engaged in physical dating aggression. Fifty percent of these cases involved partner physical aggression

412 Sherrill et al.

prior to participant’s use of physical aggression, and 83% of these cases involved partner’s use of physical aggression following the participant’s physically aggressive behavior. Thirty-five percent of all reviewed cases involved partner’s engagement in verbal or psychological aggression prior to the participant’s perpetration of physical aggression. Based on a review of participants’ responses to the TLFB-SV, 70% of par-ticipants reported a history of dating violence perpetration and 35% of participants reported a history of dating violence victimization in the past 6 months prior to their most recent episode of dating violence.

Expected Outcomes of Dating Aggression

Table 1 lists the main expected outcome themes, subthemes, and dimensions identified in the current analysis. Nine main expected outcome themes were found, including no expectations—just reacted, nothing would happen, escape or end aversion, modify partner’s attention, increase partner compliance, increase physical space, facilitate communication, alter emotional reaction of self or partner, and partner retaliation. In 18 of the 20 cases, participants reported more than one expected outcome of their physical dating aggression perpetration.

No Expectation—Just Reacted. All individuals were able to identify outcomes they expected to occur following their use of physical aggression. However, in 25% of the cases, individuals also denied having any a priori expectations about what would happen as a result of being aggressive toward one’s partner. Instead, these individu-als described not thinking about the potential consequences of their actions, but just reflexively reacting in the moment. Examples of this include “I didn’t think. I just did it. Just like, I don’t know, like a reflex, I guess.” “I wasn’t really thinking. It was just a reaction.” “I honestly didn’t think about it. It just kind of happened.”

Nothing Would Happen. The expectation that nothing would happen following per-petration of physical dating aggression was the most commonly identified expected outcome by female participants, reported by 60% of the sample. Included within this theme were expectations that the participant’s use of physical aggression would not result in partner retaliation, partner physical injury, changes in relationship status, or partner behavior change. In most cases, participants clarified that they did not think their partner would retaliate in response to the participant’s use of physical aggression. Illustrative quotations include statements such as “He wouldn’t fight back.” “I thought he would be angry, but I knew he would not hit me back.” “I don’t think he would do anything back.”

In other instances, participants indicated they anticipated their partner would not be physically harmed as a result of the participant’s physical aggression. For example, one participant said, “I didn’t think anything would happen. ‘Cause, like, I said it wasn’t the type of grab to hurt him or anything like that.” A few participants made comments suggesting that they did not expect their relationship with their


TABLE 1. Expected Outcomes Themes and Subthemes

Themes Subthemes Dimensions

No Expectations—Just Reacted

Nothing would happen

Partner’s behavior would not change

Partner would not be physically harmed

Relationship status would remain unchanged

Partner would not retaliate Partner would not physically retaliate

Escape or end aversive interaction with partner

Escape or end altercation Escape or end verbal altercation

Escape or end physical altercation

Reduce or stop aversive behavior

Reduce or stop partner’s teasing behavior

Modify partner attention Remove partner’s attentionGet or retain partner’s attention Get partner to listen

Get partner to provide comfort or show concern

Shock or surprise partner

Increase compliance Get partner to stayGet object from partnerGet partner to make amends

Increase physical space Facilitate

communicationTo establish or reestablish

relationship rulesListen

Be sensitive to your partner’s feelings

To express emotion Express angerExpress sadnessExpress jealousy

Alter emotional state Self Reduce emotional distressPartner Increase emotional distress Increase anger

Partner would retaliate Partner would verbally retaliate

Partner would physically retaliate

414 Sherrill et al.

partner to change as a result of their use of physical aggression, such as this partici-pant who expressed the following expectation: “He would be the same, like, as soon as everything cooled off he would just be the same as we were before because he just lets things go.” Lastly, two participants voiced expectations that their partner’s behavior would not change in response to the participant’s use of physical aggression. For instance, one participant who reportedly threw an object at her partner in response to her partner’s teasing behavior expressed this expected outcome:

Participant: Nothing would change.

Interviewer: So he would just continue to joke?

Participant: Yeah.

