Emotion Regulation and Experiential Aviodance

In: Advances in Sociology Research, Volume 6 ISBN: 978-1-60741-879-5
Editor: Jared A. Jaworski © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 3
EMOTION REGULATION AND EXPERIENTIAL

AVOIDANCE IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE
Amie Langer and Erika Lawrence

The University of Iowa
ABSTRACT
Despite extensive research demonstrating the prevalence and consequences of
physical intimate partner violence (IPV), the literature currently lacks an evidence-based,
theoretical framework within which to understand the factors that influence this behavior.
Furthermore, current IPV treatments based on the Duluth and cognitive-behavioral
models are limited in their efficacy. Drawing from a contextual behavioral science (CBS)
approach and recent advances in research on therapeutic processes of change, the
purpose of this chapter is to examine processes that may elucidate the development of
novel, empirically-supported treatments that are more effective than our existing IPV
interventions. Specifically, we introduce a framework to guide basic and translational
research in the investigation of emotion dysregulation and experiential avoidance as
functionally linked to IPV perpetration. Our rationale is outlined and supported
throughout four sections. First, the psychological correlates of IPV are summarized.
Second, the preliminary work on emotion regulation and experiential avoidance in IPV
perpetrators is reviewed. Third, a variety of research is integrated to inform our
presentation of a clinically useful framework wherein IPV is primarily maintained by
negative reinforcement in the form of escape from, or avoidance of, unwanted internal
experiences, and recommendations for future research is offered. Finally, we delineate
the clinical implications of this framework.
Introduction
Physical aggression in romantic relationships is surprisingly common, with rates
ranging from 25% to 57% in studies of dating, cohabiting, engaged, and married
couples (e.g., Langer, Lawrence, & Barry, 2008; O’Leary et al., 1989; Schumacher &
Leonard, 2005), and from 10% to 20% in nationally representative surveys (e.g.,
Straus & Gelles, 1990). Men and women are equally likely to engage in intimate
partner violence (IPV)1 against their partners, and the most frequently employed
2 Amie Langer and Erika Lawrence
behaviors include grabbing, pushing, and slapping (e.g., Leonard & Roberts, 1998).
The consequences of IPV are well-documented, and even mild and infrequent forms
of IPV have implications for individual health (e.g., depression, anxiety, substance
use; Umberson, Anderson, Glick, & Shapiro, 1998) and relationship functioning
(e.g., severe, unremitting distress and instability; Rogge & Bradbury, 1999).
Moreover, children who witness IPV are at increased risk for physical health
difficulties and behavior problems (e.g., McNeal & Amato, 1998). Several programs
have been developed for the treatment of IPV, but these programs do not produce
meaningful changes in the behaviors they are designed to impact (Babcock, Green, &
Robie, 2004; Healey, Smith, & O’Sullivan, 1998). To date, it is debatable whether
any IPV intervention can be labeled “empirically supported,” a term denoting a
clearly specified psychological treatment that has been shown to be efficacious in at
least two independently conducted randomized controlled trials (RCT) in which the
targeted treatment was compared with a placebo condition or control group (e.g.,
Chambless & Hollon, 1998).
Many existing interventions for IPV are based on feminist theory and
conceptualized within the Duluth Model, employing a “knowledge-attitude-
behavior” theory of change in which IPV is believed to be a function of patriarchical
attitudes that condone violence, power, and control (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Pence
& Paymar, 1993). The philosophical underpinnings of the Duluth Model are that
treatment is instructive rather than therapeutic; thus, psychoeducational techniques
are used to promote changes in attitudes via education and re-socialization. Other
treatments use a cognitive-behavioral approach (CBT), in which treatment centers
around modifying faulty cognitions, developing effective communication skills, and
teaching emotion control techniques to prevent future violent behavior. Most
interventions are a blend of the Duluth Model and CBT approaches and, in general,
focus on modifying how IPV perpetrators think and act through cognitive
restructuring, skills training, and anger management techniques (e.g., Healey &
Smith, 1998). Despite the lack of support for certain theoretical tenets (e.g.,
patriarchical attitudes; Smith, 1990; Sugarman & Frankel, 1996) and treatment
components (e.g., cognitive restructuring; e.g., Feder & Forde, 2000) of these
models, many states with guidelines governing the content of battering interventions
mandate that the programs adhere to these models in order to be state-certified or to
receive state funding (e.g., Healey, Smith, & O’Sullivan, 1998). Furthermore, the
effect of these interventions on IPV recidivism is small; a meta-analysis of
experimental studies revealed that, on average, a man who has been arrested,
sanctioned, and has completed an IPV treatment program is only 5% less likely to
perpetrate IPV again than a man who has been arrested and sanctioned but has not
completed treatment (Babcock et al., 2004).
In a review of the empirical status of intervention programs for IPV, Eckhardt,
Murphy, Black, and Suhr (2006) concluded that, although there has been
improvement in recent years, the design, application, and study of these programs
remain elusive. Despite the existence of many IPV treatments, little work has
specifically examined the processes through which successful change may be
promoted, and when they have, the proposed change processes have not been found
to be effective mechanisms of treatment (e.g., Scott, 2004). Therefore, one of the
major gaps in theories and research on IPV treatments is the identification of
processes and corresponding treatment methods that may serve as important targets
and facilitators of change, respectively. Similar questions have been addressed in the
broader psychotherapy literature in recent years, particularly within the the
Emotion Regulation and Experiential Avoidance in Intimate Partner Violence 3
contextual behavioral science approach (e.g., Levin & Hayes, 2009). We believe that
this approach may have some important implications for the study and treatment of
IPV.
Put simply, the Contextual Behavioral Science (CBS) approach is an inductive
and functional research paradigm that aims to integrate basic and applied psychology
by developing theories of human behavior that are tied to processes of change and
linked to effective treatment techniques that target those processes. The CBS
approach accomplishes this goal by integrating factors related to the development
and maintenance of psychological problems, and the processes through which we
might influence these factors, into a unified model. In contrast to the mainstream
mechanistic or syndromal approaches, which are largely atheoretical and focus on the
topographical characteristics (e.g., signs and symptoms) of behavior, CBS is a
theory-driven approach which focuses on the underlying processes (e.g., producing
and maintaining factors) and idiographic functions of behavior. For example,
depending on the context, a behavior can be considered an expression of distress (a
communicative function), a way of removing an external obstacle (a problem-solving
function), or a way of reducing the arousal associated with intense emotions (an
avoidance function). Within the broader psychotherapy literature, the CBS approach
has led to tremendous progress in theory and research on basic principles that govern
therapeutic change and has been utilized in the advancement of empirically-
supported treatments for psychopathology and behavioral problems. Thus, it may
also prove useful for IPV treatment, in light of the evidence that IPV treatment has
not been conceptualized or treated well by mechanistic or syndromal approaches.
Within CBS and across theoretical perspectives, recent advances in basic and
applied research have led to the identification of a number of common functional
processes underlying human pathology. Emotion regulation and experiential
avoidance are two such processes complicit in the initiation and maintenance of a
wide variety of psychological disorders (e.g., Mennin, Holaway, Fesco, Moore, &
Heimberg, 2007) and thus have the potential to be a focus of treatment. Emotion
dysregulation -- or deficits in the ability to modulate or respond to one’s emotions --
are implicated in many Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th
Edition (DSM-IV; Psychiatric Association, 1994) Axis I disorders (e.g., depression,
anxiety disorders, and eating disorders) and in the large majority of the Axis II
disorders (e.g., Kring & Bachorowski, 1999). For example, it has received extensive
attention as a core deficit linked to behavioral dysregulation in Borderline
Personality Disorder (BPD; Linehan, 1993). Experiential avoidance, a phenomenon
that occurs when a person is unwilling or unable to remain in contact with internal
experiences such as emotions, thoughts, and bodily sensations, and, consequently,
takes steps to alter their form or frequency (e.g., Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette, &
Strosahl, 1996), has also been implicated in a wide range of psychological problems
and dysfunctional behaviors. For example, similar to emotion dysregulation,
experiential avoidance has been linked empirically to mood and anxiety disorders, as
well as numerous maladaptive behaviors, such as substance abuse and self-harm (see
Chawla & Ostafin, 2007 for a review).
Across various theoretical perspectives, and within CBS specifically, innovative
treatments for pathological behaviors have been developed that utilize novel
applications of behavioral principles to internal experiences (e.g., emotions and
thoughts), and specifically target emotion dysregulation and experiential avoidance
(e.g., Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999; Linehan, 1993; Segal, Teasdale, & Williams,
2004). More about these treatment approaches will be discussed in Section 4, but
already there have been calls to integrate components of one such treatment --
Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) -- into IPV treatment programs (Fruzzetti &
Levensky, 2000; Rathus, Cavuoto, & Passarelli, 2006). DBT was originally
developed as a treatment for para-suicidal or self-harm behaviors and utilizes
emotional and behavioral skills training to reduce the ineffective action tendencies
linked with emotion dysregulation (Linehan, 1993). This treatment approach has
been highly successful; 7 well-controlled RCTs have determined it to be efficacious
for the treatment of BPD (Lynch, Trost, Salsman, & Linehan, 2007), as well as for a
wide range of treatment-resistant problems (e.g., Rosenfeld et al., 2007).
A key premise of this chapter is that basic research designed to identify the
specific processes functionally important to IPV perpetration will elucidate vital
processes to target in our interventions. Attempts to identify and clearly differentiate
the functions of IPV (in different contexts or by different individuals) are necessary
to aid our understanding of the factors that initiate and perpetuate IPV behaviors and,
consequently, the development of novel, empirically-supported treatments that would
likely be far more effective than existing IPV interventions. Given that IPV is
theoretically and functionally similar to behaviors associated with emotion
dysregulation and experiential avoidance, a thorough examination of these processes
in IPV perpetrators is warranted. Although IPV likely has multiple determinants, we
propose that emotion dysregulation and experiential avoidance are two constructs
that may prove useful in conceptualizing the functions of this behavior. Indeed, there
is a small but growing body of basic research connecting emotion dysregulation and
experiential avoidance to IPV perpetration (e.g., Jakupcak, 2003), which will be
reviewed in Section 2 below.
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce a conceptual framework to guide
basic and translational research in the investigation of emotion dysregulation and
experiential avoidance as psychological processes functionally linked to IPV. First,
we summarize the existing literature on the psychological risk factors and correlates
associated with IPV and outline the limitations of this research. Although much of
this literature has examined IPV within categories of personality and
psychopathology, it is relevant to understanding IPV in general and has informed the
approach taken in this chapter. Second, we present the existing, preliminary work on
emotion regulation deficits in IPV perpetrators and delineate aspects of emotion
regulation that may be particularly relevant to IPV. Third, we present evidence for
the role of experiential avoidance in IPV perpetration. Fourth, we offer suggestions
for incorporating emotion regulation and experiential avoidance into future research
on IPV perpetration. Fifth, we explicate the clinical implications of targeting
functional processes in IPV perpetrators and offer specific recommendations for the
development of innovative treatments.
SECTION 1: PSYCHOLOGICAL RISK FACTORS AND CORRELATES OF

