Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2010 American Psychological Association

2010, Vol. 11, No. 3, 233–239 1524-9220/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017636

“Walking Over ’Em”: An Exploration of Relations Between

Emotion Dysregulation, Masculine Norms, and Intimate Partner
Abuse in a Clinical Sample of Men

David Tager and Glenn E. Good Sara Brammer

University of Missouri Synergy Services, Parkville, Missouri

This study is the first to examine relations of emotion dysregulation, masculine norms,
and abuse perpetration among men referred for domestic assault. Experiences of 108
men participating in batter intervention programs from 3 different cities were exam-
ined. Results suggest that intimate partner abuse, emotion dysregulation, and the
specific masculine norms of dominance, emotional control, and self-reliance are asso-
ciated. Multiple-regression analysis indicated that emotion dysregulation and the mas-
culine norm of dominance accounted for about 25% of the variance in reported abuse.
In addition, the masculine norms of emotional control and self-reliance were signifi-
cantly associated with emotion dysregulation. These findings suggest that men who
reported experiencing affect that was difficult for them to manage are more likely to
abuse their partners and also tend to believe that men should not share their emotions
or ask for help.

Keywords: intimate partner abuse, emotion regulation, masculine norms

That’s walking over ’em. That’s getting walked over.
And that’s walking together.
—Group member explaining the difference between
controlling, passive, and egalitarian approaches to con-
flict resolution.
Intimate partner abuse (IPA), generally
viewed as consisting of physical, psychological,
and/or sexual abuse (Hines, 2008), continues to
be an endemic public health problem. In the
United States, large scale epidemiological stud-
ies have suggested that somewhere between 20
and 30% of adult women have been physically
abused by a male partner at some point in their
lives (Bornstein, 2006), with over a million
cases of domestic violence reported to law en-
David Tager, University of Missouri Counseling Cen-
ter; Glenn E. Good, College of Education, University of
Missouri; Sara Brammer, Synergy Services, Parkville,
Missouri.
We thank the men who generously agreed to participate
in this study and to the administrators and clinical staff
members of the Family Counseling Center, Synergy Ser-
vices and Raven. Special thanks are due to Ted Solomon,
who supported this project from its inception.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to David Tager, University of Missouri Counseling
Center, 19 Parker Hall, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail:
tagerd@missouri.edu
233
forcement each year (Jasinski & Williams,
1998; U.S. Department of Justice, 2000). Meta-
analytic research into correlates of male IPA doc-
ument a wide range of risk factors (Schumacher,
Slep, Feldbau-Kohn, & Heyman, 2001; Stith,
Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004), including sev-
eral that seem related to gender socialization.
Empirical efforts directly focused on the role of
masculine socialization suggest that masculinity
ideology and gender role stress predict IPA (see
Moore & Stuart, 2005, for review).
Theories of masculinity and male gender role
socialization posit the existence of norms or
standards of male behavior that are culturally
sanctioned and influence men’s psychological
development, such as toughness, stoicism, self-
reliance, instrumentality, and the use of vio-
lence (e.g., David & Brannon, 1976; Levant,
1996; Mahalik, Good, & Englar-Carlson, 2003;
O’Neil, 1981; Pleck, 1981). Scholars of mascu-
linity have conceptualized a gender role strain
paradigm in which culturally constructed norms
can negatively affect relationships and sense of
self, particularly when adhered to in a rigid
fashion (e.g., Levant, 1996; O’Neil, 1981;
Pleck, 1995). Men who ascribe to norms of
emotional and physical toughness, dominance,
and self-reliance may find difficulty living up to
234 BRIEF REPORTS
expectations, particularly in intimate relation-
ships in which interdependence, negotiation,
vulnerability, and nurturing are often crucial to
relationship satisfaction. O’Neil and Harway
(1997) proposed that when men perceived their
masculine identity to be threatened by their
partners’ behavior and were unable to negotiate
a successful resolution, they may use violence
or psychological abuse to assert power and de-
fend their self-esteem. Supporting this theory, a
recent study found that self-esteem was nega-
tively associated to the use of intimidation and
threats (Schwartz, Waldo, & Daniel, 2005). In
general, research into traditional male role
norms and male gender role stress have found
moderate associations between these variables
and psychological abuse (e.g., Good, Heppner,
Hillenbrand-Gunn, & Wang, 1995), controlling
behaviors (Mahalik, Aldarondo, Gilbert-
Gokhale, & Shore, 2005), aggression and vio-
lence (Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002), and
physical abuse (Moore & Stuart, 2005; Moore
et al., 2008; Schwartz et al., 2005).
Clinical researchers have suggested that male
perpetrated IPA may serve a maladaptive emo-
tion regulation function (Jakupcak, 2003; Jak-
upcak et al., 2002). Indeed, there is evidence
that abusive men lack the emotion regulation
skills necessary for negotiation. For example,
abusive men tend to display greater impulsivity
(e.g., Stuart, 1998; Stuart & Holtzworth-
Munroe, 2005), possess lower levels of emo-
tional intelligence (Winters, Clift, & Dutton,
2004), fear underlying emotions (e.g., sadness,
anxiety) associated with aggression and anger
(Jakupcak, 2003; Jakupcak, Tull, & Roemer,
2005), and exhibit poor empathic accuracy with
regards to their partners’ thoughts and feelings
(Clements, Holtzworth-Munroe, Schweinle, &
Ickes, 2007). Covell, Huss, and Langhinrich-
sen-Rohling (2007) found that higher rates of
physical assault were associated with a general
lack of understanding of others and/or an inabil-
ity to tolerate the negative emotions of others.
Recent research directly into emotion dysregu-
lation among undergraduates has found this
variable to be associated with male intimate
partner violence (Gratz & Roemer, 2004) and to
mediate relations between childhood maltreat-
ment and IPA in men but not in women (Gratz,
Paulson, Jakupcak, & Tull, 2009).
Theoretically, masculine socialization may
influence IPA directly by shaping attitudes to-
ward women and male power, but also indi-
rectly by encouraging the development of emo-
tion dysregulation. Indeed, empirical studies
suggest that male gender role socialization is
associated with the deliberate inhibition of emo-
tions that display vulnerability (e.g., Gross &
John, 1998; Jakupcak, Salters, Gratz & Roemer,
2003; Kuebli & Fivush, 1992; Tull, Jakupcak,
Paulson, & Gratz, 2007). Thus gender social-
ization may contribute to emotion dysregulation
in males by prompting the avoidance of vulner-
able emotions in favor of emotions such as
anger that are more culturally sanctioned by
masculine norms (Gratz & Roemer, 2004;
O’Neil & Harway, 1997). From this perspec-
tive, male perpetration of intimate partner
violence may reflect a maladaptive emotion reg-
ulation strategy aimed at terminating the expe-
rience of uncomfortable emotions such as anx-
iety, fear, and shame that are perceived to
threaten masculine identity (Dutton, 2007; Jak-
upcak et al., 2005; O’Neil & Harway, 1997).
More specifically, we hypothesize that abuse by
men may be understood as a strategy utilized to
defend against the perceived invalidation of
their masculine identity experienced when a
partner resists/demands change or behaves in
any way that is perceived as a threat to self-
esteem. Thus the controlling aspect of abusive
men may be seen as an attempt to self-regulate
by regulating the behavior of their partners, an
externalization of distress that serves to main-
tain adherence to masculine norms associated
with invulnerability.
The purpose of the present study is to explore
associations between emotion dysregulation,
masculine norms, and IPA in a sample of men
referred to domestic violence intervention pro-
grams. We hypothesize that (a) emotion dys-
regulation and traditional masculine norms will
be associated; (b) that in combination, these
variables will predict intimate partner abuse,
and (c) that specific masculine norms will be
associated with emotion dysregulation and IPA,
extending our knowledge of the influence of
distinct dimensions of masculinity.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited from three bat-
terer intervention programs in the Midwest.
 BRIEF REPORTS
Site 1 was located in a small city, serving
mostly rural European American and urban Af-
rican American clients. Site 2 was located in the
suburbs of a major city, serving predominantly
European American clients. Site 3 was in a
major city, serving predominantly African
American clients. Potential participants were
informed of the anonymous and voluntary na-
ture of the research.