Escape or End Aversion. The second most commonly identified expected outcome theme, reported by 55% of the sample, was the expectation that use of physical aggression would allow the participant to either escape or end an aversive interac-tion with her partner. Approximately half of those reporting this expected outcome indicated their intentions to use physical aggression against their partner to escape or end a verbal or physical altercation with their partner. In the following exam-ples, participants described what they expected to occur as a result of using physical aggression during an altercation with their partner:

He got mad at me because I kept laughing. Then, I got on the phone and he got mad at that too. He thought I was laughing at him with my friend over the phone. He said to me to get out of his house. And so I got up but then he said he was “just playing” and didn’t know why I was taking it serious. I was really upset and I tried to leave. And so I pushed him and punched so that he would leave me alone.

I just wanted to get out of there.I thought that after me physically touching him, he would leave the room.

Others described using physical aggression in an attempt to reduce or stop their partner from engaging in an aversive behavior, such as lying or teasing. Quotations illustrating this include:

It started when I found out about an affair he had with another lady about a year before this took place. I confronted him about it, and our goal was to sit down and talk about it, but as he continued to lie, I continued to grow more angry, which is when I pushed him. That was my way of trying to get out of the room. He followed me and continued to try to explain himself. I slapped him and asked for him to stop lying to me. He wouldn’t admit to it, but I had already talked to the girl about the details.

He always constantly brought up my ex-boyfriend, which I only dated because he left me, so whenever he brought it up, it was really aggravating. I just wanted him to leave the room and give me some space, so I threw things at him.


Modify Partner’s Attention. Another commonly identified expected outcome theme mentioned by 55% of the sample was the expectation that use of physical aggression would result in either an increase/retention or reduction in partner’s attention. Approx-imately 35% of participants indicated that they used physical aggression to temporar-ily remove their partner’s attention. The following excerpt illustrates this subtheme:

And then, like, he wouldn’t leave my side. And then the party ended, and we went outside. And then he went his way and I went mine. And my truck got stuck and he came. Whatever. I pushed him and told him to leave. And that’s what happened.

In approximately 20% of cases, participants stated their expectation that use of physi-cal aggression would result in an increase or retention of their partner’s attention, such as shocking or surprising their partner, getting their partner to listen, or getting their partner to provide comfort or show concern. Quotations exemplifying this include

I knew it didn’t hurt him, but I knew it would get his attention enough for him to stop.

I was hoping he would comfort me. I was hoping he’d come back and try to prove he cares.

I assumed he was going to be shocked because I don’t slap him usually.

Increase Compliance. In approximately one third of the interviews, participants described scenarios in which their partner was not complying with an explicitly stated or implicit request. These participants indicated they had expected their use of physical aggression would lead to an increase in their partner’s compliant behavior, either through physically forced compliance or through coerced compliance. Forms of increased compliant behavior included getting one’s partner to stay, getting an object from one’s partner, or getting one’s partner to make amends. In one example, the par-ticipant describes pushing her partner in an attempt to get him to comply with her request to get in the car and drive to a restaurant:

So, we were supposed to go out with my family ‘cause it was my brother’s birth-day, and after that we were going to go out with my brother. And I guess he was running late and it’s okay, but he made a big deal out of everything. “Why do I have to take a shower?” “Why do I have to go to dinner with your family?” “Why can’t I just go afterwards?” He ended up coming to my house, about a half hour late. I said, “It’s fine, we’ll just meet my family at [Restaurant Name].” And then, I don’t know, we just started to argue way too much. I don’t know why we were arguing, but he was walking too close to me. I was like, “Can you get away from me? I don’t want to talk to you, we need to go. We need to drive. We are already late.” Then he tried to talk to me and then I pushed him away and I was like, “Let’s go to your car.” Then we drove off.

416 Sherrill et al.

Increase Physical Space. An additional expected outcome theme identified in 25% of the interviews related to the expectation that use of physical aggression would result in an increase in physical distance between the participant and her partner. This theme applied to cases in which the participant described a violation of personal space and the use of physical aggression to increase physical distance between her and her partner, which is distinct from the “escape or end aversion” theme where participants expressed an expectation that an aversive interaction would end follow-ing use of physical aggression but did not describe a violation of personal space prior to use of physical aggression. Quotations illustrating the “increase physical space” theme include

We went outside, and we were yelling more, and he tried to put his arm around me—trying to come to me—and I was so mad. I mean, we weren’t solving the problem, so I got so mad. I pushed him off of me and then he tried to grab my arm again and I pushed him away and then he, like, was mad.