IPV PERPETRATION
Historically, most research on psychological characteristics of IPV perpetrators has
focused on males and on clinical populations, although research on female IPV and in
community samples has accumulated in recent years. Across samples, the personality and
psychopathology correlates of IPV have received the most attention, and countless studies
have established that a wide range of traits and disorders are critical risk factors for IPV
perpetration. Additionally, more fundamental affective and cognitive factors (i.e., specific
emotions and thoughts) distinguishing IPV perpetrators from non-perpetrators have also
received attention, although far less attention than personality and psychopathology factors.
Several components of IPV treatment programs have been based on these findings, and
although the evidence is mixed, reductions in psychopathology have been linked to reductions
in IPV behaviors in a few studies (e.g., Scott, 2004). The purpose of this section is to present
a brief review of research on the psychological risk factors that have been identified as
contributing to IPV perpetration. Given the focus of the current chapter, and that
comprehensive models of general aggression have suggested the importance of both affective
states and cognitive factors in understanding interpersonal aggression (e.g., Berkowitz, 1993),
we chose to outline the findings based on their relations to emotion and cognition.
Emotional Correlates of IPV Perpetration
Numerous investigations of risk factors for IPV have demonstrated that emotion plays a
key role in IPV perpetration, and most of this research has been focused on emotional
symptoms present within psychopathology. Elevated rates of various DSM-IV Axis I
disorders have been consistently linked to IPV perpetration for both men and women. IPV
perpetrators are significantly more likely to score in the clinical range on measures of
depression, anxiety, and negative emotionality in general (e.g., Capaldi & Owen, 2001;
Dowd, Leisring, & Rosenbaum, 2005; Maiuro, Cahn, Vitaliano, Wagner, & Zegree, 1988;
Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, & Silva, 1998; Moffitt, Krueger, Caspi, & Fagan, 2000; Pan, Neidig,
& O’Leary, 1994; Swan, Gambone, Fields, Sullivan, & Snow, 2005). In particular,
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is very common among male and female IPV
perpetrators, reportedly reflecting a high incidence of childhood abuse and trauma (e.g.,
Murrell, Christoff, & Henning, 2007; Stuart, Moore, Gordon, Ramsey, & Kahler, 2006).
IPV perpetration has also been linked to multiple Axis II disorders characterized by
emotional difficulties. A large proportion of IPV perpetrators exhibit symptoms of Antisocial
Personality Disorder (ASPD) and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), both Cluster B
(“dramatic/erratic”) personality disorders impacting emotion and interpersonal functioning
(e.g., Goldenson, Geffner, Foster, & Clipson, 2007; Weizmann-Henelius, Viemero, &
Eronen, 2004). Cluster B disorders are differentiated from other personality clusters not only
by their associations with high emotional dysregulation and stress reactivity (e.g., Kraus &
Reynolds, 2001), but also by their extreme “action-oriented” features (e.g., self-harm,
aggression; Fossati et al., 2007). Not surprisingly, high levels of the personality facets
subsumed under Cluster B -- in particular, impulsivity, manipulativeness, and aggressiveness
-- have also been associated with IPV perpetration (e.g., Ehrensaft, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2004;
Langer, Lawrence, & Barry, 2008; O’Leary, Malone, & Tyree, 1994). In addition, numerous
studies have found significantly elevated levels of trait dependency in IPV perpetrators
compared to nonviolent individuals (e.g., Goldenson, Geffner, Foster, & Clipson, 2007;
Murphy, Meyer, & O’Leary, 1994).
Outside of the syndromal nature of psychopathology, anger has been the most commonly
studied emotion in IPV perpetrators. Compared to nonviolent individuals, there is some
evidence that both male and female IPV perpetrators evidence significantly higher levels of
anger and hostility (e.g., Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski, & Bartholomew, 1994; Maiuro,
Cahn, Vitaliano, Wagner, & Zegree, 1988; Sullivan, Meese, Swan, Mazure, & Snow, 2005),
whereas other studies have shown that they experience anger at comparable levels of
frequency and intensity (e.g., Dye & Eckhardt, 2000). Although less attention has been paid
to emotions other than anger, a few studies have found that high levels of fear, jealousy, and
shame are reported by IPV perpetrators, and that these emotions are related to the frequency
of IPV (e.g., Babcock, Costa, Green, & Eckhardt, 2004; Foran & O’Leary, 2008). Relatedly,
it has been suggested that male batterers are likely to possess a Borderline Personality
Organization (BPO; Dutton, 1994), a cluster of maladaptive emotional features that become
salient in intimate relationships, including an unstable sense of self, intense anger, fear of
abandonment, and impulsivity. The BPO is characterized by an “angry and fearful attachment
style” related to becoming both angry and afraid in response to intimacy, as well as to
engaging in IPV in response to perceived threats of abandonment or relationship dissolution
(Dutton, et al., 1994).
In sum, various psychological disorders and personality traits that influence the
experience and expression of emotion are associated with IPV perpetration. However, we
contend that studying the role of emotion in IPV perpetrators within the context of
psychopathology and personality is not the best approach. The highly comorbid and
heterogeneous nature of DSM diagnostic categories leads to a loss of relevant information
(e.g., Widiger & Samuel, 2005), limiting the degree of knowledge gained. For example, the
psychological syndromes associated with IPV perpetration are highly related to one another;
depression, anxiety, PTSD, and BPD demonstrate high comorbidity (e.g., Zanarini et al.,
1998). Moreover, focusing primarily on categorical constructs may be detrimental to
identifying variability in factors that exist regardless of clinical diagnosis or emotional
content. Finally, with the exception of anger, empirical examinations of the specific emotions
that may be particularly salient among IPV perpetrators are sparse. Thus, alternate approaches
to investigating the role of emotions in IPV perpetration are needed.
Cognitive Correlates of IPV Perpetrators
There is also empirical evidence to suggest that cognitive characteristics such as

attributions, attitudes, and beliefs are associated with IPV perpetration. Compared to
nonviolent men, IPV perpetrators express more cognitive biases and irrational beliefs (e.g.,
Eckhardt, Barbour, & Davison, 1998), report more aggressive thoughts in general, and report
more spouse-specific aggressive thoughts in particular (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe, Rehman, &
Herron, 2000). Recent evidence suggests that female IPV perpetrators also report
significantly more aggressive cognitions than non-perpetrators (Clements & Holtzworth-
Munroe, 2008). Similarly, IPV perpetrators are more likely than non-perpetrators to attribute
negative intent to their partners’ behaviors (e.g., Byrne & Arias, 1997) and to evaluate the use
of aggression positively (e.g., as justified or appropriate to the situation; Sugarman & Frankel,
1996). Overall, evidence suggests that IPV perpetrators demonstrate general cognitive biases,
generate hostile attributions in their interpretations of partner behaviors, and endorse attitudes
that condone aggression.
Researchers have also examined the processes through which IPV perpetrators process
information and produce cognitive content. Such processes are addressed by the social
information processing model of IPV, which posits that anger can inhibit “rational” cognitive
processing and result in cognitive biases (e.g., hostile attributions) that may escalate conflict
toward violence (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe, 2000). Indeed, when compared to nonviolent
samples, male IPV perpetrators demonstrate social information processing skills deficits in
response to marital conflicts, particularly conflicts that involve real or perceived partner
rejection or abandonment (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991). However, the construct
of social information processing includes numerous, diverse facets of cognition (e.g.,
decoding, problem-solving, enactment), and it is not known which deficits are most
influential in generating greater risk of IPV perpetration.
Overall, data regarding the cognitions of IPV perpetrators are qualified by issues related
to assessment and research design (for a review see Eckhardt & Dye, 2000). With few
exceptions, IPV researchers have investigated a surprisingly narrow range of cognitions
(attitudes and attributions) and have exclusively relied upon questionnaire methodologies.
Although IPV perpetrators consistently report higher levels of general and partner-specific
hostile thoughts relative to non-perpetrators, the data are equivocal regarding a causal
relationship between these thoughts and aggressive behavior (Norlander & Eckhardt, 2005).
Moreover, the cognitive tenets included in existing theories of IPV have little empirical
support. For example, there is limited evidence for the role of patriarchical attitudes (a tenet
of feminist theory; Pence & Paymar, 1993) in the perpetration of male IPV (e.g., Smith, 1990;
Sugarman & Frankel, 1996). Taking all this into consideration, it is not surprising that the
utilization of cognitive techniques to change attitudes is ineffective at reducing IPV among
perpetrators; there is no evidence that specific cognitions are causally linked to IPV, and the
patriarchical attitudes often targeted do not appear to characterize most IPV perpetrators.
Critique of This Research
A wide range of psychopathology, personality traits, and emotional and cognitive

experiences are linked to IPV perpetration. Moreover, a low threshold for experiencing
negative affect – the presence of negative or unpleasant thoughts and emotions – is clearly a
vulnerability factor for IPV perpetration. However, the available research converges to
suggest that there is not a specific configuration of risk factors most susceptible to
pathological expression. The correlational data gathered thus far do not unequivocally
demonstrate that IPV perpetrators show an idiosyncratic pattern of emotional and cognitive
content. More importantly, the findings do not necessarily imply a functional relationship
between a given emotion or cognition and the expression of aggression during relationship
conflict. In other words, we have limited knowledge regarding how these internal experiences
influence IPV perpetration; the constructs previously studied may define the content and form
of psychological events associated with IPV, but they do not clarify the function,
maintenance, and episodic expression of pathological behavior patterns. Furthermore,
effective treatment approaches have not emerged from these data. Therefore, we now turn to a
discussion of processes that we believe are more clinically relevant to IPV perpetration.
SECTION 2: EMOTION REGULATION, EXPERIENTIAL AVOIDANCE,

