599656
research-article2015
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260515599656Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceKarlén et al.
Article
Alcohol Intoxicated
Witnesses: Perception
of Aggression and Guilt
in Intimate Partner
Violence
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
1–27
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0886260515599656
jiv.sagepub.com
Malin Hildebrand Karlén,1
Emma Roos af Hjelmsäter,1 Claudia Fahlke,1
Pär Anders Granhag,1,2
and Anna Söderpalm Gordh3
Abstract
Many witnesses to violent crimes are alcohol intoxicated, but research is lacking
regarding how alcohol affects their perception of aggression and guilt. This study
investigated to what extent alcohol intoxicated eyewitnesses differed from
sober witnesses regarding how aggressive and guilty they perceived the involved
parts in an intimate partner violence (IPV) situation. Eighty-seven healthy men
(n = 44) and women (n = 43) were randomized to an alcohol group (0.7 g/kg) or
a non-alcohol group. In a laboratory setting, alcoholic/non-alcoholic drinks were
consumed before viewing a film depicting IPV between a man and a woman.
Ten min after viewing, in an interview, the participants rated how aggressive and
guilty they perceived the involved parts to be. Alcohol intoxicated participants
perceived both parts’ physically aggressive behavior as comparatively less
severe, but their neutral behavior as more hostile. Sober witnesses perceived
1Department
of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Police University College, Oslo, Norway
3The Section of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology,
Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
2Norwegian
Corresponding Author:
Malin Hildebrand Karlén, Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Haraldsgatan
1, Box 500, S-405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
2
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
the man to be the most guilty part, whereas intoxicated witnesses distributed
guilt more evenly. Alcohol had a strong but complex impact on the perception
of aggression in IPV (i.e., heightened during the neutral interaction and lowered
during physical aggression). These results may be explained by the cognitive
consequences of alcohol’s anxiety-dampening effects. Regarding the asymmetric
difference in perceived guilt, stereotypical expectations of gender-appropriate
behavior in an IPV situation may need to be considered.
Keywords
alcohol, intoxication, eyewitness, perception, aggression, guilt, intimate
partner violence
It is well known that alcohol negatively affects perception and memory
(Curran, 2006). Research has shown, for example, that alcohol intoxication disrupts attention, information processing, memory, and planning, as
well as influences perception and assessments made during intoxication
(e.g., Curran, 2006; Denton & Krebs, 1990). Furthermore, it is also well
documented that witnesses to violent crimes are commonly alcohol intoxicated (Evans, Schreiber Compo, & Russano, 2009; Palmer, Flowe,
Takarangi, & Humphries, 2013).
A very common violent crime is intimate partner violence (IPV: “physical,
sexual and/or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse,”
see Statens Offentliga Utredningar [Official reports of the Swedish
Government] (SOU), 2006, p. 65; WHO/London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine, 2010). IPV is considered to be a serious health problem
(Wilt & Olson, 1996), suffers from severe underreporting, and is positively
correlated with alcohol consumption (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012;
Murdoch, Pihl, & Ross, 1991; Wilkinson & Hamerschlag, 2005). Although
alcohol is not the sole cause of IPV, it is considered a catalyst for the violent
behavior in general, including IPV (Brottsförebyggande Rådet [The Swedish
National Concil for Crime Prevention] (BRÅ), 2009; Wilkinson &
Hamerschlag, 2005). IPV often happens during weekends and holidays, and
although the majority of instances occur in the home without adult witnesses
present, an outbreak of IPV outside the victims/offenders residence (where
the probability of it being observed by other adults is considerably higher) is
not uncommon (estimated to between 13% and 23 %; BRÅ, 2009; Dobash &
Dobash, 1984; Greenfield et al., 1998; Gustafsson & Lundberg, 2004;
Wilkinson & Hamerschlag, 2005). Furthermore, alcohol is associated with
the locations and points in time where IPV may be observed by third-part
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
3
Karlén et al.
witnesses (i.e., outside or inside the parts’ residence during evenings/nighttime especially at weekends/holidays) in milieus such as house parties, in
parks, or in other public places (Balvig & Kyvsgaard, 2006; Gustafsson &
Lundberg, 2004). The processing of IPV cases is difficult, and a contributing
factor is that the involved parts (and possible witnesses) were intoxicated at
the time (Gustafsson & Lundberg, 2004). A dynamic developmental systems
perspective (see Capaldi et al., 2012) on IPV is used in the present article,
where interaction patterns within the dyad are emphasized, but it also takes
into account the typical pattern of physical violence in IPV (among heterosexual couples) observed by legal practitioners where men’s physical aggression have the most severe consequences and women’s physical aggression is
mostly defensive (Strack, n.d.).
It is reasonable to assume that intoxication affects how IPV is perceived,
because alcohol has been shown to increase propensity to harbor aggressive
attitudes; decrease anxiety, which results in greater displays of aggressive
behavior; decrease behavior inhibition; and cause greater acceptance of antinormative behavior (Bushman & Cooper, 1990; Ito, Miller, & Pollock, 1996;
Sayette, 1993). In sum, alcohol induces changes in attention, memory, and
emotional response, which require that legal practitioners and health care
professionals are informed about how alcohol may affect witnesses’ perception of aggression and guilt in IPV scenarios. Despite this, to our knowledge,
no experimental study has investigated how alcohol intoxication affects eyewitnesses’ perception of aggression and guilt in an IPV scenario.
Dual Process Theory and the General Effects of
Alcohol on Information Processing
Decisions made under alcohol intoxication are more immediately selfserving, and more often result in loss of resources (e.g., time and money) and
risk-taking behaviors that may cause physical harm (e.g., aggressive behavior, illicit drug use; Carmona-Perera, Verdejo-Garcia, Young, MolinaFernandez, & Pérez-García, 2012; Denton & Krebs, 1990; Fromme,
D’Amico, & Katz, 1999; George, Rogers, & Duka, 2005; Sayette, Kirchner,
Moreland, Levine, & Travis, 2004). A cognitive explanation for this may be
found within the dual process framework of cognition (Chaiken & Trope,
1999; Kahneman, 2011; Kahneman & Fredrick, 2005; Tversky & Kahneman,
1973), where System 1 (i.e., intuitive, automatic cognitive processes) can be
assumed to be more involved in making decisions during alcohol intoxication
than System 2 (i.e., analytic, effortful cognitive processes). Therefore, people
are more likely when intoxicated to make decisions based on approximations
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
4
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
and general heuristic rules, than to thoroughly search memory for relevant
facts and weigh advantages and disadvantages before making a decision.
Direct experimental evidence of an increase in heuristic processing of
social information due to intoxication is still lacking, but research from both
forensic psychology and neuropsychology support such an assumption. For
example, research has shown that use of heuristic routes and stereotypes is
more likely when cognitive capacity is limited (Ask & Landström, 2010;
Hasher & Zacks, 1979), and limited cognitive capacity has in turn been established as a feature of intoxication (Eckhardt et al., 1998; Koelega, 1995;
Tzambazis & Stough, 2000). Alcohol has detrimental effects on a number of
functions involved in analytic information processing, such as cognitiveabstracting capacity, attentive processing, planning, verbal fluency, and
memory (Hashtroudi, Parker, DeLisi, Wyatt, & Mutter, 1984; Hull & Bond,
1986; Peterson, Rothfleisch, Zelazo, & Pihl, 1990; Sayette, 1993). These
negative consequences for cognition restrict capacity to engage in controlled,
effortful cognitive processing, but have little impact on highly practiced,
automatic processing (Hasher & Zacks, 1979; Steele & Josephs, 1988). This,
in turn, results in processing of fewer cues and less thorough processing of
each cue. The perceived information is more poorly understood, because an
alcohol-induced decrease in controlled processing reduces the ability to integrate and relate incoming information to existing knowledge. In light of these
results, it has been suggested that alcohol intoxication increases reliance on
general heuristic processing (Hashtroudi et al., 1984; Sayette, 1993). It has
also been proposed that intoxicated individuals tend to rely more on automatic schemas (a basic feature of System 1), such as stereotypes of genderappropriate behavior during interpersonal conflict (Ogle & Miller, 2004).
Impact of Alcohol’s Anxiety-Reducing Effects on
Cognition
Because emotional activation heavily influences perception and assessment
of information (Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, & Johnson, 2000; Gardner,
Brownell, Wapner, & Michelow, 1983), a purely cognitive perspective such
as the dual process framework is not alone sufficient to explain the effects of
alcohol in the present context. A crucial factor to consider is how alcohol and
anxiety, separately and in interaction, affect the perception of aggression
(for a discussion, see Ito et al., 1996).
The alcohol myopia theory has been frequently used to explain the effects
of alcohol on attention and anxiety (e.g., Josephs & Steele, 1990; Schreiber
Compo et al., 2012). Josephs and Steele (1990) proposed that alcohol
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
5
Karlén et al.
narrows attention capacity in both time and space, thereby reducing anxiety
for a forthcoming anxiety-provoking event as the intoxicated person is more
easily distracted from thinking about the event. Hence, Josephs and Steele
(1990) proposed that feelings of anxiety are cognitively mediated through
focused attention, not by automatic effects of appraisal. However, Sayette
(1993) presented evidence that anxiety-reducing effects of alcohol are consciously mediated through attention and through non-conscious neurochemical effects that dampen the intensity of felt anxiety. According to Sayette’s
(1993) appraisal-disruption model, alcohol’s anxiety-dampening effects are
caused by lowered emotional activation during stress, less available attention
resources (i.e., ability to perceive information), and diminished capacity of
association (i.e., ability to link incoming information to existing knowledge
and predict harmful consequences). These assumptions have been supported
by both neuropharmacological and cognitive research, which has shown that
alcohol has strong sedative and anxiety-dampening effects, as well as causes
diminished capacity for sustained attention and association of incoming
information to stored information (Eckhardt et al., 1998; Josephs & Steele,
1990; Sayette, 1999; Sher et al., 2007; Söderpalm, 2011; Steele & Josephs,
1988). In the present study, the appraisal-disruption model is used because it
encompasses alcohol’s effects on both the automatic and consciously directed
cognitive processes in increasing the reliance on automatic processes and
thereby lessens the use of consciously directed processes.
Perception of Aggression in Social Interaction and
Guilt in IPV
Intoxicated witnesses to IPV are often located in a social drinking environment, where they are involved in and observe social interaction (Gustafsson
& Lundberg, 2004). Hence, in addition to the general effects of alcohol,
specific research on perceptions of aggression and guilt in social interactions
during intoxication must be considered when examining the effects of alcohol on witness statements of IPV.
Alcohol and Perception of Aggression in Social Interaction
Multiple laboratory-based studies, field studies, and reviews have shown a
relationship between alcohol and an increased experience and display of
aggressive attitudes and behavior (Bushman & Cooper, 1990; Ogle & Miller,
2004; Pihl & Sutton, 2009; Taylor & Chermack, 1993). It is well established
that alcohol tends to increase the likelihood of harboring/displaying aggressive
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
6
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
attitudes and behavior in general, and to increase the risk of retaliation and
escalation of aggression (Ito et al., 1996; Taylor & Chermack, 1993).
Furthermore, research has shown that alcohol intoxication may distort social
information and increase the salience of hostile/provocative cues (Clements &
Schumacher, 2010). Importantly, alcohol intoxication can both lower the perception of danger in a risky situation (Bushman & Cooper, 1990; Taylor &
Chermack, 1993) and create a heightened perception of aggression in another
person’s behavior during a neutral interaction (Clements & Schumacher, 2010;
Ogle & Miller, 2004). These effects have been attributed to alcohol’s anxietydampening properties that may cause less inhibited behavior, increased risktaking, and anti-normative behavior in situations that would be perceived as
frightening or uncomfortable when in a sober state (see appraisal-disruption
model, Eckhardt et al., 1998; Ito et al., 1996; Parrott, Gallagher, & Zeichner,
2012; Sayette, 1993; Sayette et al., 2004). Accordingly, the general threshold
for aggressive reactions is lowered in an intoxicated state, which makes an
individual comparatively more prone to perceive hostility and to react with
aggression (Ito et al., 1996; Parrott et al., 2012; Pihl & Peterson, 1995; Pihl,
Peterson, & Lau, 1993). In other words, due to reduced anxiety, an intoxicated
person may perceive an aggressive response to an actual threat as less dangerous than if he or she was in a sober state, because he or she is less fearful of the
consequences of his or her own or other peoples’ aggressive behavior (Bushman
& Cooper, 1990; Parrott et al., 2012).
Alcohol-induced increase of aggressive attitudes and behaviors has been
proposed to be moderated by gender, but the results are mixed. Ogle and
Miller (2004) showed that alcohol intoxicated men were more likely to interpret ambiguous social interactions as hostile, compared with women and
sober counterparts. However, a meta-study on alcohol and aggression (within
an experimental aggression paradigm) showed that when intoxicated, both
men and women behaved more aggressively toward another person
compared with when in a sober state, and that both intoxicated men and
women behaved more aggressively toward a woman compared with when
the target person was male (Bushman & Cooper, 1990).
Perception of Guilt in IPV Situations
The perception of a perpetrator’s and/or victim’s guilt in IPV situations has
been studied extensively in non-intoxicated witnesses, and in these studies,
alcohol and/or drug intoxication of the perpetrator/victim has frequently been
manipulated. In brief, sober witnesses tend to perceive sober female victims of
IPV to be at least partially guilty, and to deserve some blame for the aggression exerted against them (Stewart & Maddren, 1997). Furthermore, sober
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
7
Karlén et al.
persons tend to attribute more blame to female victims if portrayed as intoxicated, than if portrayed as sober (Hirschel & Hutchison, 2011; Richardson &
Campbell, 1982; Sperry & Siegel, 2011). However, to our knowledge, these
results have not been replicated with alcohol intoxicated witnesses, which is
important because IPV may occur in locations where witnesses are under the
influence of alcohol (Gustafsson & Lundberg, 2004). The focus of the present
study was to examine how witnesses to an IPV scenario distribute guilt among
the involved parts.
The Present Study
There is a large body of research on alcohol and aggression, as well as on
perception of guilt in relation to IPV. However, to our knowledge, no previous study has focused on the effects of alcohol on IPV witnesses’ perception
of the involved parts’ aggression and guilt. Therefore, we examined the effect
of alcohol on witnesses’ perception of displayed levels of verbal and physical
aggression, and how alcohol affected the distribution of guilt among the
involved parts. The present study was conducted in a laboratory setting where
participants, after consuming drinks containing alcohol or no alcohol, viewed
a film depicting IPV between a man and a woman in a home environment.
Critically, the interaction escalated from neutral to a verbal quarrel and to
physical violence.
Based on the appraisal-disruption model, it was predicted that alcohol
intoxicated witnesses would perceive the displayed verbal aggression
(Hypothesis 1a) and physical aggression (Hypothesis 1b) as less severe than
sober witnesses. Based on previous empirical findings (Ogle & Miller, 2004)
and alcohol’s anxiety-dampening effects (Ito et al., 1996; Parrott et al., 2012;
Sayette et al., 2004), alcohol intoxicated witnesses were predicted to perceive
the aggression as comparatively more severe with respect to the parts’ neutral
interaction (Hypothesis 2). Based on the assumption that alcohol increases
use of heuristic processing and decreases use of effortful processing, as predicted by the appraisal-disruption model and dual process theory (Chaiken &
Trope, 1999; Kahneman & Fredrick, 2005), it was predicted that intoxicated
witnesses would distribute guilt more evenly between the man and woman,
compared with sober witnesses (Hypothesis 3). In addition, potential differences between male and female witnesses in relation to all of the above
dependent variables were examined. Concerning the impact of gender on the
perception of aggression and guilt in an intoxicated state, no hypotheses were
formed because previous research is inconclusive (regarding aggression) or
lacking (regarding guilt; Bushman & Cooper, 1990; Ogle & Miller, 2004;
Wells, Mihic, Tremblay, Graham, & Demers, 2008).
