Cited by 178Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceBullying, Victimization, and AggressionAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

Using I³ theory to clarify when dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration.

Finkel, Eli J., DeWall, C. Nathan, Slotter, Erica B., McNulty, James K., Pond, Richard S., Atkins, David C.·2012·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Deriving hypotheses from I³ theory (pronounced "I-cubed theory"), the authors conducted 4 studies to clarify the circumstances under which dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration. Consistent with the hypothesis that this link would be stronger when inhibitory processes are weak rather than strong, Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that dispositional aggressiveness was an especially robust predictor of IPV perpetration among people experiencing self-regulatory strength depletion. Consistent with the hypothesis that this Dispositional Aggressiveness × Inhibition interaction effect would be stronger when instigating triggers are strong rather than weak, Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated that dispositional aggressiveness was an especially robust predictor of IPV perpetration among people characterized by both weak inhibition (poor executive control in Study 3, depletion in Study 4) and strong instigation (provocation in both studies). These effects were robust in studies employing experimental and nonexperimental designs, cross-sectional and longitudinal methods, dating and married participants, self-report and behavioral measures of IPV perpetration, and diverse operationalizations of all constructs. Discussion emphasizes the importance of incorporating instigating, impelling, and inhibiting processes into theoretical and empirical analyses of IPV perpetration.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0025651

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., McNulty, J. K., Pond, R. S., & Atkins, D. C.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • Villanova University (US)
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2012-03
Volume
102
Issue
3
Pages
533-549
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2107978776
Cited by
178
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
8.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (BCS-719780)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
intimate partner violence, violence perpetration, inhibitory control, provocation, incitement, executive function, dating violence, married couples
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Aggression, Female, Humans, Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Marriage, Models, Psychological, Personality Inventory, Temperament, Domestic Violence, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review