AND IPV PERPETRATION
Given the limitations of attempting to understand the links between emotions and
cognitions and IPV using topographical constructs, a consideration of other factors is
warranted. Only looking at the form of one’s emotions and cognitions (which we will refer to
as internal experiences) associated with IPV behavior leads to a loss of information about the
broader functional properties of affect and cognition that may be crucial to our ability to
change the behavior. Thus,it may be more fruitful to consider one’s responses to internal
experiences and the functional processes that may play a role in IPV perpetration. For
example, one might investigate how IPV perpetrators, in the context of certain emotions or
thoughts, manage their affective arousal or how their overt behavior may influence their
distress. Specifically, emotion regulation and experiential avoidance are phenomena that
comprise ways of responding to internal experiences that may be particularly useful in
understanding IPV perpetration. As can be seen from the review in Section 1, there are
myriad psychopathology, personality traits, emotions, and cognitions associated with IPV,
and we contend that many of them may be better elucidated and treated in the context of
processes such as emotion regulation and experiential avoidance. Basic and treatment
outcome research targeting these processes in other clinical populations with impulsive and
destructive behaviors (i.e., self-harm; Gratz, 2007), and recent work outlining the application
of DBT and mindfulness-based treatment approaches to treating IPV (Fruzzetti & Levensky,
2000; Rathus et al., 2006), call for the study of emotion dysregulation and experiential
avoidance processes in IPV perpetrators. In line with those calls to action, we now examine
the value of investigating these processes in IPV perpetrators and summarize the preliminary
research on these constructs within this population.
Emotion Regulation
The Construct of Emotion Regulation

Emotion regulation is a term used to describe the processes through which individuals
influence which emotions they have, when they have them, how they experience them, and
how they express them (Gross, 1998). Emotion regulation encompasses a heterogeneous set
of experiential responses, including cognitive, physiological, and behavioral components.
Most definitions of emotion regulation emphasize the active modification of the internal
(cognitive and physiological) experiences that comprise the emotion itself. However,
published definitions differ in the degree of emphasis on the external (behavioral) expression
of the emotion and on the purpose of such strategies. Some conceptualizations of emotion
regulation refer to one’s general capacity to control emotions; examples include (a) one’s
ability to modify or maintain mood states (Lischetzke & Eid, 2003), (b) one’s conscious and
active attempts to reduce negative affect (Auerbach, Abela, & Ringo, 2007), and
(c) deliberate, effortful processes one employs in an attempt to override spontaneous
emotional responses (Koole, 2009). Other conceptualizations of emotion regulation include
emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes, as well as a consideration of the overarching
purpose of such processes; examples include (a) the internal and external factors through
which emotional arousal is redirected, controlled, modulated, and modified to enable an
individual to function adaptively in emotionally arousing situations (Cicchetti, Ganiban, &

Barnett, 1991), (b) the extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for monitoring,
evaluating, and modifying one’s emotional reactions, especially their intensive and temporal
features, to achieve one’s goals (Gross & Thompson, 2007), and (c) the processes one
employs to manage and change if, when, and how he or she experiences emotion and
emotion-related motivational and physiological states, as well as how emotions are expressed
behaviorally (Eisenberg, Hofer, & Vaughan, 2007).
In general, deficits in emotion regulation abilities (i.e., emotion dysregulation) are linked
to increased negative affect, decreased positive affect, and ineffective attempts to manage
one’s emotions (e.g., Berking, Orth, Wupperman, Meier, & Caspar, 2008). Moreover,
emotion dysregulation is also linked to discomfort with emotional experiences that, when
coupled with lack of access to adaptive strategies, often leads to the use of dysfunctional or
maladaptive strategies to control or restrict one’s aversive emotional state. Accordingly,
research indicates that individuals who possess deficits in emotion regulation are more prone
to use risky or harmful behaviors not only due to greater or more intense negative affect, but
also due to a lack of effective skills for regulating negative affect. Specifically, emotion
dysregulation is hypothesized to elicit and reinforce BPD-related impulsive and destructive
behaviors (e.g., self-harm; Gratz, 2007) and pathological behaviors in general (e.g., problem
eating, substance use, and gambling; Fox, Axelrod, Paliwal, Sleeper, & Sinha, 2007; Ricketts
& Macaskill, 2003; Sim & Zeman, 2004).
Based on these findings and on the range of emotional difficulties associated with IPV
perpetration reviewed above, it seems likely that IPV may result from similar deficits in
emotion regulation. Given this possibility, we now summarize the limited research that has
examined emotion regulation in IPV perpetrators. Then, after a critique of this research, we
offer specific suggestions regarding which aspects of emotional regulation processes may be
most relevant to IPV perpetration.
Emotion Regulation and IPV

The vast majority of published research on emotion and IPV has focused on the links
between personality and psychopathology and IPV perpetration. However, a few studies have
purportedly focused specifically on the role of emotion dysregulation. In an investigation of
differences between violent and nonviolent husbands’ emotions and behaviors during marital
arguments, Babcock, Jacobson, Gottman, and Yerington (2000) assessed how attachment
style may be an indicator of emotion regulation in the context of relationship conflict. Their
results indicated that violent husbands were characterized by problems with emotion
regulation, such that they were more likely to display negative affect (i.e., stonewalling,
defensiveness, domineering, belligerence, contempt, and anger) during laboratory-based
dyadic interactions. In a longitudinal study of males, Dankoski et al. (2006) asserted that
emotion dysregulation mediated the effects of childhood experiences and IPV, such that
externalizing and internalizing symptoms in childhood predicted IPV perpetration in
adulthood. In a sample of newlyweds, McNulty and Hellmuth (2008) stated that emotion
dysregulation, defined as variability in negative affect over 7 days, did not exert main effects
on IPV perpetration, but that husbands’ emotion dysregulation interacted with wives’ IPV
perpetration to account for husbands’ IPV perpetration.
In sum, there is preliminary evidence that emotion regulation deficits are associated with
IPV perpetration. However, a close look at these studies reveals that their conceptualization
of emotion dysregulation as the presence of negative affect, internalizing and externalizing

symptoms, or variability in negative affect (as the three studies above have done) actually
reflects possible outcomes of regulation rather than the processes or strategies of regulation.
Although these outcomes may certainly arise from emotion regulation difficulties, they do not
indicate how individuals regulate or manage their emotions, or the specific skills that are or
are not being utilized. Emotion regulation provides little information when defined simply by
the emotions that are activated or how often they are activated; it must also be defined by
one’s responses associated with the activated emotions. For example, evidence that one
person reports or exhibits more anger than another does not by itself demonstrate that one
person does not regulate anger or regulates anger differently from the other. Both individuals
may be using regulatory strategies that have effects on emotional experience or expression.
Therefore, a consideration of specific strategies that may be used (or not used) by IPV
perpetrators is needed.
Examining the Construct of Emotion Regulation: Skills and Strategies

Emotion regulation is a “dynamic phenomenon that is reciprocally determined in the
context of an ongoing stream of emotional stimulation and behavioral responding” (Gross &
Thompson, 2007), and there are an infinite number of ways in which individuals can
understand, react to, and manage their emotions. As such, it is not surprising that there is a
lack of consensus on the exact skills or strategies that comprise emotion regulation and,
consequently, no standard methods for studying them. Indeed, the scientific literature is
replete with strategies individuals use to cope with or regulate their emotional experiences,
which vary in their experiential targets (i.e., cognitive, physiological, and/or behavioral), their
temporal relevance (i.e., before the emotion occurs or after), and automaticity (i.e., conscious
or unconscious). Moreover, the effectiveness of any given strategy can only be determined
within the broader context and the individual’s goals. Therefore, for the purpose of this
chapter, we impose arbitrary coherence on this process by presenting a summary of the skills
and strategies commonly implicated in optimal emotion regulation, as well as the strategies
that are commonly associated with impaired emotional regulation.
Research has suggested that several skills are integral to successful or adaptive emotional
functioning (see Berking, et al, 2008), such as: (a) consciously attending to, identifying,
discriminating, and labeling one’s current emotional state (e.g., Feldman-Barrett, Gross,
Christensen, & Benvenuto, 2001; Lischetzke & Eid, 2003), (b) understanding the causes and
expression of emotions (Southam-Gerow & Kendall, 2002), (c) cognitively reformulating a
situation (reappraisal; e.g., Gross, 1998), and (d) accepting emotions without attempts to alter
or avoid them (e.g., Eifert & Heffner, 2003). In contrast, some attempts at emotion regulation
actually increase distress, undermine behavioral control, and prevent the use of more adaptive
strategies (e.g., Tice & Bratslavsky, 2000). Processes or strategies that have been shown to be
generally detrimental and relate to maladaptive emotional functioning include: (a) drawing
attention away from a focal event (distraction; e.g., Erber & Tesser, 1992), (b) repetitively
thinking about the causes, situational factors, and consequences of one’s emotional
experience (rumination; e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000), (c) inhibiting the ongoing thoughts or
behavioral expressions associated with emotion (suppression; e.g., Gross, 1998; Purdon,
1999), (d) altering one’s conscious connection to aversive events and accompanying internal
experiences by becoming detached or independent from them (dissociation; e.g., Oathes &
Ray, 2008), (e) inaction or avoiding situations that elicit emotions (disengagement; e.g., Silk,
Steinberg, & Sheffield Morris, 2003), and (f) engaging in destructive overt behaviors (self-
harm, substance use, aggression; e.g., Bornovalova, et al., 2008; Bonn-Miller, Vujanovic, &
Zvolensky, 2008; Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002). Finally, it is important to note that any
behavior under voluntary control has the potential to influence one’s emotional state or mood
and can be used to regulate emotions (e.g., Parkinson & Totterdell, 1999), and therefore, it
follows that IPV may also represent an emotion regulation strategy in and of itself.
Emotion Regulation Processes and IPV

A few of the aforementioned emotion regulation strategies have been systematically
studied in relation to IPV. First, there is some evidence that IPV perpetrators have difficulty
identifying and expressing emotions. For example, they appear to be less aware of their
affective states, have difficulty recognizing emotions, and attempt to suppress their emotions,
particularly in the context of relationship conflict (e.g., Umberson, Anderson, Williams, &
Chen, 2003; Yelsma, 1996). Second, IPV perpetrators are likely to feel anxious or
uncomfortable around others and withdraw or disengage from social interactions in order to
avoid these feelings (e.g., Allen, Calsyn, Fehhrenbach, & Benton, 1989; Umberson, Williams,
& Anderson, 2002). Third, general and violence-specific dissociation have been shown to
correlate with the frequency and severity of IPV perpetration (Conrad & Morrow, 2000;
Simoneti, Scott, & Murphy, 2000). Finally, substance abuse is one of the most studied risk
factors for IPV, and is highly prevalent in both male and female IPV perpetrators (e.g., Chase,
O’Farrell, Murphy, Fals-Stewart, & Murphy, 2003; Chermack, Walton, Fuller, & Blow,
2001).
Although there is little empirical evidence of the link between specific emotion regulation
strategies and IPV, the hypothesis that IPV perpetrators’ responses to emotions are
problematic is not new. For example, Gondolf (1985) contended that IPV is associated with
deficits in emotional responding, such as hiding or repressing emotions, which leads to a
build-up of emotions that surface in a sudden and explosive violent act. Dutton (1995)
suggested that male IPV perpetrators’ inability to “self-soothe” during distress leads to
excessive rumination or the use of alcohol and drugs. These patterns of maladaptive
emotional responding may, of course, be operative in IPV; however, the descriptive nature of
these discussions has yet to be accompanied by experimental examinations of such processes.
Summary
In sum, the available literature on emotion regulation and IPV is sparse, and the work that
has been done is impaired by insufficient conceptualizations of emotion regulation and by
limited assessment of the construct (i.e., as the presence of negative affect). As such, the role
of emotion regulation in IPV perpetration is largely equivocal. It is clear that future
examinations must extend the outcome of emotion regulation beyond negative affect to
include whether and how IPV relates to prototypical emotion regulatory processes. Based on
our current understanding, IPV may result from deficits in adaptive emotion regulation skills,
the use of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies, or it may represent an emotion
regulation strategy itself, such that it is used directly (although not necessarily consciously) as
a behavioral tactic to regulate one’s emotional experience. As mentioned earlier, the
effectiveness (adaptive vs. maladaptive) of emotion regulation depends on the broader
internal and external environment in which it is occurring; indeed, there is emerging evidence
that a given emotion regulation strategy is likely to be ineffective or harmful when it serves
an escape or avoidance function and is used rigidly across situations (e.g., Kashdon, et al.,
2006). Therefore, a complement to this approach would be to conceptualize the specific
emotion regulatory strategies reviewed in this section as different forms of behavior that often
can have the same function to avoid, control, or escape internal experiences. We now turn to a
discussion of experiential avoidance, a phenomenon that, while related to emotion regulation,
is both broader and more explicitly linked to context and function.
Experiential Avoidance
The Construct of Experiential Avoidance

Rather than defining a particular form or topography of behavior, experiential avoidance
is a broad class of behaviors bound together by the common function of avoiding or escaping
unwanted internal experiences. Within this conceptualization, experiential avoidance exerts
detrimental effects beyond the specific features of the internal experiences themselves (e.g.,
intensity, frequency, negative valence) and is a core toxic diathesis underlying several forms
of psychological vulnerabilities and pathological behavior. For example, experiential
avoidance has been implicated in the development and maintenance of substance abuse (e.g.,
Forsyth, Parker, & Finlay, 2003), trichotillomania (e.g., Begotka, Woods, & Wetterneck,
2004), self-harm (e.g., Chapman, Gratz, & Brown, 2006), and high-risk sexual behaviors
(e.g., Batten, Follette, & Aban, 2001).
Numerous studies have demonstrated that experiential avoidance paradoxically increases
psychological distress and limits adaptive emotional and behavioral functioning for several
reasons. First, evidence suggests that the malleability of internal experiences is limited, and
that attempting to avoid or control these experiences inadvertently heightens their intensity
and prolongs their duration (e.g., Cioffi & Holloway, 1993; Posner & Rothbart, 2000;
Wenzlaff & Wegner, 2000). Second, avoidance strategies are often negatively reinforced by
the short-term relief, distraction, or escape temporarily provided, and then are often used
rigidly across contexts despite negative consequences. Finally, these strategies are often
antagonistic to more adaptive approach-oriented responses, a barrier which ultimately results
in further intrapersonal (e.g., psychopathology) and interpersonal (e.g., loss of relationships)
dysfunction. Overall, the pernicious nature of experiential avoidance is ultimately due to its
automaticity, inflexibility, and the accumulation of detrimental consequences.
Experiential Avoidance and IPV

Individuals who engage in IPV behaviors may do so in service of controlling or avoiding
unwanted or unpleasant internal experiences, particularly those that occur in the context of
intimate relationships (e.g., negative emotions or physiological arousal that occurs during an
argument). In this way, IPV may be conceptualized as a behavior that functions – consciously
or unconsciously – as a method of escape or avoidance when other strategies have failed or
are unavailable. Indeed, numerous clinical observations and conceptualizations of IPV have
been consistent with this hypothesis. For example, Browning and Dutton (1986) theorized
that male batterers use violence both to reduce aversive physiological tension (as well as the
emotions and labels attached to it) and to create emotional distance from their partner out of
fear of emotional intimacy. It has been proposed that in response to troubling thoughts about
infidelity or abandonment, IPV may be a strategy to achieve closeness with a romantic

partner to quell these fears (e.g., Babcock, Jacobson, Gottman, & Yerington, 2000), and that
the hostile attributions of IPV perpetrators reflect an attempt to avoid identifying with more
vulnerable thoughts and feelings (Schweinle & Ickes, 2007). Brown (2004) proposed that
shame may be related to IPV because it is a particularly aversive affective experience related
to an intense desire to escape feelings of deficiency and worthlessness. The unifying thread
across these different perspectives is the assertion that emotions and other internal
experiences serve an important (though maladaptive) function in IPV, such that engaging in
IPV somehow helps the individual escape, manage, or regulate those internal experiences.
Although many of these explanations have gone unexamined, recent studies reveal
preliminary empirical support for the role of experiential avoidance in IPV perpetration. For
example, Jakupcak (2003) found that fear of emotion significantly predicted self-reported IPV
perpetration. Interestingly, IPV perpetrators were just as likely to fear the ostensibly positive
emotions of love and happiness as they were the negative emotions of anxiety and sadness. In
a similar study, males’ greater tendency to restrict emotion was related to greater anger
expression and aggression (Jakupcak, Tull, & Roemer, 2005), which is consistent with
research showing that suppression as an emotion regulation strategy can be detrimental (e.g.,
Purdon, 1999; Wegner et al., 1987). The authors hypothesized that men may use IPV as a
strategy to avoid feeling or expressing emotional vulnerability, such that the fear of emotions
may be so great, or so closely associated with a loss of control, that they use aggression as a
means to attenuate or terminate their affective states (Jakupcak, 2003; Jakupcak, Tull, &
Roemer, 2005).
The role of experiential avoidance in IPV is also supported by evidence that persons who
engage in IPV are also likely to engage in other behaviors to avoid or escape internal
experiences. For example, there is extensive evidence that IPV perpetrators engage in
avoidant behaviors, providing support for the presence of stronger experiential avoidance
tendencies among individuals who engage in IPV. For example, as reviewed above, IPV
perpetrators have difficulty noticing and identifying emotions (e.g., Umberson, Anderson,
Williams, & Chen, 2003; Yelsma, 1996), tend to withdraw or disengage from interpersonal
interactions (e.g., Allen, et al., 1989) and dissociate in response to distress (e.g., Conrad &
Morrow, 2000; Simoneti, Scott, & Murphy, 2000). When ineffective avoidance behavior
occurs pervasively, it often results in or exacerbates clinical disorders. Indeed, many forms of
psychopathology common in IPV perpetrators (reviewed in Section 1) are characterized by
the presence of experiential avoidance, including BPD (e.g., Chapman , Specht, & Cellucci,
2005), PTSD (e.g., Marx & Sloan, 2005), substance use (e.g., Forsyth, Parker, & Finlay,
2003), and mood disorders (e.g., Tull & Gratz, 2008). In line with recent work, we
hypothesize that experiential avoidance may actually account for the relationship between
IPV and psychopathology (e.g., Tull, Jakupcak, Paulson, & Gratz, 2007).
Several factors may contribute to and maintain experiential avoidance in IPV
perpetrators. First, IPV perpetrators experience greater levels of emotional arousal than non-
violent controls, particularly in response to interpersonal triggers. For example, studies
indicate that IPV perpetrators report more intense and reactive emotional responses than non-
violent controls to situations involving real or perceived abandonment, rejection,
interpersonal dependency, and jealousy (Dutton, 1988; Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991;
Holtzworth-Munroe & Hutchinson, 1993; Murphy, Meyer, & O’Leary, 1994). Although
limited in number, experimental studies on the biological basis of emotional responding
provide additional evidence for exaggerated emotional arousal in IPV perpetrators. For
example, studies utilizing psychophysiological assessment methods have found that increases
in heart rate reactivity are associated with increased male-to-female IPV(Babcock et al., 2001;
Gottman et al., 1995).
Second, individuals who engage in IPV may not actually have heightened emotional
arousal, but rather a lower tolerance for emotional arousal (i.e., lower distress tolerance).
Distress tolerance is influenced by the degree to which individuals experience their emotional
arousal as aversive or unpleasant, regardless of the actual level or intensity of the arousal. For
instance, studies indicate that IPV perpetrators report that their affect is extremely unpleasant
and that they experience fear of their emotions; interestingly, they are just as likely to fear the
ostensibly positive emotions of love and happiness as the negative emotions of anxiety and
sadness (e.g., Jakupcak, 2003). The subjective experience of greater and more aversive
emotional arousal likely makes it considerably more difficult to tolerate such emotional
arousal, leading to attempts to avoid it.
Third, converging findings from a variety of observational, self-report, and physiological
studies provide support for the premise that IPV is associated with relief or escape from
emotional experiences. Research indicates that IPV perpetrators subjectively report higher
levels of aversive internal arousal before and during arguments than do non-perpetrators (e.g.,
Margolin, John, & Gleberman, 1988) and display more objective negative affect (i.e.,
stonewalling, defensiveness, domineering, belligerence, contempt, and anger) during dyadic
conflict interactions (e.g., Babcock, Jacobson, Gottman, & Yerington, 2000). In addition, the
majority of perpetrators report having initiated IPV during a period of negative emotion. For
example, Babcock, Costa, Green, and Eckhardt (2004) found that the most common proximal
antecedents of IPV episodes are jealousy (e.g., in response to perceived infidelity) and hurt
(e.g., in response to threats of dissolution). Furthermore, IPV perpetrators often report that
they experience panic symptoms before engaging in aggression, and they often exhibit
tremulousness and vocal changes that are accompanied by palpitations, breathlessness,
flushing, and sweating when they become violent (George, Anderson, Nutt, & Linnoila,
1989). These symptoms, characteristic of autonomic nervous system arousal, are out of
proportion to environmental stimuli and are perceived by the perpetrators as not under their
conscious control (e.g., Bitler, Linnoila, & George, 1994). However, more research is needed
to confirm that these physiological and neurological factors provide a measurable index of
experiential avoidance.
Summary
As reviewed above, preliminary data exist that support the premise that the primary
function of IPV is the avoidance of, or escape from, unwanted or aversive affective states.
While limited, the results of studies linking experiential avoidance to IPV perpetration
provide important directions for future research. For example, although emotions and
cognitions are intricately connected, the studies done thus far have focused primarily on
emotions, and we do not yet have direct evidence for the role of cognitive avoidance and IPV.
Therefore, in addition to replicating existing findings, we recommend also investigating the
distinct responses surrounding specific thoughts and the subsequent impact on IPV behaviors
(e.g., impulsive actions when rigidly entangled with the thought “My partner must not love
me”). This research would likely parallel the findings regarding emotional avoidance and
IPV; combined with using aggression to resist or avoid difficult emotions occasioned by
intimacy or conflict, IPV perpetrators may also negatively evaluate the associated internal
experiences or “attach” to hostile thoughts, and use aggression (along with other strategies) as
a means of escaping or controlling these internal experiences. Furthermore, given the
extensive data on the role of experiential avoidance in the development and maintenance of
psychopathology, future work should examine its potential mediating role between
psychopathology and IPV. Experiential avoidance may represent an overarching class of
behaviors that holds psychopathology and IPV behaviors together. For example, if the
tendency to avoid is addressed, and the use of IPV and other behaviors (e.g., substance use) as
a means to escape aversive states is eliminated or reduced, the behaviors involved in
psychopathology may become irrelevant as a motivator of IPV. To date, we know of no
studies that have systematically addressed such issues. We expand on these recommendations
for future research in Section 3.
Integrating Emotion Regulation and Experiential Avoidance
Before future work on emotion regulation and experiential avoidance can be

implemented, IPV researchers must have a consistent, clear, working definition of these
related constructs under investigation. In the study of IPV, we believe it is helpful to
conceptualize emotion regulation as strategies one uses in response to emotions and
associated internal experiences that, immediately or over time, affect overt behavior; more
specifically, strategies that increase or decrease the likelihood of engaging in IPV, as well as
increase or decrease the ability to engage in more adaptive behaviors. However, as mentioned
above, although numerous emotion regulation strategies have been identified, at this point it
is not clear which strategies are most detrimental or may relate most strongly to IPV, most
likely because the effectiveness of regulatory strategies cannot be separated from the specific
stressor being confronted or the context in which it is used. As such, the inherent reference to
context and function here is one of the reasons a consideration of experiential avoidance is a
needed complement to the examination of emotion regulation strategies that are measured in
terms of form and frequency. Indeed, there is evidence that experiential avoidance may
actually drive the very process of emotion dysregulation; for example, many of the
maladaptive emotion regulation strategies reviewed above have been linked to experiential
avoidance (e.g., suppression and rumination; Tull, Gratz, Salters, & Roemer, 2004).
Moreover, it has been suggested that specific regulatory strategies may have minimal to no
impact on emotional or behavioral functioning after accounting for experiential avoidance
(e.g., Kashdon et al., 2006). Therefore, although attempting to regulate emotion is not
necessarily a dysfunctional process, it can become dysfunctional when the strategies serve an
avoidance or control function and are used inflexibly across contexts. In sum, experiential
avoidance is a helpful framework within which to investigate maladaptive behaviors in
general, and emotion regulatory strategies in particular.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH
There are strong, consistent findings demonstrating that negative emotions or mood states
can serve as “urgent pulls” for risky or destructive behaviors, but few studies have examined
the mechanisms that may account for this link. Recent evidence from the psychopathology
literature suggests that emotion regulation and experiential avoidance are two related
processes that are likely pivotal to understanding pathological behaviors occurring in the
context of emotions and other aversive internal experiences. As we have outlined in this
chapter, we believe there is sufficient evidence to merit the examination of these processes in
the context of IPV. Specifically, we propose that IPV perpetrators may have an exaggerated
fear or sensitivity to certain internal experiences and, in turn, avoid these experiences via rigid
overgeneralized use of overt (behavioral) and covert (physiological and cognitive) responses
or strategies in a desperate effort to reduce, eliminate, or otherwise control internal
experiences and achieve a sense of “safety.” From this perspective, IPV provides a
convenient and rapid means to mitigate unpleasant negative affect, including the associated
bodily sensations and negative thoughts, and this temporary relief or distraction ultimately
serves to strengthen the behavior (see Figure 1). The powerful negatively reinforcing effects
of IPV (and other experiential avoidance behaviors) dominate over actual consequences in the
environment and are used even when they do not work, make things worse, or get in the way
of more adaptive behavior. Within this framework, we now turn to several important
questions that require empirical examination.
Figure 1. Illustration of the hypothesized relations among experiential avoidance (EA), emotion
regulation (ER), and intimate partner violence (IPV). In in the context of EA, maladaptive ER
strategies, and/or a lack of adaptive ER strategies, intense emotional arousal is likely to lead to IPV
behaviors. IPV may be negatively reinforced by the short-term reduction in, or escape from, the arousal
and the accompanying thoughts and physiological sensations. With consistent use, IPV may become a
conditioned response to these internal experiences.
Recommendations for IPV Research
Although preliminary studies support the premise that IPV perpetrators are likely to
engage in experiential avoidance behaviors and that IPV leads to relief or escape from
emotional arousal, we know of no published study that has examined the emotional and
cognitive precipitants and consequences of IPV in participants’ natural environments. In
addition, future research should examine whether certain internal experiences are especially
likely to precede or be relieved by IPV, and whether these experiences differ depending on
the presence of clinical features (e.g., BPD versus non-BPD), other individual characteristics
(e.g., impulsivity), or developmental experiences (e.g., chronic early aversive environments).
Furthermore, experiential avoidance and emotion regulation may have implications for
broader conceptualizations of IPV that incorporate similar functional analytic principles of
behavior. While the model presented in Figure 1 is a specific framework for how internal
experiences may contribute to IPV, there are numerous additional distal and proximal
contextual variables impacting the likelihood that IPV will occur. For example, Bell and
Naugle (2008) outlined a contextual model of IPV that provides a systematic strategy for
identifying and examining variables that may have a proximal relationship with IPV
perpetration, such as antecedents, motivating factors, discriminative stimuli, behavioral
repertoire, verbal rules, and consequences. Similar to our approach and the notion of
experiential avoidance, the authors note that emotional distress, among other things, is
considered a motivating state that influences the likelihood that IPV will be reinforced via a
reduction in emotional distress.
Based on our current knowledge regarding emotion regulation and experiential
avoidance, future research should consider three key “pathways” or scenarios that may
account for the link between unwanted or negative internal experiences and IPV. First,
individuals with limited access to effective response strategies are likely to rely on learned,
easily executable, but detrimental strategies such as IPV in the absence of adaptive skills.
Second, an individual may have the requisite adaptive skills but fail to implement them in
certain situations (e.g., if the emotion is very intense), and may impulsively resort to IPV for
quick relief rather than more adaptive strategies that either take longer to alleviate distress or
may not alleviate distress. Third, in either of these situations, the individual may first engage
in other maladaptive strategies (e.g., rumination, suppression, detachment, substance use) that
increase distress or lower inhibitions and ultimately render the individual vulnerable to IPV in
a more downstream manner. An important task will be to explicate these diverse but
interrelated pathways in IPV perpetrators.
Bearing in mind the three potential pathways to IPV just presented, it would likely be
helpful to formulate a preliminary list of strategies or skills to be included in future research.
Drawing heavily from basic research on adaptive emotion regulation (e.g. Gratz & Roemer,
2004) and opponent processes of experiential avoidance (e.g., Hayes et al., 1999), we propose
that adaptive emotional and behavioral functioning is bolstered by following skills:
awareness, understanding, and acceptance of one’s internal experiences, the ability to engage
in goal-directed behaviors and inhibit impulsive or dysfunctional behaviors in the context of
unwanted or negative internal experiences, and willingness to experience unwanted or
negative internal experiences to achieve one’s goals (e.g., maintaining an intimate
relationship). Conversely, a lack of or deficits in adaptive skills may be manifested by
unawareness and nonacceptance of one’s internal experiences, inflexible use of avoidant

strategies, and difficulty choosing one’s actions and behaving effectively when experiencing
certain thoughts, emotions, physiological sensations, and urges.
The theoretical significance and clinical utility of these putative processes and skills is of
ultimate importance. From a therapeutic perspective, targeting such processes would entail
not only eliminating or reducing inflexible and dysfunctional response strategies, but also
building adaptive skills or responses. One major advantage of the approach outlined above is
that, to a large extent, emotion regulation and experiential avoidance encompass responses to
internal experiences that are largely under voluntary control -- as opposed to the content,
level, or sensitivity of the emotions or cognitions themselves (which are involuntary) -- and,
therefore, can be a target of therapeutic change. Each will need to be linked to relevant
treatment techniques or components and measured as mechanisms of change in treatment of
IPV, as they are only considered valuable to the extent that changes in them bring about
successful outcomes. Therefore, we now turn to a discussion of the clinical implications of
this approach.
SECTION 4: CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The limited efficacy of existing IPV intervention programs (e.g., Babcock et al., 2004)
highlights the need to refine existing treatments or to create new ones. Most existing
programs utilize psychoeducational, cognitive-behavioral, and/or skills training components
that often lack empirical support justifying their use, are undertaken despite evidence of
contraindication, and have limited evidence of effectiveness. First, there are no data to show
that clinically significant changes in patriarchical attitudes or aggressive cognitions occur due
to treatment, that putative reductions in these cognitions lead to decreases in IPV behaviors,
or that CBT components demonstrate added benefit over other techniques (e.g., Feder &
Forde, 2000; Morrel, Elliott, Murphy, & Taft, 2003). Second, despite the consistent link
between emotional experience and expression among IPV perpetrators, interventions that
focus on emotion, such as trauma histories or intense anger, are often discouraged or
vigorously challenged in interventions based on the Duluth Model, as these factors are viewed
as rationalizations or justifications for abuse (e.g., Taft & Murphy, 2007). Moreover, CBT-
based components that address emotion via anger management have limited empirical support
(e.g., Murphy, Taft, & Eckhardt, 2007; Watt & Howells, 1999). Third, research has identified
few behavioral strategies that relate to clinically significant change in IPV. For example, a
common component of IPV treatment programs is the development of skills related to
problem-solving and communication, but several studies have yielded mixed results or failed
to demonstrate treatment-related differences in these skills (e.g., Gondolf, 2002).
The overarching message of most IPV treatments -- that acts of IPV do not have to be
uncontrollable outbursts, but can be predictable behavioral patterns that can be stopped -- is a
sound one. However, the fundamental assumption that this goal will be achieved by changing
the thoughts or emotions that purportedly sustain the IPV has little empirical justification, and
may even lead to iatrogenic effects. For example, the mixed findings regarding both the use
and effectiveness of emotion management components of IPV treatments are not surprising
given that such techniques often emphasize deliberate control of emotions, which has been
shown to inadvertently heighten emotional intensity and limit flexible emotional and
behavioral responses (e.g., Posner & Rothbart, 2000; Wenzlaff, Wegner, & Klein, 1991).
Similarly, extensive research shows that deliberate attempts to change or suppress thoughts
can increase their occurrence and behavioral impact (Cioffi & Holloway, 1993; Wegner,
Schneider, Carter, & White, 1987), and that the cognitive components of CBT do not
significantly improve therapeutic outcomes (e.g., Longmore & Worrell, 2007). In sum, there
is extensive evidence that the behavior regulatory function of thoughts and emotions is not
necessarily mechanical or direct, and that attempting to change the content of thoughts and
emotions is not an effective way to change behavior (e.g., Biglan & Hayes, 1996).
In line with the focus of this chapter, rather than focusing exclusively on changing the
content of one’s emotions or cognitions (e.g., controlling anger or hostile attributions) in
order to subsequently change behavior, we believe that it will be more fruitful to consider the
ways in which individuals relate or respond to the content of their thoughts and emotions. As
we have argued above, focusing on behaviors that are under voluntary control has the
potential to directly guide therapeutic action because it is only at this level that direct
manipulation and influence on IPV behaviors will occur (e.g., Hayes & Brownstein, 1986).
Consistent with this perspective, recent therapies have been developed to target emotion
regulation and experiential avoidance, including Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT;
Linehan, 1993), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson,
1999) and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT; Segal, Teasdale, & Williams,
2004). Although a full description of these approaches is beyond the scope of this article, it is
important to note that rather than focusing on changing the form and content of internal
experiences (via cognitive restructuring and anger management), these approaches seek to
alter the behavioral impact of internal experiences by weakening reliance on avoidant
responses (via acceptance and mindfulness). We now briefly discuss the general applicability
of such techniques to IPV, and given the recent work outlining the application of DBT to
IPV, we will elaborate on the use of this treatment specifically.
In acceptance and mindfulness-based therapies, maladaptive responses to internal
experiences are targeted to facilitate adaptive emotional functioning and behavioral change.
To this aim, treatment components focus on engendering an orientation toward one’s internal
experiences that involves: (a) mindfully attending to and contacting one’s experiences in the
present moment and nonjudgmentally, (b) relinquishing attempts to control or avoid internal
experiences and accepting them as they are, and (c) actively and intentionally choosing to
behave according to one’s chosen and enduring values, regardless of how consistent or
inconsistent such behavior is with the more arbitrary and unstable content of one’s internal
experiences (e.g., Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999; Levitt, Brown, Orsillo, & Barlow, 2004;
Twohig & Woods, 2004; Zettle, 2003). Several studies have documented support for such
techniques and, more importantly, the data show that they have a mediational role in therapy
outcomes (e.g., Hayes, Luoma, et al., 2006; Lundgren, Dahl, & Hayes, 2008). In other words,
successful outcomes occur because of changes in acceptance and mindfulness processes.
Clearly, it is an empirical question whether such techniques may be effective components of
IPV treatment. However, we assert that adapting such approaches is likely to be highly
effective. For example, to the extent that the experience of anger is tightly linked to engaging
in aggressive behavior, the use of these techniques may eventually allow the individual to
observe the thoughts, physiological sensations, and behavioral urges accompanying their
anger, become aware of the automatic connection to maladaptive efforts to regulate, avoid, or
act on them (such as with IPV), and then develop the ability to separate these internal
experiences from overt behavior and to choose to engage in more adaptive (non-IPV)
behaviors.
Based on the clinical picture of IPV perpetrators, it seems reasonable that certain types of
skills training would also be an appropriate treatment strategy. It is unclear why skills training
components have received little support in the treatment of IPV, but one possibility is that the
individual has the component behaviors of a skill but cannot put them together effectively in
certain situations, such as in the context of relationship conflict and intense emotion.
However, regardless of the basis for lack of skill usage, skill-building elements may be
bolstered by an emphasis on the generation of skill use in the presence of troublesome
thoughts or feelings. Recent suggestions to incorporate the skills training components of DBT
in treatments for IPV seem promising in this regard (Fruzzetti & Levensky, 2000; Rathus,
Cavuoto, & Passarelli, 2006). Indeed, there are several theoretical links between IPV and self-
harming behaviors that are specifically targeted in DBT, in that these behaviors are often
similarly reinforced by the diminished negative arousal they provide.
In contrast to inherent assumptions that IPV is an attempt to assert power (implicit in the
Duluth model) or the result of angry thoughts and feelings (implicit in CBT model), an
approach that considers the functions of IPV (e.g., emotional escape) would be more
consistent with the approach presented in this chapter. The DBT skills of mindfulness,
interpersonal effectiveness, emotion regulation, and distress tolerance specifically target
deficits in one’s ability to tolerate emotional arousal and engage in adaptive behavior when
experiencing intense emotions. Embedded within skills training, DBT utilizes behavioral
analyses to continually assess contexts and functions of target behaviors for the individual, as
well as a full range of behavioral therapy techniques (exposure, contingency management,
stimulus control procedures) with a focus on negative emotional arousal (Linehan, 1993).
Particular attention is paid to the reinforcing factors that maintain destructive behaviors, such
as relief from emotional pain, or the factors that punish more effective behavior, such as an
aversive increase in emotional intensity.
In summary, treatments for IPV have traditionally addressed emotion and cognition by
utilizing methods and techniques that emphasize the control of internal states. In contrast,
there is now a considerable amount of empirical support for interventions that emphasize
mindfulness and acceptance, rather than direct change or control of cognitive and affective
experiences, in the treatment of a wide range of behavior problems. Furthermore, recent work
has linked aspects of these approaches to improving emotion regulation, empathy,
communication, problem-solving skills, and overall relationship satisfaction in couples (e.g.,
Fruzzetti & Iverson, 2004; Kirby & Baucom, 2007; Wachs & Cordova, 2007).
CONCLUSION
The lack of effective treatments for IPV is partially due to the limited ability of current
theory and research to guide their development or modification. Therefore, subsequent
progress in treating IPV is likely to depend heavily on the ability of available models to
inform both basic and applied research. While it is important to acknowledge that personality
and psychopathology are strong risk factors for IPV, such constructs have provided little
information with regard to why or how emotions and thoughts exert their influence on the
perpetration of IPV. Hence, it appears that other factors, in addition to psychopathology, must
operate to determine whether an individual will become aggressive in an intimate
relationship. We believe one way to address these gaps or weaknesses in the literature is to
draw from a contextual behavioral science approach and focus attention on processes of
change that have proven empirically and clinically meaningful in the treatment of behaviors
theoretically and functionally similar to IPV. In this chapter, we have presented a framework
to guide basic and translational research in the investigation of emotion dysregulation and
experiential avoidance processes as functionally linked to IPV. Using the information
presented in this chapter as a guide, it is our hope that researchers involved in this area will
consider these issues and that future research will inform new approaches to IPV treatment
that, when adapted and developed specifically for use with IPV perpetrators, will elaborate on
and increase the effectiveness of current approaches.
REFERENCES
Allen, K., Calsyn, D.A., Fehhrenbach, P.A., & Benton, G. (1989). A study of the
interpersonal behaviors of male batterers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 79-89.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Auerbach, R. P., Abela, J. R. Z. & Ho, M. R. (2007). Responding to symptoms of depression
and anxiety: Emotion regulation, neuroticism, and engagement in risky behaviors.
Behavior Research and Therapy, 45, 2182-2191.
Babcock, J., Green, C. & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic
review of domestic violence treatment outcome research. Clinical Psychology Review,
23, 1023-1053.
Babcock, J. C., Costa, D. M., Green, C. E. & Eckhardt, C. (2004). What situations induce
intimate partner violence? A reliability and validity study of the proximal antecedents to
violent episodes (PAVE) scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 433-442.
Babcock, J. C., Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M. & Yerington, T. P. (2000). Attachment,
emotional regulation, and the function of marital violence: Differences between secure,
preoccupied, and dismissing violent and nonviolent husbands. Journal of Family
Violence, 15, 391-409.
Batten, S. V., Follette, V. M. & Aban, I. (2001). Experiential Avoidance and high risk sexual
behavior in survivors of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 10(2), 101-
120.
Begotka, A. M., Woods, D. W. & Wetterneck, C. T. (2004). The relationship between
experiential avoidance and the severity of trichotillomania in a nonreferred sample.
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 35, 17-24.
Bell, K. M. & Naugle, A. E. (2008). Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations:
Moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1096-1107.
Berking, M., Orth, U., Wupperman, P., Meier, L. & Caspar, F. (2008). Prospective effects of
emotion-regulation skills on emotional adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
55, 485-494.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York, NY,
England: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
Biglan, A. & Hayes, S. C. (1996). Should the behavioral sciences become more pragmatic?
The case for functional contextualism in research on human behavior. Applied and
Preventive Psychology: Current Scientific Perspectives, 5, 47-57.
Bonanno, G. A., Papa, A., LaLande, K., Westphal, M. & Coifman, K. (2004). The importance
of being flexible: The ability to both enhance and suppress emotional expression predicts
long-term adjustment. Psychological Science, 15, 482-487.
Bonn-Miller, M. O., Vujanovic, A. A. & Zvolensky, M. J. (2008). Emotional dysregulation:
Association with coping-oriented marijuana use motives among current marijuana users.
Substance Use & Misuse, 43, 1653-1665.
Bornovalova, M. A., Gratz, K. L., Daughters, S. B., Nick, B., Delany-Brumsey, A., Lynch,
T.R. Kosson, D. & Lejuez, C. W. (2008). A multimodal assessment of the relationship
between emotion dysregulation and borderline personality disorder among inner-city
substance users in residential treatment. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 42, 717-726.
Brown, J. (2004). Shame and domestic violence: treatment perspectives for perpetrators from
self psychology and affect theory. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 19, 39-56.
Browning, J. & Dutton, D. G. (1986). Assessment of wife assault with the Conflict Tactics
Scale: Using couple data to quantify the Differential Reporting Effect. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 48, 111-115.
Byrne, C. A. & Arias, I. (1997). Marital satisfaction and marital violence: Moderating effects
of attributional processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 188-195.
Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination,
distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 724-731.
Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F. & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people agree to improve their
mood? Catharsis, beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggression responding.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 17-32.
Capaldi, D. M. & Owen, L. D. (2001). Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk
young couples: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of
Family Psychology, 15, 425-440.
Chambless, D. L. & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 7-18.
Chase, K. A., O’Farrell, T. J., Murphy, C. M., Fals-Stewart,W. & Murphy, M. (2003). Factors
associated with partner violence among female alcoholic patients and their male partners.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 137-149.
Chermack, S. T., Walton, M. A., Fuller, B. E. & Blow, F. C. (2001). Correlates of expressed
and received violence across relationship types among men and women substance
abusers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15, 140-151.
Chowla, N. & Ostafin, B. (2007). Experiential avoidance as a functional dimensional
approach to psychopathology: An empirical review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63,
871-890.
Cicchetti, D., Ganiban, J. & Barnett, D. (1991). Contributions from the study of high-risk
populations to understanding the development of emotion regulation. In Garber, J. &
Dodge, K.A. (Eds). The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation.
Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. (15-48). New York, NY, US:
Cambridge University Press.
Cioffi, D. & Holloway, J. (1993). Delayed costs of suppressed pain. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64, 274-282.
Clements, K. & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2008). Aggressive cognitions of violent versus
nonviolent spouses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32, 351-369.
Conrad, S.D., & Morrow, R.S. (2000). Borderline personality organization, dissociation, and
willingness to use force in intimate relationships. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1,
37-48.
Dankoski, M. E., Keiley, M. K., Thomas, V., Choice, P., Lloyd, S. A. & Seery, B. L. (2006).
Affect regulation and the cycle of violence against women: New directions for
understanding the process. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 327-339.
Dobash R. E. & Dobash R. (1979). Violence against wives: a case against the patriarchy.
New York: Free Press.
Dowd, L. S., Leisring, P. A. & Rosenbaum, A. (2005). Partner aggressive women:
Characteristics and treatment attrition. Violence and Victims, 20, 219-233.
Dutton, D. (1994). Behavioral and affective correlates of borderline personality organization
in wife assaulters. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 17, 265-277.
Dutton, D. (1995). Trauma symptoms and PTSD-like profiles in perpetrators of intimate
abuse. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8, 299-316.
Dutton, D. G., Saunders, K., Starzomski, A. & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Intimacy-anger and
insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 24, 1367-1386.
Dye, M. L. & Eckhardt, C. I. (2000). Anger, irrational beliefs and dysfunctional attitudes in
violent dating relationships. Violence and Victims, 15, 337-350.
Eckhardt, C. I., Barbour, K. A. & Davison, G. C. (1998). Articulated thoughts of maritally
violent and nonviolent men during anger arousal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 66, 259-269.
Eckhardt, C. I. & Dye, M. L. (2000). The cognitive characteristics of maritally violent men:
Theory and evidence. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 139-158.
Eckhardt, C. I., Murphy, C., Black, D. & Suhr, L. (2006). Intervention programs for
perpetrators of intimate partner violence: Conclusions from a clinical research
perspective. Public Health Reports, 121, 369-381.
Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, T. E. & Caspi, A. (2004). Clinically abusive relationships in an
unselected birth cohort: Men’s and women’s participation and developmental
antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 258-271.
Eifert, G. H. & Heffner, M. (2003). The effects of acceptance versus control contexts on
avoidance of panic-related symptoms. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry, 34, 293-312.
Eisenberg, N., Hofer, C. & Vaughan, J. (2007). Effortful control and its socioemotional
consequences. In Gross, James J. (Ed). (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation. (287-
306). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Erber, R. & Tesser, A. (1992). Task effort and the regulation of mood: The absorption
hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 339-359.
Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for
domestic violence offenders: The Broward Experiment (Final report, Grant NIJ-96-
WTNX-0008). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Feldman-Barrett, L., Gross, J. J., Christensen, T. C. & Benvenuto, M. (2001). Knowing what
you’re feeling and knowing what to do about it: Mapping the relation between emotion
differentiation and emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 713-724.
Foran, H. M. & O’Leary, K. D. (2008). Problem drinking, jealousy, and anger control:
Variables predicting physical aggression against a partner. Journal of Family Violence,
23, 141-148.
Forsyth, J. P., Parker, J. D. & Finlay, C. G. (2003). Anxiety sensitivity, controllability, and
experiential avoidance and their relation to drug of choice and addiction severity in a
residential sample of substance-abusing veterans. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 851-870.
Fossati, A., Barratt, E. S., Borroni, S., Villa, D., Grazioli, F. & Maffei, C. (2007). Impulsivity,
aggressiveness, and DSM-IV personality disorders. Psychiatry Research, 149, 157-167.
Fox, H. C., Axelrod, S. R., Paliwal, P., Sleeper, J. & Sinha, R. (2007). Difficulties in emotion
regulation and impulse control during cocaine abstinence. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 89, 298-301.
Fruzzetti, A. E. & Iverson, K. M. (2004). Mindfulness, Acceptance, Validation, and
"Individual" Psychopathology in Couples. Hayes, Steven C. (Ed); Follette, Victoria M.
(Ed); Linehan, Marsha M. (Ed). (2004). Mindfulness and acceptance: Expanding the
cognitive-behavioral tradition. (168-191). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Fruzzetti, A. E. & Levensky, E. R. (2000). Dialectical behavior therapy for domestic
violence: Rationale and Procedures. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 7, 435-447.
Goldenson, J., Geffner, R., Foster, S. & Clipson, C. (2007). Female domestic violence
offenders: Their attachment security, trauma symptoms, and personality organization.
Violence and Victims, 22, 532-545.
Gondolf, E. W. (1985). Fighting for control: A clinical assessment of men who batter. Social
Casework, 66, 48-54.
Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer intervention systems: Issues, outcomes, and
recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gratz, K. (2007). Targeting emotion dysregulation in the treatment of self-injury. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 63, 1091-1103.
Gratz, K. L. & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and
dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in
Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26,
41-54.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review
of General Psychology, 2, 271-299.
Gross, J. J. & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion Regulation: Conceptual Foundations. In
Gross, James J. (Ed). (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation. (3-24). New York, NY,
US: Guilford Press.
Hayes, S. C. & Brownstein, A. J. (1986). Mentalism, behavior-behavior relations, and a
behavior-analytic view of the purposes of science. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 175-190.
Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J., Bond, F., Masuda, A. & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and
commitment therapy: Model, processes, and outcomes. Behavior Research and Therapy,
44, 1-25.
Hayes, S. C., Masuda, A., Bissett, R., Luoma, J. & Guerrero, L. F. (2004). DBT, FAP, and
ACT: How empirically oriented are the new behavior therapy technologies? Behavior
Therapy, 35, 35-54.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An
experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press.
Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. W., Gifford, E. V., Follette, V. M. & Strosahl, K. (1996).
Experiential avoidance and behavioral disorders: A functional dimensional approach to
diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1152-1168.
Healey, K. & Smith, C. (1998). Batterer programs: What criminal justice agencies need
toknow. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Healey, K., Smith, C. & O’Sullivan, C. (1998). Batterer intervention: Program approaches
and criminal justice strategies. Report to the National Institute of Justice, Washington,
DC. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2000). Social information processing skills deficits in
maritally violent men: Summary of a research program. In Vincent, J. P. & Jouriles, E. N.
(Eds.), Domestic violence: Guidelines for research-informed practice (13-36). London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Anglin, K. (1991). The competency of responses given by
maritally violent versus nonviolent men to problematic marital situations. Violence and
Victims, 6, 257-269.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1992). Social skill deficits in maritally violent men: Interpreting the
data using a social information processing model. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 605-
617.
Jakupcak, M. (2003). Masculine gender role stress and men’s fear of emotions as predictors
of self-reported aggression and violence. Violence and Victims, 18, 533-541.
Jakupcak, M., Tull, M. T. & Roemer, L. (2005). Masculinity, shame, and fear of emotions as
predictors of men's expressions of anger and hostility. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,
6, 275-284.
Kashdan, T., Barrios, V., Forsyth, J. & Steger, M. (2006). Experiential avoidance as a
generalized psychological vulnerability: Comparisons with coping and emotion
regulation strategies. Behavior Research and Therapy, 44, 1301-1320.
Kirby, J. S. & Baucom, D. H. (2007). Integrating dialectical behavior therapy and cognitive-
behavioral couple therapy: A couples skills group for emotion dysregulation. Cognitive
and Behavioral Practice, 14, 394-405.
Koole, S. L. (2009). The psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Cognition
& Emotion, 23, 4-41.
Kraus, G. & Reynolds, D. J. (2001). The “ABC’s” of the cluster B’s: Identifying,
understanding, and treating Cluster B personality disorders. Clinical Psychology Review,
21, 345-373.
Kring, A. M. & Bachorowski, J. (1999). Emotions and psychopathology. Special Issue:
Functional accounts of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 575-599.
Langer, A., Lawrence, E. & Barry, R. (2008). Using a vulnerability–stress–adaptation
framework to predict physical aggression trajectories in newlywed marriage. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 756-768.
Levin, M., & Hayes, S. (2009). ACT, RFT, and Contextual Behavioral Science. In J.
Blackledge, J. Ciarrochi, & F. Deane (Eds.), Acceptance and commitment therapy:
Contemporary theory, research, and practice (pp. 1-40). Bowen Hills, Australia:
Australian Academic Press.
Levitt, J. T., Brown, T. A., Orsillo, S. M. & Barlow, D. H. (2004). The effects of acceptance
versus suppression of emotion on subjective and psychophysiological response to carbon
dioxide challenge in patients with panic disorder. Behavior Therapy, 35, 747-766.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality
disorder.New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Lischetzke, T. & Eid, M. (2003). Is attention to feelings beneficial or detrimental to affective
well-being? Mood regulation as a moderator variable. Emotion, 3, 361-377.
Longmore, R. J. & Worrell, M. (2007). Do we need to challenge thoughts in cognitive
behavior therapy? Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 173-187.
Lundgren, T., Dahl, J. & Hayes, S. C. (2008). Evaluation of mediators of change in the
treatment of epilepsy with acceptance and commitment therapy. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 31, 225-235.
Lynch, T. R., Trost, W. T., Salsman, N. & Linehan, M. M. (2007). Dialectical behavior
therapy for borderline personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3,
181-205.
Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A. & Silva, P. A. (1998). Developmental antecedents of
partner abuse: A prospective-longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107,
375-389.
Maiuro, R. D., Cahn, T. S., Vitaliano, P. P., Wagner, B. C. & Zegree, J. B. (1988). Anger,
hostility, and depression in domestically violent versus generally assaultive men and
nonviolent control subjects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 17-23.
McNeal, C. & Amato, P. R. (1998). Parents’ marital violence: Long-term consequences for
children. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 123-139.
McNulty, J. K. & Hellmuth, J. C. (2008). Emotion regulation and intimate partner violence in
newlyweds. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 794-797.
Mennin, D. S., Holaway, R. M., Fresco, D. M., Moore, M. T. & Heimberg, R. G. (2007).
Delineating components of emotion and its dysregulation in anxiety and mood
psychopathology. Behavior Therapy, 38, 284-302.
Moffitt, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A. & Fagan, J. (2000). Partner abuse and general crime:
How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology, 38, 199-232.
Morrel, T. M., Elliott, J. D., Murphy, C. M. & Taft, C. T. (2003). A comparison of cognitive-
behavioral and supportive group therapies for male perpetrators of domestic abuse.
Behavior Therapy, 34, 77-95.
Murphy, C. M., Meyer, S. & O’Leary, D. K. (1994). Dependency characteristics of partner
assaultive men. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 729-735.
Murphy, C. M. & O'Farrell, T. J. (1994). Factors associated with marital aggression in male
alcoholics. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 321-335.
Murphy, C. M., Taft, C. T. & Eckhardt, C. I. (2007). Anger problem profiles among partner
violent men: Differences in clinical presentation and treatment outcome. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 54, 189-200.
Murrel, A., Christoff, K. & Henning, K. (2007). Characteristics of domestic violence
offenders: Associations with childhood exposure to violence. Journal of Family Violence,
22, 523-532.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed

anxiety/depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 504-511.
Norlander, B. & Eckhardt, C. (2005). Anger, hostility, and male perpetrators of intimate
partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 119-152.
O’Leary, K. D., Malone, J. & Tyree, A. (1994). Physical aggression in early marriage:
Prerelationship and relationship effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
62, 594-602.
O’Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J. & Tyree, A. (1989).
Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263-268.
Pan, H. S., Neidig, P. H. & O’Leary, K. D. (1994). Predicting mild and severe husband-to-
wife physical aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 975-981.
Parkinson, B. & Totterdell, P. (1999). Classifying affect-regulation strategies. Cognition &
Emotion, 13, 277-303.
Pence, E. & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth Model.
New York: Springer.
Posner, M. I. & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation.
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 427-441.
Purdon, C. (1999). Thought suppression and psychopathology. Behavior Research and
Therapy, 37, 1029-1054.
Rathus, J. H., Cavuoto, N. & Passarelli, V. (2006). Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT): A
Mindfulness-Based Treatment for Intimate Partner Violence. By In Baer, Ruth A. (Ed).
(2006). Mindfulness-based treatment approaches: Clinician's guide to evidence base and
applications. (333-358). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press.
Ricketts, T. & Macaskill, A. (2003). Gambling as emotion management: Developing a
grounded theory of problem gambling. Addiction Research & Theory, 11, 383-400.
Rogge, R. D. & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Til violence do us part: The differing roles of
communication and aggression in predicting adverse marital outcomes. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 340-351.
Rosenfeld, B., Galietta, M., Ivanoff, A., Garcia-Mansilla, A., Martinez, R., Fava, J., Fineran,
V. & Green, D. (2007). Dialectical behavior therapy for the treatment of stalking
offenders. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 6, 95-103.
Schumacher, J. A. & Leonard, K. E. (2005). Husbands’ and wives’ marital adjustment, verbal
aggression, and physical aggression as longitudinal predictors of physical aggression in
early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 28-37.
Schweinle, W. E. & Ickes, W. (2007). The role of men's critical/rejecting overattribution bias,
affect, and attentional disengagement in marital aggression. Journal of Social & Clinical
Scott, K. (2004). Predictors of change among male batterers: Application of theories and
review of empirical findings. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 260-284.
Segal, Z. V., Teasdale, J. D. & Williams, J. (2004). Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy:
Theoretical Rationale and Empirical Status. By Hayes, Steven C. (Ed); Follette, Victoria
M. (Ed); Linehan, Marsha M. (Ed). (2004). Mindfulness and acceptance: Expanding the
cognitive-behavioral tradition. (45-65). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L. & Sheffield Morris, A. (2003). Adolescents’emotion regulation in