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
8
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Method
Participant Recruitment and Screening
Eighty-seven healthy, social drinking participants (44 men, 43 women; 19-32
years; mainly university students) were recruited via posters at departments of
University of Gothenburg. Initial eligibility was established in a screening
interview (approx. 5-20 min), conducted by the first author or a research nurse
via telephone. Participants were required to be between 19 and 40 years of
age, to take no medication, and to have no alcohol or drug addiction or dependence. Those who passed the first screening interview were called to the laboratory in groups of five to seven for a more extensive screening (approx. 1 hr),
which included a medical examination, a psychiatric screening (Symptom
Checklist 90 [SCL-90]; Derogatis, 1983), and an alcohol consumption screening (The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT]; Babor, HigginsBiddle, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001). In addition, they completed a personality
inventory (Health-relevant Personality 5 Inventory, HP5i) and a more general
health questionnaire with sections on lifetime and current socioeconomic status, alcohol/drug use, and experience of violence. The HP5i is modeled after
the five-factor model (FFM) and consists of five aspects represented by four
items each (α level for twin sample/clinical sample, corresponding FFM factor
and representative example of item content in parenthesis): hedonic capacity
(α = .54/0.65; extraversion; “I think life is filled with interesting things”),
impulsivity (α = .66/0.76; conscientiousness; “I act on the spur of the
moment”), negative affectivity (α = .69/0.70; neuroticism; “I feel uncomfortable and uneasy without apparent reason”), alexithymia (α = .70/0.61; openness to experience; “I don’t understand other’s feelings”), and antagonism
(α = .65/0.67; agreeableness; “Someone who offends me can count on trouble”). All items were rated on a 4-point scale with the following alternatives:
not at all correct, not especially correct, somewhat correct, precisely correct
(for more information regarding HP5i, see Petter Gustavsson, Jönsson, Linder,
& Weinryb, 2003). Exclusion criteria at the second screening stage were current problems that required medication or could be aggravated by alcohol
(e.g., ulcer); current Axis 1 psychiatric disorder (American Psychiatric
Association, 1994) or history of psychosis; current or history of alcohol/drug
abuse or dependence; lack of fluency in Swedish; and currently working night
shifts or having a body mass index <19 or >26. On this occasion, written consent to participate was signed, and participants who met all the above mentioned criteria booked a time to complete the study. Reminders to eat before
arriving at the laboratory were sent via email the day before participation. All
details about the procedure were given in the informed consent and no structured
debriefing protocol was used. However, after the interview, all participants were
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
9
Karlén et al.
given the opportunity to ask questions and all were given contact information
to be able to ask questions later. The study was approved by the Regional
Ethic Committee in Gothenburg, Sweden.
Design and Procedure
An experimental between-groups design—2 (alcohol intoxicated vs. sober) ×
2 (male vs. female)—was used.
The alcohol dosage was 0.7 g/kg, which was expected to result in a BAC
level of 0.07. The 43 females and 44 males were randomized to the alcohol or
non-alcohol group, but an even gender dispersion between the groups was
ensured (alcohol condition: n = 44, 22 men, 22 women; non-alcohol condition:
n = 43, 22 men, 21 women). The independent variables were alcohol intoxication and gender. The dependent variables were ratings of perceived aggression
(in a neutral, verbally aggressive and physically aggressive context), experienced unpleasantness, and distribution of guilt between a man and a woman for
the outcome of an IPV situation in a home environment witnessed on film.
The laboratory, located at the Addiction Biology Unit (Section of
Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology),
Sahlgrenska University Hospital, University of Gothenburg, was furnished to
mimic a living room (sofa, coffee table, lounge chairs, TV screen, paintings,
bookshelf containing sculptures and books). To mimic a social drinking setting, the subjects participated in groups of two to three. When the participants
arrived at the laboratory, their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was measured with a portable breathalyzer model (Alert J5, Alcohol Countermeasure
Systems Corp., Canada, 2006). After this, they were weighed, given overall
information about the procedure, and informed whether or not their group
would consume alcoholic drinks. Second, the participants consumed their
drinks (alcohol condition: solution of 0.7 g/kg alcohol, type Absolute Vodka
40%, mixed with pulp-free orange juice; non-alcohol condition: pulp-free
orange juice, amount based on body weight) during 15 min of social interaction with other participants under supervision of the experiment leader. Five
min after consumption of alcohol, BAC was measured again, and was measured every 15 min after this until the end of the experiment. Twenty min
after start of consumption (i.e., 5 min after their BAC was measured for the
second time), the film depicting IPV was viewed in silence on a TV screen
(the distance between sofa and TV was 3 meters). The film was followed by
an individually conducted, 10-min filler task. When the filler task was completed, each participant was taken separately to an adjacent room and interviewed about the event. During the interview, they rated their perception of
the man and woman regarding the level of aggression they displayed and how
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
10
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
much guilt they assigned to each part for the situation’s violent conclusion.
After participation, subjects in the non-alcohol group left the laboratory by
themselves and subjects in the alcohol group went by taxi to their home
address. Compensation for participation was £35 or 3 cinema tickets.
Material
Film. The film (11.5 min) depicted IPV between a man and woman in a home
environment and portrayed three distinct patterns of social interaction between
the parts: An emotionally neutral conversation turned into verbal aggression
and ended in physical violence (previously used in Hildebrand Karlén, Roos
af Hjelmsäter, Fahlke, Granhag, & Söderpalm Gordh, 2015). Each pattern was
displayed during 3 min and 50 s. During the first stage, the couple interacted
in a neutral fashion, discussing their day and economic situation while sitting
in a kitchen. Toward the end of this interaction, the man suddenly left the
room, possibly irritated. In the second stage, the woman followed him into the
living room and they began to argue about their finances while sitting on the
living room sofa. This stage consisted of verbal and non-verbal hostile interaction. The verbally aggressive part of the video ended with the man knocking
down a flower pot from the coffee table, whereupon the woman left the room,
highly irritated, and entered the kitchen. The man followed her, and directly
after, they both entered the hall. The third stage (physical aggression) took
place in the hall where the argument continued, with the man restraining the
woman who said she wanted him to let go. She broke loose and pushed him
into the wall. They continued their heated argument, which contained multiple
expressions of physical violence from both parts (e.g., the woman pushed the
man, the man slapped the woman). Just before the film ended, the man pinned
the woman to the floor, which resulted in her banging her head against it.
While sitting on her stomach, he threatened to hit her in the face with his fist,
but hit the floor instead. The film ended with the man getting up, walking out
the front door, and slamming it shut. After this, the woman slowly got up from
the floor while holding a hand to her head, apparently hurt. It is important to
note that although the physically aggressive behavior was mutual, almost all
of the woman’s physical aggression was defensive, whereas almost all of the
man’s physical aggression was offensive.
Filler task. To counteract the recency effect and also prevent the participants
from rehearsing the scenario between viewing the film and the interview,
they completed a word task in which they created as many new words as possible from the letters in a given 14-letter word. They wrote the words in
silence on a sheet of paper (the heading contained the assigned word) for 10
min, and were asked to work as quickly as they could.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
11
Karlén et al.
Interview. The interview consisted of five parts, completed in the following
order. Part I consisted of free recall of the entire IPV event. Parts II, III, and IV
consisted of free recall and open questions regarding the emotionally neutral
interaction in the kitchen (II), the verbally aggressive interaction in the living
room (III), and the physically aggressive interaction in the hall (IV). Each of
these parts ended with a rating of the perceived level of aggression portrayed
by the man and the woman in that specific part (“How aggressive did you
perceive the man and woman respectively to be during the time they were in
the kitchen/living room/hall?” scale: 1 to 6, not at all aggressive to extremely
aggressive). In Part V, participants rated how much guilt they ascribed to the
man and woman for the situation ending the way it did (“After seeing the
entire scenario, how guilty do you perceive the man and woman respectively
to be for the situation ending the way it did?” scale: 1 to 6, no guilt at all to all
guilt.). Participants then rated how engaging, realistic, and unpleasant the participant had experienced the film overall (“How engaging/realistic/unpleasant
did you perceive the film to be?” scale: 1 to 6, not at all to very engaging/
realistic/unpleasant). Finally, participants stated how sure they were that the
reported information was correct (“How sure are you that the answers you’ve
given are correct?” scale: 1 to 6, very unsure to very sure). All interviews were
audiotaped, and to minimize the effects of alcohol on reading comprehension
and motor activity, all questions to be rated were read by the interviewer who
also noted the participant’s answer on a response sheet.
Data preparation. All statistical tests were conducted in SPSS for Windows
(Version 18; SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois). The ratings of aggression were not
modified before analysis. Regarding guilt, it was considered important that
the measure would capture how guilty the participants perceived the man and
woman to be in relation to each other, because the study’s focus was not victim blame, but guilt dispersion between IPV perpetrator and victim. Guilt
ratings ascribed to the woman were subtracted from guilt ratings ascribed to
the man for each witness, resulting in a measure that captured the difference
in assigned guilt that the witnesses perceived between the man and woman.
This procedure was only done regarding the guilt measure and not the aggression measure, for the following reason: Whereas aggression can be perceived
as a personality trait and perceived in a concrete manner (i.e., a person can
exhibit different kinds of aggressive behavior or not), guilt is a more abstract
and multifaceted concept (Alicke, 2000) in which many factors may influence the decision. Examples of such factors are as follows: Alcohol intoxication heightens the victim’s guilt (Sperry & Siegel, 2011), exhibited passive
behavior in a victim lowers the victim’s guilt (Ask & Landström, 2010), and
if prevailing expectations of female IPV-victim behavior assimilation to traditional gender roles are met, guilt is lowered (Davies, 2007; Wrede & Ask,
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
12
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
in press). Therefore, to diminish such potential effects on “raw” measures of
the man’s and woman’s guilt, each participant’s ratings of the man’s and
woman’s respective guilt were combined to a single measure of the distribution of guilt between the parts.
Results
Preliminary Analyses and Manipulation Checks
On arrival at the laboratory, all participants registered a BAC of 0.00‰.
Mean BAC during the experiment for intoxicated men was M = 0.07% (SD =
0.04; range = 0.06%; min-max = 0.05%-0.10%), and for intoxicated women
M = 0.08% (SD = 0.04; range = 0.06%; min-max = 0.04%-0.10%). One
female participant was excluded from analyses due to a faulty BAC measurement, resulting in a total of 86 participants (42 women, 44 men) in the analyses of BAC.
To investigate whether BAC differed when comparing alcohol intoxicated
men and women, a repeated-measures mixed 2 (Gender: men vs. women) ×
6 (Time: six BAC assessment points) ANOVA was conducted. There was a
significant main effect of gender, F(1, 41) = 7.48, p = .009, η2 = .15, showing
that the mean BAC level for women (M = 0.80, SD = 0.04) was consistently
higher than for men (M = 0.70, SD = 0.03). As expected, there was a significant main effect of time, F(5, 37) = 210.23, p < 0.001, η2 = .97, indicating a
decrease in BAC over time. The interaction effect between time and gender
was not significant F(5, 37) = 2.32, p = .054, η2 = .28. This created a problem
in comparing alcohol intoxicated men and women, because differences in
perception between genders may arise from different BAC means. However,
due to the even gender dispersion between the experimental and control conditions, the impact of the 0.7 g/kg alcohol dose on men’s and women’s ratings
of aggression and guilt was investigated.
To investigate whether alcohol affected how unpleasant, realistic, and
engaging the participants experienced the scenario, three one-way ANOVAs
were conducted with alcohol and gender as independent variables and
unpleasantness, realism, and engagement in the scenario as the dependent
variables. The analyses showed that alcohol affected how unpleasant the film
was experienced, F(1, 83) = 5.85, p = .018, η2 = .07, with alcohol intoxicated
participants rating the film as less unpleasant (M = 3.48, SD = 0.19) than
sober participants (M = 4.14, SD = 0.20). There were no effects of gender or
interaction between alcohol intoxication and gender on unpleasantness (both
ps > .461). There were no significant effects of alcohol, gender, or the interaction between alcohol and gender regarding perceived realism or engagement
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
13
Karlén et al.
in the scenario (all ps > .283). All participants thought the film was realistic
(M = 4.97; SD = 1.07) and engaging (M = 4.64; SD = 1.05; min-max value
was 1-6).
Because witnesses’ anxiety proneness may have influenced their perception of the IPV scenario, a Pearson chi-square test was conducted to examine
whether persons in either one of the two beverage conditions were more
predisposed to experience anxiety (established by the personality inventory
HP5i, subscale negative affectivity). Results showed an even dispersion of
participants high and low in negative affectivity (established by median
split) in the alcohol and the sober groups, χ2(1) = 0.556, p = .456. Furthermore,
alcohol may have made participants less certain of their answers, therefore
eliciting more neutral answers that were positioned in the middle of the
scale, avoiding extreme values. However, no difference regarding confidence in the given answers was found between the alcohol (M = 4.63; SD =
0.22) and the sober groups (M = 4.89; SD = 0.13), F(1, 83) = 2.05, p = .156,
η2 = 0.02.
Aggression
To investigate whether alcohol affected participants’ ratings of aggression, a
one-way MANOVA was performed. The dependent variables were the rated
level of aggression of the man and woman respectively in the three parts of the
film (neutral, verbally aggressive, and physically aggressive), resulting in six
dependent variables. A significant multivariate effect of alcohol on rated level
of aggression was found, F(6, 78) = 7.05, p< .001, Wilks’ lambda = 0.654,
η2 = .35, but no multivariate effect was found for gender, F(6, 78) = 0.99, p =
.437, Wilks’ lambda = 0.929, η2 = .07, or for the interaction between alcohol
and gender, F(6, 78) = 0.56, p = .813, Wilks’ lambda = 0.941, η2 = .06.
Univariate analyses for the effect of alcohol showed that alcohol intoxicated
participants perceived the level of aggression in the neutral part of the film to
be higher than sober participants, for both the man, F(1, 85) = 8.29, p = .005,
η2 = .09, and the woman, F(1, 85) = 4.03, p = .048, η2 = .05. However, the
opposite pattern was found concerning physical aggression. Alcohol intoxicated participants rated the physical aggression displayed by both the man,
F(1, 85) = 13.49, p< .001, η2 = .14, and the woman, F(1, 85) = 11.02, p< .001,
η2 = .12, as lower than sober participants. No differences between alcohol
intoxicated and sober participants were found for ratings of verbal aggression
displayed by the man, F(1, 85) = 0.13, p = .718, η2< .00, or the woman,
F(1, 85) = 0.92, p = .340, η2 = .01 (for further details regarding aggression, see
Table 1).
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
14
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
2.14 (0.71)
3.41 (0.67)
5.36 (0.49)
1.27 (0.55)
2.14 (0.64)
3.86 (1.04)
2.73 (0.88)
3.64 (0.73)
5.05 (0.58)
1.50 (0.67)
2.59 (0.80)
3.32 (0.89)
Sober
1.77 (0.81)
2.68 (0.95)
3.23 (1.15)
2.77 (0.97)
3.64 (0.66)
4.91 (0.75)
Alcohol
1.43 (0.60)
2.81 (0.81)
4.14 (1.01)
2.38 (0.59)
3.76 (0.77)
5.52 (0.51)
Sober
Female Witnesses
1.64 (0.75)
2.64 (0.87)
3.27 (1.02)
2.75 (0.92)
3.64 (0.69)
4.98 (0.66)
1.35 (0.57)*
2.47 (0.80)
4.00 (1.02)*
2.26 (0.66)*
3.58 (0.73)
5.44 (0.50)*
Sober
Beverage Group Total
Alcohol
Note. Mean values reported, SD in parentheses, scale ranged from 1 to 6 (not at all aggressive to extremely aggressive).