And then we went out to smoke a cig [sic], and then I think he tried to kiss me, and I was mad, so I pushed him because we were arguing.

Facilitate Communication. Approximately 25% of the sample voiced their expecta-tion that use of physical aggression would help facilitate communication between the participant and her partner, often through either the establishment/reestablishment of relationship rules (e.g., “listen” or “be sensitive to your partner’s feelings”) or the expression of emotions. Excerpts reflecting this theme are as follows:

I wasn’t trying to hurt him. It makes you get your point across almost.I was hoping he would take it to heart and realize that it was insensitive

of him to say it.I guess to show him how I felt about his story.

Alter Emotional State. Participants in 25% of the interviews expressed their expec-tation that use of physical aggression would lead to a change in their emotional state or their partner’s emotional state. In most of these cases, participants expected their use of physical aggression would increase their partner’s emotional distress, often with the expectation of making their partner angrier. Quotations exemplifying this include “He would get really mad at me.” “I thought he would be mad.” “I thought he would be angry.”

However, one participant with a repeat history of physical dating violence perpe-tration stated her expectation that perpetrating physical aggression would help her calm down, noting that her partner “usually gives me time to calm down.”

Partner Retaliation. A few participants (15%) reported their expectation that use of physical aggression would lead to their partner physically and/or verbally retaliating against them. Statements reflective of this theme are as follows: “I thought he would yell at me or say something about it.” “Shove me back.” “He was going to hit me back.”


Comparison of Expected Versus Actual Outcomes of Dating Aggression

Interviews were examined to determine the extent to which the actual outcomes of the dat-ing violence episode were consistent or inconsistent with participants’ expected outcomes. Specifically, each participant’s response to the question “Describe for me, step by step, the events that followed after you acted physically aggressive towards your partner on this particular day” was analyzed to identify the actual outcomes that followed the aggressive act. Each identified actual outcome was then compared with the participant’s reported expected outcomes to see if the actual outcome was consistent or inconsistent with any of the participant’s expectations. An actual outcome was coded as consistent with expecta-tions if the actual outcome described corresponded with an expected outcome stated by the participant (e.g., if participant expected partner to leave and participant reported that partner actually did leave following the participant’s physically aggressive act). An actual outcome was coded as inconsistent with expectations if the actual outcome described was contradictory to what the participant expected (e.g., if participant expected partner to physically retaliate, but instead the partner left the room and did not physically retali-ate). Attention was also paid to whether the actual outcomes occurred immediately after the participant’s use of physical aggression or whether they had a more delayed onset, as some behavioral research indicates that consequences that immediately follow a given behavior are likely to have a greater influence on future behavior than more delayed consequences (Malott, Malott, & Trojan, 2000). Lastly, unanticipated outcomes of dating aggression were coded and analyzed. An actual outcome of dating aggression was coded as unanticipated if the actual outcome had no relation to the participants’ reported ex-pected outcomes (e.g., if participant expected an increase in physical space but describes an actual outcome involving her partner terminating the relationship).6

Actual Outcomes Consistent With Expected Outcomes. A substantial majority of participants (95%) described immediate actual outcomes of the physical dating violence episode that were consistent with their reported expected outcomes. For two of these cases, however, the participant engaged in additional physical aggression before their partner responded as anticipated. An excerpt of an interview illustrating this is as follows:

I confronted him about it and our goal was to sit down and talk about it, but as he continued to lie I continued to grow more angry, which is when I pushed him. That was my way of trying to get out of the room. He followed me and con-tinued to try to explain himself. I slapped him and asked for him to stop lying to me. He wouldn’t admit to it, but I had already talked to the girl about the details. So I was getting more and more furious and started “muffing” like, “get out of my face.”. . .After that I got in my car and left.