daily life: Links to depressive symptoms and problem behaviors. Child Development, 74,
1869-1880.
Sim, L. & Zeman, J. (2004). Emotion awareness and identification skills in adolescent girls
with bulimia nervosa. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 760-771.
Simoneti, S., Scott, E. C., & Murphy, C.M. (2000). Dissociative experiences in partner-
assaultive men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 1262-1283.
Smith, M. D. (1990). Patriarchal ideology and wife beating: A test of a feminist hypothesis.
Violence & Victims, 5, 257-274.
Southam-Gerow, M. A. & Kendall, P. C. (2002). Emotion regulation and understanding:
Implications for child psychopathology and therapy. Clinical Psychology Review, 22,
189-222.
Straus, M. & Gelles, R. (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and
adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Gordon, K. C., Ramsey, S.E. & Kahler, C.W. (2006).
Psychopathology in women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 21, 376-389.
Sugarman, D. B. & Frankel, S. L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife assault: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 13-40.
Sullivan, T., Meese, K., Swan, S., Mazure, C. & Snow, D. (2005). Precursors and correlates
of women’s violence: Child abuse traumatization, victimization of women, avoidance
coping, and psychological symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 290-301.
Swan, S., Gambone, L., Fields, A., Sullivan, T. & Snow, D. (2005). Women who use violence
in intimate relationships: The role of anger, victimization, and symptoms of posttraumatic
stress and depression. Violence and Victims, 20, 267-285.
Taft, C. T. & Murphy, C. M. (2007). The working alliance in intervention for partner violence
perpetrators: Recent research and theory. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 11-18.
Telch, C. F., Agras, W. S. & Linehan, M. M. (2000). Dialectical behavior therapy for binge
eating disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 1061-1065.
Tice, D. M. & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good: The place of emotion regulation
in the context of general self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 2000, 149-159.
Tull, M., Jakupcak, M., Paulson, A. & Gratz, K. (2007). The role of emotional inexpressivity
and experiential avoidance in the relationship between posttraumatic stress disorder
symptoms severity and aggressive behavior among men exposed to interpersonal
violence. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20, 337-351.
Tull, M. T., Gratz, K. L., Salters, K. & Roemer, L. (2004). The role of experiential avoidance
in posttraumatic stress symptoms and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and somatization.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192, 754-761.
Twohig, M. P. & Woods, D. W. (2004). A preliminary investigation of acceptance and
commitment therapy and habit reversal as a treatment for trichotillomania. Behavior
Therapy, 35, 803-820.
Umberson, D., Anderson, K. L., Glick, J. & Shapiro, A. (1998). Domestic violence, personal
control, and gender. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 442-452.
Umberson, D., Anderson, K. L., Williams, K. & Chen, M. D. (2003). Relationship dynamics,
emotion state, and domestic violence: A stress and masculinities perspective. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 65, 233-247.
Umberson, D., Williams, K., & Anderson, K. (2002). Violent behavior: A measure of
emotional upset? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 189-206.
Wachs, K. & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Mindful relating: Exploring mindfulness and emotion
repertoires in intimate relationships. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 33, 464-481.
Watt, B. D. & Howells, K. (1999). Skills training for aggression control: Evaluation of an
anger management program for violent offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology,
4, 285-300.
Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R. & White, T. L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of
thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5-13.
Weizmann-Henelius, G., Viemero, V. & Eronen, M. (2004). Psychological risk markers in
violent female behavior. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 3, 185-196.
Wenzlaff, R. M. & Wegner, D. M. (2000). Thought suppression. Annual Review of
Widiger, T. A. & Samuel, D. B. (2005). Diagnostic categories or dimensions? A question for
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth edition. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 114, 494-504.
Yelsma, P. (1996). Affective orientations of perpetrators, victims, and functional spouses.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 141-161.
Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Dubo, E. D., Sickel, A. E., Trikha, A., Levin, A. &
Reynolds, V. (1998). Axis I comorbidity of borderline personality disorder. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 1733-1739.
Zettle, R. D. (2003). Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs. systematic
desensitization in treatment of mathematics anxiety. Psychological Record, 53, 197-215.

Emotion Regulation and Experiential Aviodance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emotion Regulation and Experiential Aviodance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In: Advances in Sociology Research, Volume 6 ISBN: 978-1-60741-879-5

Editor: Jared A. Jaworski © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

EMOTION REGULATION AND EXPERIENTIAL

Amie Langer and Erika Lawrence

SECTION 1: PSYCHOLOGICAL RISK FACTORS AND CORRELATES OF

Emotional Correlates of IPV Perpetration

Cognitive Correlates of IPV Perpetrators

There is also empirical evidence to suggest that cognitive characteristics such as

Critique of This Research

A wide range of psychopathology, personality traits, and emotional and cognitive

SECTION 2: EMOTION REGULATION, EXPERIENTIAL AVOIDANCE,

The Construct of Emotion Regulation

individual to function adaptively in emotionally arousing situations (Cicchetti, Ganiban, &

Emotion Regulation and IPV

of emotion dysregulation as the presence of negative affect, internalizing and externalizing

Examining the Construct of Emotion Regulation: Skills and Strategies

Emotion Regulation Processes and IPV

The Construct of Experiential Avoidance

Experiential Avoidance and IPV

infidelity or abandonment, IPV may be a strategy to achieve closeness with a romantic

Integrating Emotion Regulation and Experiential Avoidance

Before future work on emotion regulation and experiential avoidance can be

SECTION 3: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE

Recommendations for IPV Research

unawareness and nonacceptance of one’s internal experiences, inflexible use of avoidant

SECTION 4: CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed

Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L. & Sheffield Morris, A. (2003). Adolescents’emotion regulation in

You might also like