*p< .05.
Male character
Neutral
Verbal aggression
Physical aggression
Female character
Neutral
Verbal aggression
Physical aggression
Alcohol
Male Witnesses
Table 1. Mean Rating Scores by Experiment Group and Gender.
15
Karlén et al.
Guilt
An ANOVA was performed to investigate whether alcohol or gender affected
how the guilt for the situation ending in violence was distributed between the
man and woman in the IPV scenario (dependent variable: difference in guilt
between the man and woman). The results showed that alcohol intoxicated
participants perceived a smaller difference in guilt between the man and the
woman (M = 1.52; SD = 1.92) than sober participants did (M = 2.42; SD =
1.59), F(1, 83) = 5.59, p = .020, η2 = .06. No main effect was found for gender, F(1, 83) = 0.78, p = .380, η2 = .01, and no interaction effect was found
between alcohol and gender, F(1, 83) = 0.08, p = .775, η2< .00. The results
also showed that both groups assigned more guilt to the man than to the
woman, because both groups’ mean values were positive (observe that the
amount of guilt assigned to the woman was subtracted from the guilt assigned
to the man). For further details regarding guilt, see Table 2.
Discussion
The results show that alcohol intoxicated witnesses perceived both parts’
physical aggression as less severe compared with sober witnesses, which
confirmed Hypothesis 1b. However, no difference was found between intoxicated and sober witnesses with respect to their perception of expressed verbal
aggression. Hence, there was no support for Hypothesis 1a. Alcohol intoxicated witnesses perceived both parts’ behavior in the neutral part of the film
as comparatively more hostile, which confirmed Hypothesis 2. Furthermore,
all participants assigned more guilt to the man than to the woman, but alcohol
intoxicated participants perceived the guilt to be comparatively more evenly
distributed between the parts, which confirmed Hypothesis 3. The gender of
the witnesses did not affect their perception of verbal or physical aggression
or guilt. Furthermore, sober participants experienced the film as more
unpleasant than their intoxicated counterparts. In sum, the current results are
the first to show that alcohol affects witnesses’ perception of aggression and
guilt in an IPV scenario. The results point to the importance of considering
the social context to predict the effect of alcohol on witnesses’ accounts of
aggression. The results also tentatively support the possibility of generalizing
several of alcohol’s effects previously observed in a non-witness context to a
witness context, such as (a) hostility bias (i.e., that alcohol makes neutral
behavior seem more aggressive, see Ogle & Miller, 2004), (b) a more accepting attitude toward using physical violence (which has been observed in previous alcohol/aggression research and here inferred from the lower rating of
severity of physical aggression among intoxicated witnesses), and (c) an
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
16
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
4.45 (1.30)
2.82 (1.10)
1.64 (0.38)
5.00 (0.69)
2.36 (0.73)
2.64 (0.38)
Sober
4.43 (0.98)
3.00 (1.18)
1.41 (0.38)
Alcohol
5.10 (0.77)
2.90 (1.51)
2.19 (0.39)
Sober
Female Witnesses
Note. Mean values reported, SD in parentheses, scale ranged from 1 to 6 (no guilt to all guilt).
*p< .05.
Man’s guilt
Woman’s guilt
Difference in guilt
Alcohol
Male Witnesses
Table 2. Mean Rating Scores of Guilt by Experiment Group and Gender.
4.44 (1.14)
2.91 (1.13)
1.52 (1.92)
Alcohol
5.05 (0.72)
2.63 (1.20)
2.42 (1.59)*
Sober
Beverage Group Total
17
Karlén et al.
anxiety-dampening effect when assessing risk-filled situations (frequently
observed in previous research and may in the current study have affected how
severe the physical aggression was perceived). All these aspects can be
explained using the appraisal-disruption model (Sayette, 1993). However, it
should be noted that because the field of intoxicated witnesses to violence is
young and there are many aspects left to uncover, alternative explanations
may be possible. The appraisal-disruption model is used in this study because
it is the only theoretical framework that takes both cognition and emotion
into account. Below, the main findings will be discussed in detail.
The Possible Relationship Between Anxiety-Dampening Effects
and Perception of Aggression
As predicted by the appraisal-disruption model (Sayette, 1993), alcohol intoxicated participants perceived the IPV scenario as less unpleasant and the physical
aggression as less severe. In addition, intoxicated participants perceived the
behavior during the neutral interaction as more aggressive. These results advance
previous research on alcohol and aggression, and emphasize alcohol’s complex
effects on both emotion and cognition. According to the appraisal-disruption
model and previous experimental research, alcohol intoxication (a) disrupts the
appraisal of stressful information by decreasing the ability to maintain attention,
(b) constrains the activation of associations between newly perceived information and stored information in long-term memory, and (c) lessens the ability to
perceive meaning in a scenario (Birnbaum & Parker, 1977; Craik, 1977; Jones
& Jones, 1977; Sayette, 1993; Steele & Josephs, 1990). The complex result
regarding perception of aggression in the different stages of interaction combined with the lower ratings of unpleasantness suggests that third-part intoxicated witnesses experience an anxiety-dampening effect, which may co-occur
with an altered perception of aggression in an IPV scenario. Disinhibition follows lowered fear, and disinhibition is a plausible explanation for alcohol’s
complex effects on perception of aggression in a neutral and physically aggressive context (Ito et al., 1996; Sayette, 1993). Accordingly, an intoxicated person
will be more prone to perceive and/or react with a higher level of aggressive
behavior toward a non-provocative counterpart and to view physical aggression
as a more acceptable response to provocation (Bushman & Cooper, 1990;
Eckhardt et al., 1998; Hull & Bond, 1986; Ito et al., 1996; Parrott et al., 2012;
Sayette et al., 2004; Taylor & Chermack, 1993). This disinhibiting effect may
explain the intoxicated participants’ heightened perception of aggression in a
neutral conversation, while they perceived actual physical aggression as more
acceptable and less severe compared with sober participants.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
18
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
From the present study, it is not possible to distinguish whether alcohol’s
anxiety-dampening effects were caused mainly by impairment of conscious
information processing (influenced by attention focus) or by automatic
appraisal processes (influenced by emotional arousal in response to incoming
information). For example, research on the alcohol myopia theory has shown
that alcohol only dampens anxiety while attention is distracted from the anxiety-provoking material and not when attention is focused on it (i.e., anxiety
dampening is caused by a failure to maintain focus of attention; Steele &
Josephs, 1990). However, because the intoxicated participants in the present
study were instructed to focus their attention on the scenario, and perceived
it as comparatively less unpleasant, a non-conscious anxiety-dampening
effect of alcohol may have influenced the perception of aggression and cannot be ruled out as a causal factor. A previous meta-study questioned whether
it is possible to examine cognitive and emotional influences on aggression
separately in a practically meaningful manner, and emphasized the appraisaldisruption model as a promising framework for taking alcohol’s effects on
both cognitive and emotional factors into account as possible factors in
reducing anxiety (Ito et al., 1996).
Guilt, Aggression, and Possible Relation to Heuristic Processing
In the IPV scenario used here, the woman was the victim of the most severe
physical violence, and the man was perpetrating it. Regarding guilt, it is
important to note that both the intoxicated and the sober witnesses generally
assigned more guilt to the man, and that all witnesses perceived the woman
as comparatively less guilty. However, compared with sober witnesses,
intoxicated witnesses perceived the guilt as more evenly distributed between
the parts. Because intoxicated witnesses perceived the film as less unpleasant, the reduction in guilt ascribed to the man may stem from lower emotional
activation of fear (i.e., how dangerous they perceived the physically violent
part of the scenario to be). This is in line with the appraisal-disruption model
(Sayette, 1993) and previous research on the anxiety-dampening effects of
alcohol intoxication (Ito et al., 1996; Pihl & Peterson, 1995; Sayette et al.,
2004). However, this model cannot properly explain the increase in guilt that
the intoxicated witnesses ascribed to the woman. Instead, the mixed effects of
alcohol with respect to guilt (i.e., lowered for the man, heightened for the
woman) require a more nuanced cognitive explanation, generally based on
dual process theory (Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Kahneman, 2011) and specifically on gender stereotypes.
According to dual process theory, an alcohol-induced reduction in cognitive capacity may increase intoxicated witnesses’ use of automatic processing
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
19
Karlén et al.
(System 1), which draws on heuristics and increased tendency to use
stereotypes. This is supported by studies showing that intoxicated persons
are less likely to analyze long-term consequences and take counterarguments into consideration when making moral and social decisions (Denton
& Krebs, 1990; Ogle & Miller, 2004). Ogle and Miller (2004) proposed
that this effect might be due to a potential increase in heuristic processing
(see also Kahneman, 2011). This explanation is supported by the appraisaldisruption model (Sayette, 1993), where intoxication is proposed to
increase heuristic information processing. It is also supported by the attention-allocation model (Steele & Josephs, 1988), as increased use of heuristics is a plausible effect of a narrowed cognitive focus for both time and
detail.
Regarding the use of stereotypes, previous research supports the notion
that more stereotypical male assertive and aggressive behavior (Davies,
2007) is accepted by intoxicated individuals (Ogle & Miller, 2004). A male
stereotype of assertive behavior (Davies, 2007; Hoyle, 2007; Lindholm &
Yourstone Cederwall, 2010), sometimes including physical aggression
(Ahola, 2012), is congruent with the behavior displayed by the man in the
scenario used for the present study. However, the assertive behavior displayed by the woman in the scenario is non-congruent with the female stereotype. The fact that the woman displayed assertive, and to a certain extent
physically aggressive behavior, may have contributed to the intoxicated participants’ comparatively more evenly distributed guilt. Previous research on
sober witnesses has shown that female victims to IPV and rape have been
perceived as more guilty when displaying stereotypically non-congruent
behavior (Hammock & Richardson, 1993; Richardson & Campbell, 1982;
Whatley, 1996). Specifically, female victims not fitting the stereotype of a
passive victim (fearful, fragile, and vulnerable) did not elicit third-part sympathy to the same extent as did stereotypical victims, which in turn affected
credibility and case verdict (Ask & Landström, 2010; Davies, 2007; Hoyle,
2007; Lindholm & Yourstone Cederwall, 2010; Schult & Schneider, 1991;
Sperry & Siegel, 2011; Wiener, 1980; Wrede & Ask, in press). The woman in
the present scenario exhibited stereotypically incongruent behavior, and
research has shown that such behavior is viewed as more informative, especially under high cognitive load (Jones & Davies, 1965; Kahneman, 2011;
Skowronski & Carlston, 1989). Such circumstances increase the probability
that the issue of guilt (in a scenario similar to the present one) will be processed according to gender stereotypical standards of appropriate behavior,
resulting in the perception of an active/violent male perpetrator as less guilty
and an active/violent female victim as more guilty (Ask & Landström, 2010;
Klippenstine & Schuller, 2012).
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
20
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
These results highlight the importance of educating professionals who
interview witnesses to IPV, such as investigating police officers and clinical
personnel, to be attentive to potential alterations in witnesses’ perception due
to intoxication. It is important for these professionals to know that in a moderately intoxicated state (at least when BAC > 0.07), witnesses may risk using
“easier” or “coarse grained” cognitive processing and experience less anxiety.
These professionals need to consider alcohol’s anxiety-dampening effect
which may have caused intoxicated witnesses to report neutral behavior as
more aggressive and physically aggressive behavior as less severe compared
with sober witnesses. Also, professionals should note that heuristic processing
(due to high cognitive load generated by intoxication) may have increased a
witness’s use of stereotypical notions when perceiving male and female guilt
in IPV. Professionals may control the presence of such a tendency, at least to
some extent, by reviewing witness’ statements for recurrent stereotypical formulations regarding male/female behavior and, if many are present, take this
factor into consideration when evaluating the validity of the statement.
Limitations and Future Directions
The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of intoxication on witnesses’ perception of IPV in an applied context. The results in this study are
limited to alcohol’s impact on perception of the kind of IPV interaction used
here. Hence, a more exclusively single-sided male/female physical aggression
or a mutual combat with an evenly distributed offensive aggression may
induce other effects of alcohol on perception of IPV. Another limitation is that
the IPV event took place in an apartment during the day with no other people
present/no music playing, and so on, which is not matched to the reality where
intoxicated persons may witness IPV (such as a home party, bar, or restaurant).
However, the setting in the film was chosen for four reasons: (a) to isolate the
effect of intoxication on perception and appraisal of social information, (b) to
make it simple to realize that the two persons were a relatively long-term
romantic couple, (c) to ascertain that the witnesses perceived a neutral interaction between the parts, which is hard to do in a party/bar setting, and was
necessary for creating a baseline to compare verbal/physical aggression with,
and (d) to create a sense of accordance between the environment in the laboratory and the setting of the film to make it easier for the witnesses to engage in
the scenario. Furthermore, we examined to what extent alcohol affected the
perception of IPV in witnesses who knowingly drank alcohol in a social setting in groups of two to five persons. Therefore, expectancy and group effects
could not be controlled for. Furthermore, the respective factors of cognitive
and emotional effects of alcohol were not controlled for. In order to further
theoretical developments in the field, it is important to isolate the effects of
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
21
Karlén et al.
expectancy, of being in a group vs. being alone, and of cognitive and emotional effects pertaining to alcohol intoxication in future studies. However,
because all these effects of alcohol are intimately connected in a real life
drinking setting, it could be argued that it is of little practical importance to try
to isolate the effect of each factor. Witnesses almost always know whether
they have been drinking alcohol or not, and in most instances they drink
among other people and their thoughts and feelings simultaneously influence
their perceptions. In conclusion, it is important to note that these results needs
to be replicated to be able to give well-founded guidelines to legal and/or clinical practice, and future research should include these basic theoretical areas.
Conclusion
The present study is the first to show that in an applied context, a 0.7 g/kg dose
of alcohol may alter witnesses’ perceptions concerning neutral interaction,
physical aggression, and guilt in an IPV situation. Reduced capacity for maintaining attention and a dampening of anxiety/inhibitions (all effects inherent to
the appraisal-disruption model) are plausible reasons for why alcohol intoxicated witnesses perceived neutral interaction as comparatively more hostile
and physical aggression as comparatively less severe. Concerning the comparatively more even distribution of guilt among intoxicated witnesses, our
study highlights a possible relationship between increased cognitive load (due
to intoxication) and an increased propensity to use stereotypes of IPV-victim
behavior when assessing perpetrator and the victim guilt. Based on these
results, alcohol intoxication should be considered in witnesses’ statements of
how aggressive and guilty they perceived the involved parts in IPV cases.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to research nurse Cecilia Nilsson-Wallmark, physician Bengt Eriksson, and
research assistants Gustav Andersson, Andreas Aspholmer, Sara Bengtsson, Jeanette
Jansson Bolinder, David Mendes Lopes, Charlotte Persson, and Erika Thurang.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was financially supported
by a grant from the Swedish Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority
(Grant No.: 03403/2009).