In half of the cases where participants’ expected outcomes matched the immediate actual outcomes, the expectation that nothing would happen following their use of physical aggression was consistent with the actual outcome, with most reporting that their partner, as anticipated, did not retaliate in response to the participant’s

418 Sherrill et al.

physically aggressive behavior. For example, the participant who expressed her expec-tation that her partner “wouldn’t fight back” stated that her partner “backed off” and she went home immediately after she pushed her partner. Forty-five percent of par-ticipants also indicated that, as expected, use of physical aggression allowed them to escape or end an aversive interaction with their partner. For instance, the participant who stated, “At first he was going to leave and I wouldn’t let him, then I was trying to leave and he wouldn’t let me leave. Then I pushed.” reported that “He moved out of the way, then I went to another room for a couple of minutes” immediately after she pushed him. Additional immediate outcomes that were consistent with expectations included modifications in partner attention, increases in partner’s emotional distress, increased physical space and compliance, and facilitated communication (especially in communication of emotional states). Of the three individuals who anticipated that their partner would retaliate in response to their physically aggressive behavior, two of these participants’ partners actually retaliated with physical aggression.

In 35% of the cases, participants’ expected outcomes were consistent with more delayed actual outcomes of the dating violence episode. Delayed outcomes consistent with participants’ expected outcomes included expectations that one would escape a verbal altercation, the relationship status would remain unchanged, partner’s attention would change, partner compliance or physical space would increase, and expression of emotion would be communicated. An example of a more delayed, con-sistent outcome came from a participant describing what happened after she hit her partner with a comb with the expectation of increasing his compliance:

He’s like “hey, why did you do that?” I’m like “because you know I got to get [to my appointment] and you’re not paying attention” and blah, blah, blah. Don’t know exact words [sic]. And then eventually, we both just laughed about it be-cause he’s like “really, did she just hit me on the head with the comb?” And I’m like “yes, yes I did, now pay attention and turn your head, and he turned his head, and that was the end of it.”

Actual Outcomes Inconsistent With Expected Outcomes. Thirty-five percent of the participants described actual outcomes of the dating violence episode that were at least partially inconsistent with their expected outcomes. The large majority of actual out-comes that were inconsistent with participants’ expected outcomes occurred immediately after the participant’s use of physical aggression. Seven participants described that, un-expectedly, their use of physical aggression against their partner did not alter their part-ner’s attention, allow the participants to escape or end an aversive interaction with their partner, increase partner compliance, facilitate communication, reduce their emotional distress, or lead to partner retaliation. An example illustrating this comes from a par-ticipant who described pushing her partner with the expected outcomes of getting her partner’s attention and facilitating communication with her partner:

Interviewer: How did you think your partner would react towards you after you pushed him?

Participant: I was hoping he’d come back and try to prove he cares. But he left.


Interviewer: Describe for me, step by step, the events that followed after you pushed him on this particular day.

Participant: We split. He went downstairs. I think I went downstairs to see if we could talk again more calmly, and he wouldn’t give me the time of day.

Interviewer: Then no more communication?

Participant: Yeah, I think he actually even left the party.

Additional Unanticipated Outcomes Following Dating Aggression. Unantici-pated outcomes were defined as outcomes that occurred following a participant’s use of physical aggression but did not relate to the participant’s stated expected outcomes. Unanticipated outcomes differed from outcomes considered inconsistent with expected outcomes, in that the latter code was used only in situations where participants described an actual outcome that was contradictory to their stated expected outcomes (e.g., in a case where the participants expected their partner to physically retaliate, but their part-ner did not actually physically retaliate in response to their use of physical aggression).

Sixty-five percent of participants also described some outcomes following their use of physical aggression that appeared neither consistent nor inconsistent with their stated expected outcomes. Approximately half of these unanticipated outcomes occurred immediately after the participant’s physically aggressive behavior and the remainder occurred after the participant’s use of physical aggression. Immediate unanticipated outcomes included partner verbal or physical retaliation, enhanced communication or other positive relationship interaction, or relationship termination. Enhanced com-munication was coded in situations where a participant described an improvement in communication between her and her partner following an aggressive incident (e.g., in cases where a verbal argument prior to physical aggression was followed by more productive communication after the aggressive incident). Similarly, positive relation-ship interaction was coded in cases where the participant described a more pleasant relationship interaction following her use of physical aggression. Examples of unan-ticipated enhanced communication and positive relationship interaction outcomes are reflected in the following case of a participant who slapped her partner with the expectation that she would get her partner’s attention, express her anger, reestablish a relationship rule, and stop an aversive interaction with her partner:

Well, he kind of looked at me with a shocked face, not knowing why I slapped him, but then I told him how upset I was that he had said that and he listened to me. And we kind of got into a discussion then with everyone else about whether hunting was right or wrong and stuff like that, but I was sitting next to him on the couch the whole time. We were like still holding each other or whatever, so it wasn’t like we were mad at each other or fighting or anything, but you could tell he was upset.

The most commonly reported delayed unanticipated outcomes were relationship repair and enhanced communication, each reported by approximately 20% of the sample. Relationship repair was coded in situations where the participant made an

420 Sherrill et al.

explicit statement about how the relationship was fixed or made better following the aggressive incident. A quotation illustrating relationship repair is as follows: “I talked to him for a little while and hung out with friends. And about a half hour later, he apologized. I said I was sorry too for pushing him. Then it was all good.”

Others described engaging in communication that was more productive with their partner after briefly separating from each other, as exemplified in the follow-ing statement: “We just had our little time apart. Like, we maybe had like 15 min-utes apart, and then I came back inside, and we just talked it out and talked about everything.”

Additional delayed unanticipated outcomes included escaping or ending an aversive interaction with one’s partner, increased compliance, reduction in participant’s emotional distress, relationship termination, and retention of partner’s attention.

DISCUSSION

This study adds to the existing literature on expected outcomes of dating aggres-sion among female college perpetrators, and was the first known study to examine expected outcomes within the broader context of the dating aggression incident. Nine primary expected outcome themes were identified reflecting a range of both poten-tially rewarding (e.g., increase compliance) and punitive (e.g., partner retaliation) consequences. Several of the expected outcomes identified in this study were consis-tent with the expected outcomes and reasons for partner aggression found in previous studies, including expectations that dating aggression would result in greater partner compliance (i.e., getting one’s way), escape or ending of an aversive interaction with one’s partner, an increase in partner’s emotional distress, expression of emotion, and partner retaliation (Breslin et al., 1990; Hamberger et al., 1997; Hettrich & O’Leary, 2007; Leisring, 2009; Riggs & Caulfield, 1997; Stuart et al., 2006). In addition, this study found several expected outcome themes not previously identified in the dating aggression expected outcomes literature. For example, approximately one-quarter of our sample indicated that they expected their use of physical aggression to result in an increase in physical space between them and their partner, without necessarily expecting an end to an interaction with their partner. Others reported their expecta-tion that using aggression would help facilitate communication with their partner and aid in establishing or reestablishing relationship rules (e.g., listen and be sensi-tive to one’s feelings).

Interestingly, our study also found many of the female perpetrators had the expec-tation that nothing bad would happen (i.e., relationship would not change, partner would not retaliate, partner would not be injured) following their use of physical aggression. Participants’ expectations that their partner would not retaliate in response to their aggressive behavior is particularly concerning, given research suggesting that a woman’s use of violence is a strong predictor of male retaliatory violence (Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004) and research demonstrating that


men are more likely to report “being hit first” as a motivation to physically retali-ate against their female partner (Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 1991). At the same time, findings from our study indicate that, in most of the cases where participants did not expect their partner to retaliate, participants’ partners did not physically retaliate in response to women’s use of aggression. In addition, of the five cases involving partner physical retaliation, three of these retaliatory incidences were anticipated by participants. Taken together, findings from the current and pre-vious studies suggest the need for future research to further investigate the extent to which female perpetrators anticipate partner retaliatory aggression and determine the extent to which women may be underestimating or accurately estimating risk for partner retaliation.

