For more information, see Hunger, Anger, and Intimate Relationships.
For more information, see Hunger, Anger, and Intimate Relationships.
Can being “hangry” (hungry and angry) have an effect on intimate relationships? In a recent study done by Bushman and colleagues (2014), researchers looked at glucose levels and aggression levels. Their research suggests that glucose levels affect aggressive impulses and behaviors. Over the course of 21 days, 107 couples took part in a four part experiment. Initially participants took a 10 item questionnaire. Then for 21 consecutive days, the couples measured the glucose levels before breakfast and before bed. The participants were also given a voodoo doll that represented their spouse along with 51 pins. After the 21 days the couples returned to the lab to compete against their spouse, actually a computer; in this competition the winner got to blast their spouse with loud uncomfortable noises, in which they controlled the intensity and duration.
Their findings: lower levels of glucose predicted and increase in aggressive impulses (i.e., more voodoo doll pins and louder and longer uncomfortable noise). Ultimately, this has to do with self-control, the ability to resist an urge or desire. Self-control is a limited resource that depletes over time when you have to resist or override aggressive impulses. One way to prevent depletion of this self-control tank is to keep your glucose levels up.
By Katie Bright
Katie is majoring in Psychology and Human Development. A senior, she plans on graduating in Spring of 2015 and taking some time off school before returning to earn a Masters degree.
It is far from uncommon to hear of dating aggression among college couples. Recently, a research team led by Erica Woodin, an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Victoria and a registered Clinical Psychologist in British Colombia, Canada, published a study on dating aggression in emerging adulthood.
Their study looked at the roles of relationships along with individual attitudes and emotional states to predict the probability that one will commit an act of dating aggression during emerging adulthood. The researchers predicted that there would be a link between depressive symptoms and attitudes that condone aggression with individual’s relationship bonds and acts of partner aggression. More specifically, they measured cooperation, psychological aggression, physical assault, sexual force, and injury.
Sixty-five college couples completed a two-hour assessment on the history and route of their relationship. Fifty couples were placed under the category of “aggressive couples,” and showed more psychological and mild physical abuse in comparison to the “non aggressive couples”. Characteristics of these “aggressive” couples included lower female relationship satisfaction, weaker relationship bonds, higher condoning attitudes of aggression from males, and greater symptoms of depression in females. The “aggressive couples” also participated in an intervention designed to reduce partner aggression while the “non-aggressive couples” did not have to complete any further tasks.
Woodin shared, “The primary message of this study is that aggression in college dating couples is most likely when the relationship bond is weak and partners are experiencing symptoms of depression, but that when men in particular believe that it’s ok to be physically aggressive against women, they are at even greater risk of being physically aggressive against their partners. She continued, “There may be a gender difference in which men’s aggression can be predicted by their pro-aggression attitudes whereas women’s aggression is better predicted by their mood state and the quality of their relationship.”
In addition, Woodin felt passionate about the necessity of educating young men in particular. She illustrated this feeling by saying that, “Hitting women is never ok and that we also need to help young men and women learn healthy strategies for handling emotions in their relationship so that fights don’t escalate into aggression.”
There is good news that came from this study as well. The researchers found that by following up on the couples who received feedback and a brief assessment regarding their aggression were “significantly less physically aggressive with their partner in the following nine months.” They also concluded that “it is possible for men and women to become less aggressive in their relationships if there is awareness and motivation to change the aggressive behaviors.”
By Amarra Bricco
Amarra is majoring in Psychology and minoring in Human Development and Spanish. A senior, she plans on graduating in the Spring of 2014 and attending graduate school to earn a Ph.D in Clinical Psychology.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a widespread problem. Due to the aggressive nature of these acts, it stands to reason that anger would contribute to IPV. A recent study by Dr. Sara Elkins and colleagues in Psychology of Violence sought to evaluate the link between recent anger and likelihood of IPV. According to Elkins, “[a]nger interventions fell out of favor in partner violence intervention programs in the mid-90’s in response to claims that anger management interventions for domestic violence infer blame on the victim, promote perpetrator denial because they don’t account for abuse related to exerting power and control, and may place female partners at greater risk for revictimization.” Many local and state advocates for victims of domestic violence have removed anger-focused treatments in a reaction to these assumptions – but this decision may have been too hasty.