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
22
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
References
Ahola, A. (2012). How reliable are eyewitness memories? Effects of retention
interval, violence of act, and gender stereotypes on observers’ judgments of
their own memory regarding witnessed act and perpetrator. Psychology, Crime
& Law, 18, 491-503. doi:10.1080-1068316X.2010.509316
Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 556-574. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.556
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Ask, K., & Landström, S. (2010). Why emotions matter: Expectancy violation
and affective response mediate the emotional victim effect. Law and Human
Behavior, 34, 392-401. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9208-6
Balvig, F., & Kyvsgaard, B. (2006). Vold og overgreb mod kvinder. Dansk rapport
vedrorende deltagelse i International Violence Against Violence Survey (IVAWS)
[Violence and abuse towards women. Danish report regarding participation
in International Violence Against Violence Survey (IVAWS)]. Kobenhavns
Universitet/Justitieministeriets Forskningsenhed. Retrieved from https://www.
google.se/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/
sites/default/files/media/Arbejdsomraader/Forskning/Forskningsrapporter/2006/
vold_mod_kvinder.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwiioq6Uj4HHAhUF2CwKH
Uw2D2E&usg=AFQjCNEQUQGYJRj13N9Kp9Pe5kqvKAmDJg&sig2=CfGca
ERn2PDIT3IkqqNBNw
Babor, T., Higgins-Biddle, J. C., Saunders, J. B., & Monteiro, M. G. (2001). AUDIT:
The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Guidelines for use in primary
care (2nd ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Press.
Birnbaum, I. M., & Parker, E. S. (1977). Acute effects of alcohol on storage and
retrieval. In I. M. Birnbaum & E. S. Parker (Eds.), Alcohol and human memory
(pp. 99-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brottsförebyggande Rådet [The Swedish National Concil for Crime Prevention]
(BRÅ). (2009). Våld mot kvinnor och män i nära relationer [Intimate partner
violence against women and men] (BRÅ Publication No. 2009:12). Stockholm,
Sweden: Brottsförebyggande rådet. Retrieved from https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f180002016/1371914720735/2009_12_vald_kvinnor_man_nara_realationer.pdf
Bushman, B. J., & Cooper, H. M. (1990). Effects of alcohol on human aggression: An integrative research review. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 341-354.
doi:10.1037//0033-2909.107.3.341
Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic
review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231-280.
doi:10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231
Carmona-Perera, M., Verdejo-Garcia, A., Young, L., Molina-Fernandez, A., &
Pérez-García, M. (2012). Moral decision-making in polysubstance dependent individuals. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 126, 389-392. doi:10.1016/j.
drugalcdep.2012.05.038
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
23
Karlén et al.
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Clements, K., & Schumacher, J. A. (2010). Perceptual biases in social cognition as
potential moderators of the relationship between alcohol and intimate partner
violence: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 357-368. doi:10.1016/j.
avb.2010.06.004
Craik, F. I. M. (1977). Similarities between the effects of ageing and alcoholic intoxication on memory performance, construed within a “levels of processing” framework. In I. M. Birnbaum & E. S. Parker (Eds.), Alcohol and human memory
(pp. 9-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Curran, V. (2006). Effect of drugs on witness memory. In A. Heaton-Armstrong, E.
Shepherd, G. Gudjonsson, & D. Wolchover (Eds.), Witness testimony (pp. 77-87).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Davies, P. (2007). Lessons from the gender agenda. In S. Walklate (Ed.), Handbook
of victims and victimology (pp. 175-201). Portland, OR: Willan.
Denton, K., & Krebs, D. (1990). From the scene to the crime: The effect of alcohol and
social context on moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 242-248. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.242
Derogatis, L. (1983). SCL-90-R. Manual II. Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric
Research.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1984). The nature and antecedents of violent events.
British Journal of Criminology, 24, 269-288.
Eckhardt, M. J., File, S. E., Gessa, G. L., Grant, K. A., Guerri, C., Hoffman,
P. L., . . . Tabakoff, B. (1998). Effects of moderate alcohol consumption on
the central nervous system. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research,
22, 998-1040. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.1998.tb03695.x
Evans, J. R., Schreiber Compo, N., & Russano, M. B. (2009). Intoxicated
witnesses and suspects: Procedures and prevalence according to law enforcement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 194-221. doi:10.1037/a0016837
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect
heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 13, 1-17. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)
Fromme, K., D’Amico, E. J., & Katz, E. C. (1999). Intoxicated sexual risk taking: An
expectancy or cognitive impairment explanation? Journal of Studies of Alcohol,
60, 54-63.
Gardner, H., Brownell, H., Wapner, W., & Michelow, D. (1983). Missing the point:
The role of the right hemisphere in the processing of complex linguistic materials. Cognitive Processing in the Right Hemisphere, 255, 169-191.
George, S., Rogers, R. D., & Duka, T. (2005). The acute effect of alcohol on decision
making in social drinkers. Psychopharmacology, 182, 160-169. doi:10.1007/
s00213-005-0057-9
Greenfield, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Perkins, C. A., Ringel, C., Warchol,
G., . . . Fox, J. A. (1998). Violence by intimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
24
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Gustafsson, K.-A., & Lundberg, M. (2004). Våld i hemmet [Domestic violence].
In S. Å. Christianson & P. A. Granhag (Eds.), Polispsykologi (pp. 102-129),
Stockholm, Sweden: Natur och Kultur.
Hammock, G. S., & Richardson, D. R. (1993). Blaming drunk victims: Is it just world
or sex role violation? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1574-1586.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01048.x
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 356-388. doi:00963445/79/0803-0356$00.75
Hashtroudi, S., Parker, DeLisi, L. E., Wyatt, R. J., & Mutter, S. A. (1984). Intact retention in acute alcohol amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 10, 156-163. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.10.1.156
Hildebrand Karlén, M., Roos af Hjelmsäter, E., Fahlke, C., Granhag, P. A., &
Söderpalm Gordh, A. (2015). Alcohol intoxicated eyewitnesses’ memory of intimate partner violence. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 21, 156-171. doi:10.1080/10
68316X.2014.951644
Hirschel, D., & Hutchison, I. (2011). Unraveling the relative contribution of his, her
and their drinking to the likelihood of arrest in intimate partner violence cases.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3050-3079. doi:10.1177/08862
Hoyle, C. (2007). Feminism, victimology and domestic violence. In S. Walklate (Ed.),
In Handbook of victims and victimology (pp. 146-175). Portland, OR: Willan.
Hull, J. G., & Bond, C. F. (1986). Social and behavioral consequences of alcohol
consumption and expectancy: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 99,
347-360. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.347
Ito, T. A., Miller, N., & Pollock, V. (1996). Alcohol and aggression: A meta-analysis
on the moderating effects of inhibitory cued, triggering events and self-focused
attention. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 60-80. doi:10.1037/10248-018
Jones, E. E., & Davies, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution
process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Jones, B. M., & Jones, M. K. (1977). Alcohol and memory impairment in male and
female social drinking. In I. M. Birnbaum & E. S. Parker (Eds.), Alcohol and
human memory (pp. 127-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Josephs, R. A., & Steele, C. M. (1990). The two faces of alcohol myopia: Attentional
mediation of psychological stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 115-126.
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.99.2.115
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Kahneman, D., & Fredrick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak
& R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning
(pp. 267-293). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Klippenstine, M. A., & Schuller, R. A. (2012). Perceptions of sexual assault:
Expectations regarding the emotional response of a rape victim. Psychology,
Crime & Law, 18, 79-94. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00273.x
Koelega, H. S. (1995). Alcohol and vigilance performance: A review. Psychopharmacology,
118, 233-249. doi:10.1007/BF02245951
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
25
Karlén et al.
Lindholm, T., & Yourstone Cederwall, J. (2010). Ethnicity and gender biases in the
courtroom. In P. A. Granhag (Ed.), Forensic psychology in context: Nordic and
international approaches (pp. 228-246). Gloucester, UK: Willan.
Murdoch, D., Pihl, R. O., & Ross, D. (1991). Alcohol and crimes of violence: Present
issues. The International Journal of the Addictions, 25, 1065-1081.