Somewhat surprisingly, only two participants described partner physical aggression prior to the woman’s use of physical aggression, and use of physical aggression to stop or blunt partner’s physical aggression (consistent with a self-defense presentation) was not an expected outcome reported by any of the female participants in this study. This finding is somewhat inconsistent with previous research on reasons for partner aggression in which self-defense is a commonly endorsed reason reported by female perpetrators (Hamberger et al., 1997; Hettrich & O’Leary, 2007; Stuart et al., 2006). It may be that the current study’s findings regarding self-defensive use of physical aggression are simply due to the small sample size, low rates of partner-initiated aggression, and low severity of reported dating violence, and it is possible the ex-pected outcome of stopping or blunting partner’s physical aggression would be more commonly reported in a larger, more severe dating violence sample. Alternatively, it could be the term self-defense has various meanings for different women, resulting in the reporting of self-defense as a motivator for engaging in physical aggression under various circumstances. For example, whereas some women may use the term self-defense to describe cases where they used physical aggression to defend themselves against their partner’s use of physical aggression, others may use the term in cases where they used physical aggression to defend themselves in verbal arguments with their partner or in cases where they felt wronged by their partner in some way. Fu-ture research examining self-defense as a motivator for dating aggression should fur-ther clarify the conditions under which participants report endorsing “self-defense” as a reason for engaging in dating aggression.

Previous research indicates partner-violent individuals are more likely to report positive expected outcomes than non-partner-violent individuals (Breslin et al., 1990; Foshee et al., 1999; Leisring, 2009; Riggs & Caulfield, 1997). Indeed, as sug-gested by Leisring, our study’s preliminary findings seem to indicate that more than 50% of female perpetrators report engaging in physical aggression to achieve certain “positive” outcomes, such as increasing compliance and facilitating commu-nication. Although our study also identified several expected outcome themes that might be considered “positive,” our findings also suggest labeling expected outcomes as positive or negative depends on the context of the violent interaction. To illus-trate, in previous studies (Breslin et al.; Leisring), removal of partner’s attention

422 Sherrill et al.

(i.e., partner stops talking to participant) is generally considered a negative conse-quence. However, in this study, removal of partner’s attention could be defined as positive or negative depending on the circumstances and the motivations behind the participant’s aggressive behavior. For example, in one case of a participant who described slapping her partner after he was teasing her with the expectation that he “would storm away,” the removal of her partner’s attention might be described as a positive or reinforcing consequence. However, in another case where a partici-pant shoved her partner with the expectation that he would “come back and try to prove he cares,” the actual removal of her partner’s attention might be considered a more negative or punitive consequence. Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of considering context when categorizing expected outcomes and actual consequences as positive or negative.

Findings from this study indicated female perpetrators’ expected outcomes of dat-ing aggression were often consistent with the actual consequences following their physically aggressive behavior. It is possible this finding is simply due to a retro-spective bias in reporting, such that the actual consequences influenced participants’ recall and reporting of expected consequences. It also seems plausible, however, that there is a high correspondence between expected outcomes and actual consequences of dating aggression, particularly among female perpetrators who have repeatedly aggressed against a dating partner and whose expected outcomes may have been influenced by previous actual consequences of dating aggression. Given that the expected outcomes and actual consequences in many of this study’s cases appeared positive or reinforcing (e.g., escaped or ended aversive interaction, increased part-ner compliance) and based on behavioral and dating aggression outcome expectancy theories suggesting that the reinforcing consequences of a behavior may strengthen desirable outcome expectations and increase risk for the future occurrence of that behavior (e.g., Bell & Naugle, 2008; Breslin et al., 1990), it seems likely that the women in these same cases may be at greater risk for physically aggressing against their partner in the future under similar conditions. Future research should further investigate the extent to which expected outcomes correspond with actual outcomes of dating aggression and examine the impact of dating aggression consequences on risk for future dating aggression perpetration.

Several limitations with this study should be noted. First, the sample size was limited to only 20 participants because of the labor intensity of the project. However, we do not think the limited sample size substantially weakened the study’s findings because evidence from our study suggests we reached saturation in identifying the main expected outcomes themes using the 20 participants. These findings are consis-tent with previous research on data saturation demonstrating that saturation can be reached within 12 interviews and identification of major themes can be attained in as few as 6 interviews (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). At the same time, this study’s findings should be considered preliminary and exploratory in nature. Caution should be taken in overextrapolating these findings until more research using large samples is able to replicate this study’s findings. Instead, it is hoped that results from


this study will be used to provide a richer description of the topic area and stimulate further research with larger samples.