No act is committed in a vacuum and as such there are multiple factors that contribute to IPV perpetration. IPV is most likely when the individual possesses strong instigation (exposure to behaviors by a partner that typically “provoke” an urge to aggress), strong impellance (trait or situational factors that prepare the urge to aggress when meeting an instigating factor), and weak inhibition (trait or situational factor that will increase the likelihood that the individual will suppress the urge to aggress). Past research has also suggested that younger age, greater relationship dissatisfaction, and shorter length of relationship have been related to increased rates of IPV. To add to this research, Elkins also examined any possible gender differences that existed.
In Elkins’ current study, participants were given a handheld computer on which they completed a daily-electronic diary assessment for two months. It measured relationship satisfaction, daily anger, and occurrence of aggression toward intimate partners (i.e., psychological, physical assault, and sexual coercion). Recent anger was correlated with all forms of IPV. Younger individuals are more likely than older individuals to engage in psychological aggression at moderate levels of anger. Individuals in longer relationship were also more likely to use psychological aggression than physical aggression or sexual coercion. The rates of IPV occurring in the presence of anger were comparative between genders. The study also found that even though recent anger and relationship dissatisfaction increased the likelihood of IPV, the combination of both of these factors does not have a cumulative effect.
Studies such as these have important information for the social policies we create. Anger is related to IPV in some cases and as such, should be part of intervention programs for those who may benefit from anger management strategies. According to recent research, about half of the states with imposed guidelines for intervention programs for domestic violence prohibit anger-focused interventions. The Alabama Counsel against Domestic Violence (2009) states that “men who batter use anger, alcohol/drug use, and stress as excuses for their abusive behaviors.” Statements such as this may close possible avenues to prevent future IPV. Elkins also adds that “[b]ased on anger ratings, electronic momentary technology could be used to provide in-the-moment coping for anger through scheduled behavioral and cognitive strategies.”
By Sarah Bohman
Sarah is a senior with a major in Psychology and a minor in Human Development at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. After graduation, she plans on attending graduate school to earn a PhD in Clinical Psychology after graduating.
Considering how widespread bullying is in today’s society it is crucial to examine, not only the long-term consequences of bullying, but also how bullying progresses over time. New research in Child Developmenthas discovered additional information on how the cycle of bullying may progress in very young children. Dr. Jamie Ostrov set out to discover ”if what children receive from their peers (i.e. peer victimization or peer harassment) is associated with what they display to their peers in the future.” Specifically, he looked at both the victims of bullying (i.e., the children who were picked on) and the children who bully or harass to find whether the type of aggression received affected future victim displays of aggression (i.e. would someone who is physically bullied be more likely to show physical aggression, relational aggression, or both).
In his research, Dr. Ostrov sampled more than 100 children between the ages of 3 and 5 and found that children who experienced peer victimization were more likely to become aggressive. Additionally, Children who had been victims of physical aggression were more likely to become physically aggressive and children who had been victims of relational aggression were more likely to display relational aggression in the future (e.g., taking a toy away, or saying, “You are not my friend”). According to Dr. Ostrov’s research, the reason that experiencing a certain type of aggression leads to that type of aggression has to do with social learning in that the children are simply doing what they see. That social learning can be the result of experiencing the aggression or from simply observing aggression.
Dr. Ostrov also notes that it is important for teachers and administrators to intervene when bullying occurs, as bullying is widespread and can lead to serious psychological and social problems. He suggests that caregivers or teachers help the victimized child focus on coping with the aggression rather than focusing on retaliating against the aggression, which is what often happens. Also observed in Dr. Ostrov’s study was that victims of relational aggression were more likely, not only to be relationally aggressive in the future, but also to face more social rejection. However, he acknowledges that more research is needed to better understand these relationships and he is continuing his longitudinal research on these long-term effects.
By Tonya Filz
Tonya Filz is a senior Psychology major at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. She has a minor in Human Development and plans on attending graduate school to earn a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology.