Relationship violence is a serious social problem. Given the prevalence and detrimental effects of relationship violence, much research has been undertaken to investigate the various risk factors that may be associated with this type of violence. In the present research, I examined the interrelationships among several correlates of violence (including rejection sensitivity, cognitive biases, decoding deficits and attachment style) in order to understand what differentiates physically abusive from non-abusive individuals. Hence, the current program of studies examined aggressive behaviours between partners with a focus on risk factors for violent behaviour in men and women and in particular on the role of rejection sensitivity in physically aggressive behaviour. In order to examine these constructs, the thesis includes six chapters. Following a review of the literature, a rationale was provided for the creation of an amended measure of rejection sensitivity as Downey and Feldman’s (1996) Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire was not suitable for the purposes of the current thesis. Hence, a series of validation studies were conducted in Chapter 2 to test and develop a revised measure of rejection sensitivity that would be applicable to a wider range of intimate relationships (dating, cohabiting and married) and contexts. The study reported in Chapter 3, investigated the role of rejection sensitivity, hostile attributions and attachment patterns in the etiology of intimate partner violence. This study provided preliminary support for insecure attachment and negative attributions as the link between expectations of rejection and intimate partner violence, with a stronger link for male-perpetrated violence compared to female-perpetrated violence. Consistent with the marital violence literature, when mediator and moderator relationships existed, these occurred predominantly in married relationships (as opposed to dating or defacto relationships). The studies reported in Chapters 4 and 5 built on the foundations of Chapter 3 by incorporating two constructs, the ‘overattribution bias’ and empathic accuracy into the investigation of the associations between rejection sensitivity and violence. Specifically, the study reported in Chapter 4 examined the decoding deficits and inferential biases of maritally-violent and maritally-violent rejection-sensitive men when interpreting their own partner’s messages whilst engaging in a laboratory-based decoding task. Overall, results showed that maritally-violent partner rejection-sensitive men were less accurate than were maritally non-violent partner rejection-sensitive men when interpreting their wives’ positive messages and more accurate when interpreting their wives’ negative messages. Likewise, maritally-violent rejection-sensitive men displayed an inferential bias to perceive their wives’ messages as being more negative, critical and rejecting in intent than did maritally non-violent rejection-sensitive men. In addition, maritally-violent men as a group were less accurate for their own partner’s positive and neutral messages than were maritally non-violent men and more accurate for their own wives’ negative messages than were maritally non-violent men. Finally, maritally-violent men tended to attribute their wives’ messages as being significantly more negative, critical and rejecting in intent than did maritally non-violent men. Overall, the data suggested that both rejection sensitivity and marital violence were key factors that were associated with married men’s decoding problems and biased interpretation of their own wives’ messages. In extending the previous findings, the study reported in Chapter 5 examined the decoding accuracy and inferential biases of both maritally-violent and maritally-violent rejection-sensitive men and women in relation to female strangers’ messages. There were no differences between maritally-violent rejection-sensitive women and maritally non-violent rejection-sensitive women on decoding deficits and inferential biases for female strangers. However, there was a trend for maritally-violent women to be more negatively biased than were maritally non-violent women when interpreting female strangers’ messages. Additionally, in contrast to the findings of Chapter 4, the data pointed to independent relationships among rejection sensitivity, violence and married men’s decoding deficits and biases for female strangers’ messages. In particular, there were no differences in decoding deficits or inferential biases between maritally violent rejection-sensitive and maritally non-violent rejection-sensitive men when decoding female strangers’ messages. Instead, the data revealed that maritally-violent men were poor decoders of female strangers’ positive messages compared to maritally non-violent men and maritally-violent women. In relation to negative messages, maritally-violent men were more accurate for female strangers’ negative messages than were maritally non-violent men. Maritally violent men had the highest decoding accuracy for negative messages. Maritally-violent men also tended to attribute female strangers’ messages as being significantly more negative, critical and rejecting in intent than did maritally non-violent men and maritally-violent women. Finally, the results showed that maritally-violent rejection-sensitive men’s decoding deficits and biases were relationship specific whereas maritally-violent men’s decoding deficits and cognitive biases were global deficits that extended to women other than the men’s wives. Implications of the findings were discussed, as well as the strengths and limitations of the study. The discussion concludes with implications for theory and practice and suggestions for future research.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/254081 |
| Creators | Laurance Robillard |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Detected Language | English |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds