A Short-Term Longitudinal Investigation of the Relationship Between Trait Mindfulness and Female-Perpetrated Dating Violence

Abstract

Within the past several decades, dating violence has emerged as a major health problem, with rates of physical violence ranging from 20% to 30% and psychological aggression ranging from 60% to 90% in college dating relationships. Despite this, there have been few successful dating violence prevention programs developed. Thus, it is imperative that research can identify the relationship between potential protective factors, such as trait mindfulness, and dating violence perpetration. This study builds upon previous research on mindfulness and dating violence by investigating this question within a sample of female undergraduate students at two universities (N = 381) over the course of one semester. Findings suggested that the nonjudging aspect of mindfulness was associated with less perpetration of psychological and physical aggression approximately 3 months later. Furthermore, several facets of mindfulness were able to differentiate individuals who perpetrated aggression at Time 2 relative to individuals without a history of perpetration. These findings build on previous work in the field and suggest that mindfulness may play an important role in the manifestation of dating violence. Directions for future research on the relation between mindfulness and dating violence are discussed.

Keywords

dating violence mindfulness perpetration women

Dating violence is a serious problem across college campuses, with rates of past year physical violence ranging from 20% to 30% and psychological aggression ranging from 60% to 90% in college dating relationships (Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008; Wincentak, Connolly, & Card, 2017). While negative consequences including depression, posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and self-injury as well as the high prevalence of dating violence have been well documented, to date few interventions have been shown to be successful (Campbell, 2002; Cornelius & Resseguie, 2007; Shorey, Febres, Brasfield, & Stuart, 2012). As a result, researchers and practitioners have advocated for research focused on a range of risk and potential protective factors that may affect the rates of perpetration and victimization, which may prove to be a fruitful avenue for intervention (Shorey, Larson, & Cornelius, 2014; Whitaker et al., 2006).

In the last decade, researchers have increasingly examined mindfulness as a possible contributor to a variety of psychological and behavioral outcomes. Mindfulness has been defined as the cognitive ability to focus on the immediate and present moment in a state of non-judgmental awareness (Kohls, Sauer, & Walach, 2009). There is a robust literature that suggests that mindfulness-based interventions are effective in reducing a range of clinical difficulties (Baer, 2003; Blanck et al., 2018; Cavanagh et al., 2013; Mikolasek, Berg, Witt, & Barth, 2018; Schumer, Lindsay, & Creswell, 2018). Some initial cross-sectional data suggested that mindfulness skills may be related to dating violence. Research demonstrated that increased mindfulness is related to reduced stress in victims of dating violence, decreased dating violence perpetration, and improved general relationship satisfaction among dating couples (Kelly & Garland, 2016; Shorey, Larson, & Cornelius, 2014). However, this research is still in its infancy, and further research is necessary to better elucidate how mindfulness skills may relate to perpetration of future violence, not simply in retrospective reports. This study builds on previous investigations by prospectively examining the relationships between mindfulness and perpetration of physical and psychological dating aggression among female college students.

Female-Perpetrated Dating Violence

While research clearly indicated that the high prevalence of dating violence is a major problem, there has been debate regarding gender symmetry in perpetration and victimization of violence (Straus, 2016). However, there is a growing body of literature that finds that not only is intimate partner violence (IPV) often bidirectional in nature (Bates, 2016; Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Field, 2005; Shorey et al., 2008), but that females perpetrate physical and psychological aggression at similar rates to men (Elmquist, Hamel, et al., 2016; Fiebert, 2010; Reed, Tolman, & Ward, 2017). Furthermore, some researchers have even demonstrated that females perpetrate more physical or psychological aggression than males (Archer, 2000; Bliton et al., 2016). While it is often found that females perpetrate less severe acts of physical violence compared with males, it is well documented that male victims of IPV suffer a number of negative health outcomes (Shorey, Zucosky, et al., 2012). Another common assumption is that females who do perpetrate partner violence are doing so in self-defense or as a reaction to their partner’s violence. However, research demonstrated that similar to males, females perpetrate partner violence for a vast array of reasons, including emotion regulation difficulties, communication difficulties, anger, jealousy, and retaliation (Elmquist, Wolford-Clevenger, et al., 2016; Hettrich & O’Leary, 2007; Leisring, 2013; Shorey, Meltzer, & Cornelius, 2010). As a result of the high prevalence of female-perpetrated dating violence, limited previous research, and compelling arguments from researchers and practitioners related to the need for targeted interventions, this research focuses specifically on female perpetrators of dating violence.

Mindfulness

Mindfulness is generally conceptualized as a dispositional way of interacting and being present in the world that allows individuals to be open to experience all thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in a less judgmental and defensive manner (Heppner et al., 2008). The empirical evidence supports this assumption, as individuals higher in trait mindfulness were less likely to interpret negative events, thoughts, or feelings as unpleasant or scary (Thompson & Waltz, 2008), and were more likely to experience positive emotions and social connectedness (Adair, Fredrickson, Castro-Schilo, Kim, & Sidberry, 2018). Trait mindfulness is also believed to promote a range of other positive cognitive experiences, including effective emotion regulation, attachment security, and self-awareness (Goodall, Trejnowska, & Darling, 2012; Hanley & Garland, 2017). Mindfulness-based treatments are regularly implemented in the treatment of a range of difficult clinical problems, such as depression and anxiety, psychological distress (Bohlmeijer, Prenger, Taal, & Cuijpers, 2010; Kuyken et al., 2016), substance use (Bowen, Chawla, & Marlatt, 2010; Singh et al., 2014), posttraumatic stress disorder (Hopwood & Schutte, 2017), and disorders that are partially characterized by impulsive behavior (Peters, Erisman, Upton, Baer, & Roemer, 2011).

Although there are numerous conceptualizations of mindfulness (Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006), it is generally accepted that mindfulness is a multidimensional construct with several different facets (Baer et al., 2006; Dimidjian & Linehan, 2003). For the purposes of this study, we utilized the multifaceted definition postulated by Baer and colleagues (2006), consisting of describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging, nonreactivity, and observing. Describing references an individual’s ability to characterize their thoughts and emotions; acting with awareness describes the ability for someone to make thoughtful and calculated decisions rather than automaticity of behavior without conscious thought; nonjudging is the ability to affirm one’s emotions and thoughts while not evaluating them as right or wrong; nonreactivity refers to one’s ability to not react to emotionally inducing stimuli; and observing references the ability to perceive and recognize stimuli in one’s environment and inner experiences.

Mindfulness and Aggression

There is a growing body of literature examining the association between mindfulness and dating violence. For example, Heppner and colleagues (2008) examined a sample of male and female college students and found that mindfulness was negatively associated with the perpetration of verbal aggression and unrelated to perpetration of physical aggression. Similarly, Borders, Jajodia, and Earleywine (2010) found that dispositional mindfulness was negatively associated with both verbal and physical perpetration. However, neither of these studies distinguished between the target of the aggressive perpetration (e.g., friend, stranger, intimate partner).

Research specific to perpetration in intimate relationships has found that trait mindfulness is negatively related to physical and sexual dating violence (Ngo et al., 2018; Shorey, Larson, et al., 2014). Data have demonstrated that deficits within particular facets of mindfulness, specifically act with awareness and nonreactivity, were linked to increased female physical and psychological violence perpetration (Shorey, Larson, et al., 2014), and differentiated perpetrators and non-perpetrators. In addition, researchers found that anger management mediates the relationship between act with awareness and nonreactivity and female violence perpetration (Shorey, Seavey, Quinn, & Cornelius, 2014), and females high in nonreactivity and nonjudging of inner experiences appear to be better equipped to tolerate distress and less likely to perpetrate physical or psychological intimate partner aggression (Brem et al., 2019). There are also data to suggest that dispositional mindfulness moderated the relationship between perceived partner infidelity and female physical IPV perpetration (Brem et al., 2015). Specifically, for those low or average in dispositional mindfulness, there was a relationship between perceived partner infidelity and female dating violence, while this relationship did not exist for those high in mindfulness. In addition, higher levels of dispositional mindfulness were associated with less sexual aggression perpetration among male college students (Gallagher, Hudepohl, & Parrott, 2010), and mindfulness moderated the relationship between alcohol use, a robust correlate of IPV, and sexual aggression perpetration. Together, these findings clearly establish a relationship between mindfulness and physical, psychological, and sexual aggression perpetration and suggest that increased mindfulness may be a protective factor against perpetrating aggression. However, the current literature has all utilized cross-sectional designs and more research is needed to further elucidate these findings.

This Study

The current research replicates and builds upon previous studies by prospectively examining the relation between five facets of mindfulness and the perpetration of physical and psychological aggression in dating relationships among a sample of college women. We examined whether (a) mindfulness was associated with dating violence perpetration over time and (b) whether perpetrators of physical or psychological aggression reported less mindfulness than non-perpetrators. Because the research on the relationship between mindfulness and IPV is nascent and there are no longitudinal findings on female perpetrators and these constructs, we chose to examine the five different facets of mindfulness proposed by Baer and colleagues (2006) related to female-perpetrated dating violence. We hypothesized that individuals lower in nonreactivity and act with awareness would evidence more perpetration of dating violence in their relationships, because these facets were related to violence in previous work (Shorey, Seavey, et al., 2014) and are theoretically similar to impulsive and automatic behaviors (Peters et al., 2011) that may characterize IPV.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from two large, public universities in the Midwest through the introductory psychology research pool. Participants were eligible for inclusion in the study if they were at least 18 years of age and had been in a dating relationship that had lasted for 1 month or longer. The study recruited 849 females to participate at two points in time, at the beginning of the semester (Time 1) and approximately 3 months later (Time 2). This study includes only participants who completed both data collection points, which was approximately 44% of the Time 1 sample. Site A included 298 participants and Site B included 83 participants (N = 381). The samples from the two sites were compared to examine possible differences on relevant demographic or study variables. The samples were statistically equivalent on psychological and physical aggression perpetration and victimization at Time 1, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and months dating. The only significant difference between the samples was on age, t(379) = 2.60, p = .01, although this statistically significant difference is likely an artifact of the large sample, because the average age of Site A was 18.99, and Site B was 18.54, indicating a generally similar age group for both sites. Therefore, we felt it appropriate that the samples be combined for subsequent data analyses. The ethnic makeup of the total sample was 91.8% White, 2.4% African American, 1.8% Asian, 2.6% Multiracial, and the remainder identifying as Other, consistent with the ethnic makeup of the universities from which the samples were drawn. The average age of the total sample was 18.90 (SD = 1.41), with 57.5% reporting that they were Freshman, 25.6% Sophomore, 9.5% Junior, and 7% Senior. The average length in months of their relationship was 17.64 (SD = 15.85). The majority (95.7%) of participants reported that they were dating someone of a different gender at baseline. At T2, 88.7% of participants reported that they were in a romantic relationship, and 79.2% of participants reported that they were still dating the same person that they reported dating at baseline. Because dating violence can continue, or may increase, after relationships end (Anderson & Saunders, 2003), we did not exclude participants from the study if they were no longer in a relationship at Time 2 (i.e., 3 months later).

Measures

Demographic questionnaire

A basic demographic measure was used that asked participants to indicate their age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic/racial background, length of current relationship, and year in school. This was completed at Time 1.

Mindfulness

The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006) was used to examine participants’ mindfulness. This 39-item self-report instrument contains five theoretically derived subscales, including observing, describing, act with awareness, nonjudging, and nonreactivity (discussed above). The FFMQ was derived through a factor analytic study of five independently developed mindfulness questionnaires, with analyses yielding the five specific facets (Baer et al., 2006). All items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never or very rarely true; 5 = very often or always true) with higher scores indicating greater mindfulness (Baer et al., 2006). Previous research demonstrated good reliability and validity of the FFMQ (Baer et al., 2006; Peters et al., 2011). Moreover, the factor structure of the FFMQ was previously established in multiple investigations with college students (e.g., Baer et al., 2006; Fernandez, Wood, Stein, & Rossi, 2010). In this study, the internal consistency for the five subscales ranged between .74 and .91. The FFMQ was administered at Time 1.

Dating violence

Participants completed the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). Respondents endorsed the frequency of physical and psychological aggression perpetration toward their current dating partner using a 7-point scale (0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = twice, 3 = 3-5 times, 4 = 6-10 times, 5 = 11-20 times, 6 = more than 20 times). Participants completed this measure at Time 1 and Time 2. For each violence subscale, a total score was obtained by summing the frequency of each behavior, with higher scores corresponding to more frequent aggressive behavior. This study only examined the physical and psychological perpetration subscales of the CTS2. The CTS2 demonstrated good construct and discriminant validity and good reliability, with internal consistency ranging from .79 to .95 (Straus et al., 1996). In this study, internal consistency for Time 1 physical perpetration was .93 (Time 2 α = .95) and Time 1 psychological perpetration was .75 (Time 2 α = .79).