The study was also limited by the retrospective reporting of dating aggression expected outcomes and actual consequences. As noted earlier, it is unknown the extent to which participants’ reporting of expected outcomes was influenced by the actual outcomes of the dating aggression incident. It is hoped the interview format and spacing between key questions helped reduce the extent to which reporting of expected outcomes influenced reporting of actual consequences (and vice versa). Indeed, 75% of our participants reported actual consequences that were either unanticipated or inconsistent with their expected outcomes, suggesting that asking participants earlier in the interview to report on what they expected would hap-pen if they were physically aggressive did not fully influence their later reporting on the actual consequences of their actions (or one would expect near 100% cor-respondence between reported expected and actual outcomes). Additional evidence indicating that at least some participants’ reported expectations were not fully influenced by the actual outcomes of the dating violence episode is reflected in the following quotation:

I honestly thought he would react differently than he did. I thought he would yell at me or say something about it like he made a comment about it, but he never made a big deal about it. Which is surprising since we had been in an argument before that, but actually everything was fine after that.

Nevertheless, future researchers should consider the use of prospective studies to better examine the relationship between expected outcomes and actual consequences of dating aggression.

The study was also limited in the restricted range of dating aggression severity reported by female perpetrators and by the lack of partner report. Acts of reported dating aggression were typically mild in nature, such as pushing and grabbing, and no participant voiced partner injury as an expected outcome. Additional research is needed to examine the expected outcomes and actual consequences of partner aggression reported by participants in community, clinical, and forensic settings who may engage in more severe forms of partner aggression. Furthermore, this study did not have partner reports to corroborate the descriptions of the dating aggressive inci-dents reported by the female perpetrators. Future studies should consider interview-ing both parties within the dating couple to have a more complete contextual picture of the dating aggressive episode.

This study builds on the limited existing research on female perpetrators’ expected outcomes of dating aggression by using a qualitative approach to examine the range of expected outcomes reported by female perpetrators within the broader context of the dating aggression episode and explore the relationship between female perpe-trators’ expected and actual outcomes of dating aggression. Although preliminary, findings from this study suggest that women who perpetrate physical dating violence

424 Sherrill et al.

may expect various desirable outcomes to follow their aggressive behavior, frequently in the absence of any expected negative outcomes of dating aggression. Additionally, results suggest that the actual outcomes following female physical dating violence perpetration often correspond with perpetrators’ expectations, which may strengthen their desirable outcome expectations and increase risk for future dating violence per-petration under similar conditions. Future research is warranted to further examine how actual outcomes of dating violence may influence female dating violence perpe-trators’ expected outcomes and impact risk for future aggressive behavior. Greater research in this area may enhance the field’s understanding of why women perpe-trate physical dating violence and factors that impact women’s risk for future dating violence perpetration.

NOTES

1. Participants during the interview phase of the study were ineligible for continued participation if physical dating violence perpetration in the past 6 months was no longer reported on self-report and/or interview measures and, upon further inquiry by the experimenter, the participant verbally denied the occurrence of physical dat-ing violence perpetration in the past 6 months. Participants were also deemed ineli-gible for continued participation if they reported that the act of aggression occurred in a nonconflict situation (e.g., playful wrestling; pushing partner in lighthearted manner).

2. Please contact the third author for complete wording of the RVCI questions used in this study.

3. Throughout the interview, research assistants were instructed to replace the lan-guage “physically aggressive” with a behavioral description of the physically aggres-sive act as provided in the participant’s own words (e.g. “. . .led up to you pushing your partner. . .”).

4. Consistent with a thematic analysis approach (see Braun & Clarke, 2006 for details), interviews were coded at multiple thematic levels. Main overarching themes are re-ferred to as “themes.” Within those themes, we identified “subthemes;” and within those subthemes, we identified “dimensions.” These levels were created to highlight coding patterns identified within certain themes or subthemes.