Ogle, R. L., & Miller, W. R. (2004). The effects of alcohol intoxication and gender
on the social information processing of hostile provocations involving male and
female provocateurs. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65, 54-62.
Palmer, F. T., Flowe, H. D., Takarangi, M. K. T., & Humphries, J. E. (2013).
Intoxicated witnesses and suspects: An archival analysis of their involvement
in criminal case processing. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 54-59. doi:10.1037/
lhb0000010
Parrott, D. J., Gallagher, K. E., & Zeichner, A. (2012). Liquid courage or liquid fear:
Alcohol intoxication and anxiety facilitate physical aggression. Substance Use &
Misuse, 47, 774-786. doi:10.3109/10826084.2012.667182
Peterson, J. B., Rothfleisch, J., Zelazo, P. D., & Pihl, R. O. (1990). Acute alcohol
intoxication and cognitive functioning. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51, 114122.
Petter Gustavsson, J., Jönsson, E. G., Linder, J., & Weinryb, R. M. (2003). The HP5
inventory: Definition and assessment of five health-relevant personality traits from
a five-factor model perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 69-89.
Pihl, R. O., & Peterson, J. (1995). Drugs and aggression: Correlations, crime and
human manipulative studies and some proposed mechanisms. Journal of
Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 20, 141-149.
Pihl, R. O., Peterson, J. B., & Lau, M. A. (1993). A biosocial model of the alcoholaggression relationship. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 11, 128-139.
Pihl, R. O., & Sutton, R. (2009). Drugs and aggression readily mix; so what now?
Substance Use & Misuse, 44, 1188-1203. doi:10.1080/10826080902959884
Richardson, D., & Campbell, J. L. (1982). Alcohol and rape: The effect of alcohol
on attributions of blame for rape. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8,
468-476. doi:10.1177/0146167282083013
Sayette, M. A. (1993). An appraisal-disruption model of alcohol’s effects on
stress responses in social drinkers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 459-476.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.459
Sayette, M. A. (1999). Does drinking reduce stress? Alcohol Research & Health, 23,
250-255.
Sayette, M. A., Kirchner, T. A., Moreland, R. L., Levine, J. M., & Travis, T. (2004).
Effects of alcohol on risk-seeking behavior: A group-level analysis. Psychology
of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 190-193. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.18.2.190
Schreiber Compo, N. S., Evans, J. R., Carol, R. N., Villalba, D., Ham, L. S., Garcia,
T., & Rose, S. (2012). Intoxicated eyewitnesses: Better than their reputation?
Law and Human Behavior, 36, 77-86. doi:10.1037/h0093951
Schult, D. G., & Schneider, L. J. (1991). The role of sexual provocativeness, rape
history and observer gender in perceptions of blame in sexual assault. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 6, 94-101. doi:10.1177/088626091006001007
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
26
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Sher, K. J., Bruce, D., Bartholow, B. D., Peuser, K., Erickson, D. J., & Wood, M. D.
(2007). Stress-response-dampening effects of alcohol: Attention as a mediator and
moderator. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 362-377. doi:10.1037/0021843X.116.2.362
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in
impression-formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105,
131-142. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.105.1.131
Söderpalm, B. (2011). Alkohol [Alcohol]. In J. Franck & I. Nylander (Eds.),
Beroendemedicin (pp. 93-112). Stockholm, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Sperry, K., & Siegel, J. T. (2011). Victim responsibility, credibility, and verdict in
a simulated rape case: Application of Weiner’s attribution model. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 18, 16-29. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02022.x
Statens Offentliga Utredningar [Official reports of the Swedish Government] (SOU).
(2006). Att ta ansvar för sina insatser. Socialtjänstens stöd till våldsutsatta kvinnor [To take responsibility for interventions. Social services’ support to women
exposed to violence] (SOU Publication No. 2006:65). Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes
offentliga publikationer. Retrieved from http://regeringen.se/sb/d/108/a/66381
Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1988). Drinking your troubles away: An attentionallocation model of alcohol’s effect on psychological stress. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 97, 196-205. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.97.2.196
Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous
effects. American Psychologist, 45, 921-933. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921
Stewart, A., & Maddren, K. (1997). Police officers’ judgments of blame in family
violence: The impact of gender and alcohol. Sex Roles, 37, 921-933. doi:10.1007/
BF02936347
Strack, G. (n.d.). “She hit me, too”—Identifying the primary aggressor: A prosecutor’s perspective. Retrieved from www.ncdsv.org/images/she_hit_me.pdf
Taylor, S. P., & Chermack, S. T. (1993). Alcohol, drugs and human physical aggression. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 11, 78-88.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging
frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232. doi:10.1016/00100285(73)90033-9
Tzambazis, K., & Stough, C. (2000). Alcohol impairs speed of information processing
and simple and choice reaction time and differentially impairs higher-order cognitive abilities. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 35, 197-201. doi:10.1093/alcalc/35.2.197
Wells, S., Mihic, L., Tremblay, P. F., Graham, K., & Demers, A. (2008). Where,
with whom, and how much alcohol is consumed on drinking events involving
aggression? Event-level associations in a Canadian national survey of university students. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 32, 522-532.
doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00596.x
Whatley, M. A. (1996). Victim characteristics influencing attributions of responsibility to rape victims: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 81-95.
doi:10.1016/1359-1789(95)00011-9
Wiener, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)-emotio-action model of motivated
behavior – an analysis of judgments of help-giving, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39, 186-200. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.2.186
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015
27
Karlén et al.
Wilkinson, D. L., & Hamerschlag, S. J. (2005). Situational determinants in intimate
partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 333-361.
Wilt, S., & Olson, S. (1996). Prevalence of domestic violence in United States.
Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, 51, 77-82.
World Health Organization/London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
(2010). Preventing intimate partner violence and sexual violence against
women: Taking action and generating evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: World
Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/entity/violence_injury_
prevention/publications/violence/9789241564007_eng.pdf
Wrede, O., & Ask, K. (in press). More than a feeling: Gender-specific stereotypes
about victims’ emotional responses to crime. Violence and Victims.
Author Biographies
Malin Hildebrand Karlén is a clinical psychologist at the Addiction Medicine Unit
at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, and a doctorate student at the
University of Gothenburg. She is a member of research unit Criminal, Legal, and
Investigative Psychology (CLIP) and Addiction Psychology: Clinical and
Experimental research (APEC). Main research interests are within the combination of
addiction research and forensic research.
Emma Roos af Hjelmsäter, PhD, is a senior lecturer at the Department of Psychology,
University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Her main research interests lies within the area of
legal psychology and several of her published studies has examined how different
factors affect eyewitness ability.
Claudia Fahlke is a professor of psychology at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
She has founded the research unit Addiction Psychology: Clinical and Experimental
Research (APEC). She has conducted research on addiction for 30 years and published
several scientific reports and books. Her main research interests are psychobiological
risk factors underlying addiction and prediction of treatment outcome.
Pär Anders Granhag is a professor of psychology at the University of Gothenburg,
Sweden. He is the founding director of the research unit for CLIP. He has conducted
psycho-legal research for 25 years and published 250+ scientific reports. His main research
interests are investigative interviewing, deception detection, and eyewitness memory.
Anna Söderpalm Gordh is an associate professor at the Sahlgrenska Academy,
Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. She
received her doctorate in psychology from Gothenburg University. Her recent publications include Hildebrand Karlén, M., Roos af Hjelmsäter, E., Fahlke C., Granhag,
P. A., & Söderpalm Gordh, A. “Alcohol intoxicated witnesses’ memory of intimate
partner violence. Psychology, Crime and Law” (2014); Hagsand, A., Roos af
Hjelmsäter, E., Granhag, P. A., Fahlke, C., & Söderpalm Gordh, A. (2013). “Bottled
memories: On how alcohol affects eyewitness’ recall.” Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 54, 188-195. Her current research interests include subjective risk factors
for alcoholism, gender differences, and the effects of alcohol on memory.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on September 5, 2015