There were 108 participants. Of the 131 men
present when surveys were distributed, 13
(10%) anonymously indicated their choice not
to participate, and nine surveys were excluded
for excessive missing data. One participant was
excluded as a multivariate outlier. The average
age of participants was 35.2 years (SD ⫽ 11.1)
and ranged from 19 to 73. The mean estimated
income for the past year was $29,510 including
one participant who reported an income of
$350,000. Twenty-seven percent of participants
reported an income under $10,000. The mean
education level was 12.3 years (SD ⫽ 2.7).
More than half of participants reported a history
of alcohol or drug abuse. The average number
of group sessions attended by each participant
was 19.7 (SD ⫽ 18.9).
Measures
ABI. The Abuse Behavior Inventory (ABI;
Shepard & Campbell, 1992) is a 29-item self-
report inventory derived via factor analysis that
measures frequency of abusive behavior. There
are 17 items measuring psychological abuse
(e.g., “Said things to scare her”) and 12 items
measuring physical abuse (e.g., “Slapped, hit, or
punched her”). Responses on a 5-point scale
range from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently), with
higher numbers indicating more frequent use of
abusive behavior. We changed the instructions
asking for frequency estimates from “during the
past 6 months” to “during the most recent year
of your relationship” so as not to exclude men
who had not been in a relationship for some
time. The authors provided evidence of con-
struct validity and reported internal consistency
estimates for men of .79 for the psychological
abuse subscale and .82 for the physical abuse
subscale. In our present sample, we used total
scores on the ABI, which had a coefficient alpha
of .91.
Because domestic violence offenders tend to
underreport abusive behaviors, especially those
235
involving physical violence (e.g., Dutton, 1995;
Saunders, 1991), we expected scores on the ABI
to be positively skewed, and planned to log
transform the variable as per previous studies
(e.g., Gratz et al., 2009; Gratz & Roemer, 2004;
Moore et al., 2008).
DERS. The Difficulties in Emotion Regu-
lation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004)
consists of 36 items that assess emotion dys-
regulation in individuals. Respondents are
asked how often each item applies to them, and
responses are scored on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always), with
higher scores indicating greater emotion dys-
regulation. The measure assesses emotion dys-
regulation across six domains derived through
factor analysis: nonacceptance of negative
emotions, difficulties controlling impulsive be-
haviors when experiencing negative emotions,
limited access to emotion regulation strategies
perceived to be effective, lack of emotional
awareness, and lack of emotional clarity. A
sample item is, “When I’m upset, I feel out of
control.” The authors provided evidence of con-
struct validity, reported an internal consistency
estimate of .93, and 2-week test–retest reliabil-
ity estimate of .88 (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). In
the present sample, internal consistency for the
DERS was .94.
CMNI. The Conformity to Masculine
Norms Inventory (CMNI; Mahalik, Locke, et
al., 2003) is a 94-item instrument designed to
assess endorsement of traditional masculine
norms. The CMNI consists of subscales derived
via factor analysis and designed to tap 11
norms. In an effort to minimize the burden to
participants, the current study used the follow-
ing six subscales because they seemed to typify
attitudes expressed by group members and ap-
peared relevant to the literature: Winning, Emo-
tional Control, Violence, Dominance, Self-
Reliance, and Power Over Women. The CMNI
employs a 4-point scale ranging from 0
(strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree), with
higher scores indicating greater endorsement of
traditional masculine norms. A sample item
from the Emotional Control subscale is, “It is
best to keep your emotions hidden.” The six
subscale scores were analyzed separately as
well as summed to obtain a single overall score
that could be used in regression analyses. The
authors of the CMNI reported internal consis-
tency of .94, test–retest reliability over a 2- to
236 BRIEF REPORTS

3-week period of .95, and provided evidence
supporting the validity of the measure (Mahalik,
Locke, et al., 2003). In our sample, internal
consistency for the six subscales as a whole was
.91, with individual subscales ranging from .69
for the four-item Dominance subscale to .86 for
the 11-item Emotional Control subscale.
Results
In accord with steps outlined by Tabachnik
and Fidell (2007), data was examined prior to
hypothesis testing. As predicted, Abuse scores
were positively skewed, with logarithmic trans-
formation effectively resolving this issue. All
other variables were normally distributed. One
multivariate outlier was deleted to increase the
generalizablity of findings. Because the pattern
of correlations between variables was consistent
across sites, we treated the data as a single
group. Demographic variables were not corre-
lated with reported Abuse, and number of ses-
sions participants had attended was not corre-
lated with any measure.