5. Because of page restrictions, details on how the final thematic map was developed are not included. However, readers are encouraged to see Braun and Clarke (2006) for a detailed description of the approach used in this study for developing and refining thematic maps.

6. The three overarching actual outcome themes (i.e., consistent with expectations, inconsistent with expectations, and unanticipated outcomes) were not mutually exclusive categories. In all 20 cases, more than one actual outcome was described. As a result, it was possible that a single transcript could have certain actual out-comes coded as consistent with expectations, others coded as inconsistent with expectations, and still other actual outcomes coded as unanticipated.


REFERENCES

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651–680.

Arias, I., Samios, M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1987). Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(1), 82–90.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Los Angeles: Sage.Bell, K. M., & Cornelius, T. L. (2011). The relationship violence contextual interview.

Unpublished manuscript.Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2007). Effects of social desirability on students’ self-

reporting of partner abuse perpetration and victimization. Violence and Victims, 22(2), 243–256.

Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2008). Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: Moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1096–1107.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Breslin, F. C., Riggs, D. S., O’Leary, K. D., & Arias, I. (1990). Family precursors: Expected and actual consequences of dating aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(2), 247–258.

Catania, A. C. (1984). Learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Fals-Stewart, W., Birchler, G. R., & Kelley, M. L. (2003). The timeline followback spousal

violence interview to assess physical aggression between intimate partners: Reliabil-ity and validity. Journal of Family Violence, 18(3), 131–142.

Follingstad, D. R., Wright, S., Lloyd, S., & Sebastian, J. A. (1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40, 51–57.

Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., & Linder, G. F. (1999). Family violence and the perpe-tration of adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(2), 331–342.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experi-ment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.

Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. F. (1997). An empirical classification of motivations for domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 3(4), 401–423.

Hettrich, E. L., & O’Leary, K. D. (2007). Females’ reasons for their physical aggression in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(9), 1131–1143.

Joireman, J., Anderson, J., & Strathman, A. (2003). The aggression paradox: Under-standing links among aggression, sensation seeking, and the consideration of future consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1287–1302.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for cat-egorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

Leisring, P. A. (2009). What will happen if I punch him? Expected consequences of female violence against male dating partners. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(7), 739–751.

426 Sherrill et al.

Lewis, S. F., & Fremouw, W. (2001). Dating violence: A critical review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(1), 105–127.

Luthra, R., & Gidycz, C. A. (2006). Dating violence among college men and women: Evaluation of a theoretical model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(6), 717–731.

Makepeace, J. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Family Relations, 30(1), 97–102.

Malott, R. W., Malott, M. E., & Trojan, E. A. (2000). Elementary principles of behavior (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

O’Leary, K. D., & Arias, I. (1987). Prevalence, correlates, and development of spouse abuse. In R. De V. Peters & R. McMahon (Eds.), Social learning and systems approaches to marriage and the family (pp. 104–127). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Pedersen, P., & Thomas, C. D. (1992). Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a Canadian University sample. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 24, 490–501.

QSR International. (2008). NVivo 8 [Computer software]. Melbourne, Australia: QSR International Pty Ltd.

Riggs, D. S., & Caulfield, M. B. (1997). Expected consequences of male violence against their female dating partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(2), 229–240.

Riggs, D. S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). A theoretical model of courtship aggression. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 53–70). New York: Praeger.

Sobell, L. C., & Sobell, M. B. (1996). Timeline followback user’s guide: A calendar method for assessing alcohol and drug use. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The Addiction Research Foundation.

Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65–98.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75–88.

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(3), 283–316.

Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Gordon, K. C., Hellmuth, J. C., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W. (2006). Reasons for intimate partner violence perpetration among arrested women. Violence Against Women, 12(7), 609–621.

Williams, J. R., Ghandour, R. M., & Kub, J. E. (2008). Female perpetration of violence in heterosexual intimate relationships: Adolescence through adulthood. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 9(4), 227–249.

Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Kathryn Bell, PhD, Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115. E-mail: [email protected]

Expected Outcomes of Dating Violence: Perspectives From Female Perpetrators

Documents

Transcript of Expected Outcomes of Dating Violence: Perspectives From Female Perpetrators