Correlations and descriptive statistics are pre-
sented in Table 1. As predicted, Emotion Dys-
regulation was significantly correlated with the
sum of six CMNI norms (r ⫽ .32, p ⬍ .01).
Two specific CMNI norms, Emotional Control
(r ⫽ .33, p ⬍ .001) and Self-Reliance (r ⫽ .35,
p ⬍ .001) were significant and accounted for the
variance shared with Emotion Dysregulation.
These results lend support to our hypotheses
that masculine norms are associated with emo-
tion dysregulation. Reported Abuse was signif-
icantly associated with both Emotion Dysregu-
lation (r ⫽ .46, p ⬍ .001), and the sum of six
CMNI norms (r ⫽ .29, p ⬍ .01). In addition, the
following specific masculine norms were asso-
ciated with reported Abuse: Dominance (r ⫽
.27, p ⬍ .01), Emotional Control (r ⫽ .23, p ⬍
.05), Self-Reliance (r ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .05), and
Power Over Women (r ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .05).
Because, theoretically, the relation between
emotion dysregulation and masculine socializa-
tion is bidirectional, and because there were no
demographic variables correlated with Abuse,
we employed simultaneous regression to test
the predictive ability of our measures. Follow-
ing Tabachnik and Fidell (2007), we report
squared semipartial correlations as a measure of
the unique variance contributed by each vari-
able. The resulting regression model was signif-
icant, F(2, 105) ⫽ 16.22, p ⬍ .001, with DERS
and the sum of six CMNI norms together ac-
counting for 24% of the variance in Abuse.
Squared semipartial correlations indicated that
DERS uniquely accounted for 15% of the vari-
ance and CMNI uniquely accounted for 2%,
with about 7% of the variance shared between
the independent variables (see Table 2). To
more fully explore associations of Abuse with
specific masculine norms, we also created a
regression model including DERS and all
CMNI subscales that correlated with Abuse.
Dominance turned out to be the only significant
predictor when entered in regression with
DERS. The resulting model, with DERS and

Table 1
Univariate Analyses and Correlations of Measures
Measure 1 2 3 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f
1. Abuse Behavior Inventory —
2. DERS .46ⴱⴱ
3. CMNI total .29ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ
3a. Emotional Control .23ⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .77ⴱⴱ
3b. Winning .16 .09 .60ⴱⴱ .19ⴱ
3c. Violence .12 .17 .70ⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ
3d. Dominance .27ⴱⴱ .18 .68ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ .63ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ
3e. Self-Reliance .23ⴱ .35ⴱⴱ .66ⴱⴱ .58ⴱⴱ .08 .35ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ
3f. Power Over Women .22ⴱ .12 .63ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱ —
M 49.5 84.0 54.6 15.0 13.5 10.4 4.5 7.4 4.0
SD 13.3 22.7 15.6 5.7 4.6 4.5 2.1 3.5 2.3
Range 29–95 38–147 9–85 0–30 1–38 0–22 0–9 0–16 0–10
Note. DERS ⫽ Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; CMNI ⫽ Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 BRIEF REPORTS
Table 2
Summary of Simultaneous Regression (SR) Analyses
Criterion Predictor variables df
1. ABI DERS 2, 105
CMNI
2. ABI DERS 2, 105
Dominance
Note. ABI ⫽ Abuse Behavior Inventory; DERS ⫽ Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; CMNI ⫽ Conformity to
Masculine Norms Inventory.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .001.
Dominance as predictors, was significant, F(2,
105) ⫽ 17.43, p ⬍ .001, and explained approx-
imately 25% of the variance in Abuse, with
DERS uniquely accounting for approximately
18%, and Dominance uniquely accounting for
about 3% (see Table 2).
Discussion
The results of this study lend support to the
hypotheses that emotion dysregulation and mas-
culine norms are associated with each other and
with intimate partner abuse. In fact, emotion
dysregulation and the masculine norm of dom-
inance accounted for about 25% of the variance
in self-reported IPA in a clinical sample of men
referred for domestic assault. Emotion dysregu-
lation was the strongest predictor of reported
abuse, uniquely accounting for about 18% of
the variance.
Masculine norms uniquely accounted for a
smaller percentage of the variance in reported
abuse, with the specific norm of dominance
accounting for about 3%. However, there also
appears to be shared variance between mascu-
line norms and emotion dysregulation in pre-
dicting IPA. Specifically, emotional control and
self-reliance were the two masculine norms as-
sociated with emotion dysregulation and with
IPA. This suggests that, in general, men who
indicate they experience difficulty managing
their emotions also endorsed beliefs that men
should not acknowledge emotions or ask for
help. Our findings suggest that the masculine
norms of emotional control and self-reliance
might influence IPA indirectly through an asso-
ciation with emotion dysregulation.
Although a great deal of further research is
needed, our findings appear to support the idea
that men who abuse their partners may be em-
ploying a maladaptive emotion regulation strat-
237
␤ t ⌬R2 SR SR2
ⴱⴱⴱ
.42 4.61 .24 .39 .15
.15 1.70 .15 .02
.43 5.01 .25ⴱⴱⴱ .42 .18
.19 2.19 .19 .03
egy in which they tend to externalize distress
and strive to regulate their partners’ behavior
rather than more directly addressing their inter-
nal experience of emotional distress. This dy-
namic would represent a strategy that is to some
degree sanctioned by the traditional masculine
norms of dominance, self-reliance, and emo-
tional control. Acknowledging vulnerability—a
necessary step in the process of emotion regu-
lation— on the other hand, might be perceived
as a threat to masculine identity and self-
esteem. Clinically, this suggests that interven-
tions designed to teach men to acknowledge,
express, and take responsibility for their own
vulnerable emotions, while broadening their
sense of masculine identity might be helpful in
reducing intimate partner abuse. Dialectical be-
havior therapy strategies aimed at increasing
distress tolerance and emotion regulation skills
might also be particularly effective.
There are several limits to the present study.
To begin with, it is exploratory in nature and
our sample was insufficiently large to ensure
generalizability across the diversity of men who
abuse their partners. The study was also corre-
lational in design, and thus causality cannot be
inferred, and the findings do not provide support
for the proposed bidirectional influence of emo-
tion dysregulation and masculine norms. In ad-
dition, we collected self-reports of abuse and
the other variables, without checking them
against partners’ reports or police records.
Despite limitations, this study makes an im-
portant contribution as the first to provide data
regarding the apparent role of both emotion
dysregulation and masculine norms in IPA in a
clinical sample. Findings suggest the impor-
tance of emotion dysregulation as a risk factor
for male IPA and extend our knowledge of
specific domains of masculinity associated with
abuse.
238 BRIEF REPORTS
References
Bornstein, R. F. (2006). The complex relationship
between dependency and domestic violence: Con-
verging psychological factors and social forces.
American Psychologist, 61, 595– 606.
Clements, K., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Schweinle,
W., & Ickes, W. (2007). Empathic accuracy of
intimate partners in violent versus non-violent re-
lationships. Personal Relationships, 14, 369 –388.
Covell, C. N., Huss, M. T., & Langhinrichsen-
Rohling, J. (2007). Empathic deficits among male
batterers: A multidimensional approach. Journal
of Family Violence, 22, 165–174.
David, D. S., & Brannon, R. (1976). The forty-nine
percent majority: The male sex role. Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley.
Dutton, D. G. (1995). A scale for measuring propen-
sity for abusiveness. Journal of Family Vio-
lence, 10, 203–221.
Dutton, D. G. (2007). The abusive personality: Vio-
lence and control in intimate relationships (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Good, G. E., Heppner, M. J., Hillenbrand-Gunn, T.,
& Wang, L. (1995). Sexual and psychological vi-
olence: An exploratory study of predictors in col-
lege men. Journal of Men’s Studies, 4, 59 –71.
Gratz, K. L., Paulson, A., Jakupcak, M., & Tull,
M. T. (2009). Exploring the relationship between
childhood maltreatment and intimate partner
abuse: Gender differences in the mediating role of
emotion dysregulation. Violence and Victims, 24,
68 – 82.
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional
assessment of emotion regulation and dysregula-
tion: Development, factor structure, and initial val-
idation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation
Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 26, 41–54.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping the
domain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence for
a hierarchical model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 170 –191.
Hines, D. A. (2008). Borderline personality traits and
intimate partner aggression: An international mul-
tisite, cross-gender analysis. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 32, 290 –302.
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., Lisak, D., & Roemer, L. (2002). The
role of masculine ideology and masculine gender
role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship
violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3,
97–106.
Jakupcak, M., Salters, K., Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L.
(2003). Masculinity and emotionality: An investi-
gation of men’s primary and secondary emotional
responding. Sex Roles, 49, 111–120.
Jakupcak, M., Tull, M. T., & Roemer, L. (2005).
Masculinity, shame, and fear of emotions as pre-
dictors of men’s expressions of anger and hostility.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 275–284.
Jasinski, J. L., & Williams, M. (1998). Partner vio-
lence: A comprehensive review of 20 years of
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kuebli, J., & Fivush, R. (1992). Gender differences
in parent-child conversations about past emotions.
Sex Roles, 27, 683– 698.
Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men.
Professional Psychology, 27, 259 –265.
Mahalik, J. R., Aldarondo, E., Gilbert-Gokhale, S., &
Shore, E. (2005). The role of insecure attachment
and gender role stress in predicting controlling
behaviors in men who batter. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 20, 617– 631.
Mahalik, J. R., Good, G. E., & Englar-Carlson, M.
(2003). Masculinity scripts, presenting concerns,
and help seeking: Implications for practice and
training. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 34, 123–131.
Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B., Ludlow, L., Diemer, M.,
Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003).
Development of the Conformity to Masculine
Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculin-
ity, 4, 3–25.
Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2005). A review of the
literature on masculinity and partner violence. Psy-
chology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 46 – 61.
Moore, T. M., Stuart, G. L., McNulty, J. K., Addis,
M. E., Cordova, J. V., & Temple, J. R. (2008).
Domains of masculine gender role stress and intimate
partner violence in a clinical sample of violent men.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9, 82– 89.
O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Patterns of gender-role conflict
and strain: Sexism and fear of femininity in men’s
lives. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 203–210.
O’Neil, J. M., & Harway, M. (1997). Multivariate
model explaining men’s violence toward women.
Violence Against Women, 3, 182–203.
Pleck, J. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pleck, J. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An
update. In R. Levant & W. Pollack (Eds.), A new
psychology of men (pp. 11–32). New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Saunders, D. G. (1991). Procedures for adjusting
self-reports of violence for social desirability bias.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 336 –334.
Schumacher, J. A., Feldbau-Kohn, S., Slep, A. M., &
Heyman, R. E. (2001). Risk factors for male-to-
female partner physical abuse. Aggression and Vi-
olent Behavior, 6, 281–352.
Schwartz, J. P., Waldo, M., & Daniel, D. (2005).
Gender-role conflict and self-esteem: Factors
 BRIEF REPORTS
associated with partner abuse in court-referred men.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 109 –113.
Shepard, M. F., & Campbell, J. A. (1992). The Abu-
sive Behavior Inventory: A measure of psycholog-
ical and physical abuse. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 7, 291–305.
Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B.,
& Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse
perpetration and victimization risk factors: A
meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Be-
havior, 10, 65–98.
Stuart, G. L. (1998). Impulsivity as a predictor of
marital violence: Testing a mediation model. Doc-
toral dissertation, Indiana University.
Stuart, G. L., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2005). Test-
ing a theoretical model of the relationship between
impulsivity, mediating variables, and husband vi-
olence. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 291–303.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using
multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Al-
lyn & Bacon.
239
Tull, M. T., Jakupcak, M., Paulson, A., & Gratz,
K. L. (2007). The role of emotional expressivity
and experiential avoidance in the relationship be-
tween posttraumatic stress disorder symptom se-
verity and aggressive behavior among men ex-
posed to interpersonal violence. Anxiety, Stress, &
Coping, 20, 337–351.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). Extent, nature
and consequences of intimate partner violence.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Winters, J., Clift, R. J., & Dutton, D. G. (2004). An
exploratory study of emotional intelligence and
domestic abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 19,
255–267.
Received April 29, 2009
Revision received August 27, 2009
Accepted August 28, 2009 䡲