Procedure

Participants who met study eligibility requirements completed all study measures using a secure online survey website which used encryption and disabled collection of IP addresses to ensure confidential reporting. After providing online consent, participants completed the Time 1 measures during the first 3 weeks of the semester. Approximately 3 months later, participants were either emailed (Site B) or had been previously instructed (Site A) to complete the Time 2 survey, which was also conducted online following the procedures above. Participants received credits toward their introductory psychology course for their participation, and students were free to choose an alternate activity or other studies to earn such credit. Upon study completion, participants were provided with a debriefing form and a list of local referral resources for dating violence and mental health services. All procedures were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards of both sites.

Results

All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 22.0. Given that the current sample contains only those that completed both time points, we examined differences between those who only completed Time 1 measures and those who completed both Time 1 and Time 2. Analyses demonstrated no differences among completers and non-completers on psychological or physical perpetration, or any of the mindfulness variables. While only 44% of the original sample completed both time points, the results demonstrate that there were no significant differences between those who did not complete the full study and those who did. In the current sample, prevalence rates for aggression in the previous year were as follows: psychological aggression perpetration (75%) and physical aggression perpetration (26%). For Time 2, which inquired about the use of aggression in the 3 months between Time 1 and Time 2, prevalence rates were 56% for psychological aggression and 15% for physical aggression.

Bivariate correlations, as well as means and standard deviations for the entire sample, are presented in Table 1. Correlations were conducted using log transformed violence variables to reduce positive skewness and kurtosis. Both the physical and psychological perpetration subscales were negatively and significantly associated with the nonjudging mindfulness subscale. Psychological aggression perpetration was also negatively and significantly associated with the act with awareness subscale.

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations Among Study Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. T1 Physical Perp	—	.50**	.26**	.32**	−.05	−.14**	−12**	−.13**	−.10**
2. T1 Psychological Perp		—	.21**	.50**	−.01	−.09*	−.15**	−.19**	−.13**
3. T2 Physical Perp			—	.56**	.06	.01	−.09	−.21**	−.02
4. T2 Psychological Perp				—	.04	−.05	−.11*	−.26**	−.05
5. Observing					—	.16**	−.12**	−.18**	.33**
6. Describing						—	.42**	.36**	.31**
7. Act with Awareness							—	.55**	.11*
8. Nonjudging								—	.14**
9. Nonreactivity									—
M	2.37	10.35	2.18	4.91	25.98	26.76	26.28	26.60	21.05
SD	14.32	16.68	15.15	12.38	5.40	5.63	6.04	6.68	4.04

p < .05. **p < .01.

We next employed multiple regression analyses to determine whether specific mindfulness facets were uniquely related to aggression perpetration at Time 2 after controlling for Time 1 aggression and the shared variance among FFMQ facets. To examine this, Time 1 psychological and physical aggression were entered as a block and then all five mindfulness facets were simultaneously regressed on psychological and physical aggression perpetration at Time 2. Results showed a consistent pattern of findings, such that the nonjudging mindfulness facet was significantly and negatively associated with both types of aggression perpetration at Time 2 (see Table 2). No other facets of mindfulness were associated with T2 perpetration.

Table 2.

Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Time 2 Violence Perpetration Controlling for Time 1 Perpetration.

	B	SE	β	T	Overall Statistics
Psychological Aggression
Step 1
T1 Physical Perp	.16	0.08	.12	2.14*	F = 59.95, p < .001
T1 Psych Perp	.39	0.05	.45	8.27**	R² = .26
Step 2
T1 Physical Perp	.17	0.08	.12	2.25*
T1 Psych Perp	.37	0.05	.43	7.86**
Describe	.01	0.01	.03	0.06
Act with Awareness	.01	0.01	.06	1.08	F = 19.85, p < .001
Nonjudging	−.03	0.01	−.20	−3.56**	R² = .29
Nonreactivity	.01	0.01	.05	0.88	R² Change = .03**
Observe	−.01	0.01	.02	0.38
Physical Aggression
Step 1
T1 Physical Perp	.21	0.06	.22	3.52**	F = 14.58, p < .001
T1 Psych Perp	.07	0.04	.11	1.81	R² = .08
Step 2
T1 Physical Perp	.22	0.06	.23	3.73**
T1 Psych Perp	.05	0.04	.08	0.08
Describe	.01	0.01	.10	1.55
Act with Awareness	.00	0.01	.00	0.03	F = 6.49, p < .001
Nonjudging	−.02	0.01	−.20	−3.14**	R² = .11
Nonreactivity	−.01	0.01	−.01	−0.01	R² Change = .04**
Observe	.01	0.01	.05	0.88

Note. SE = standard error.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Finally, we examined whether perpetrators of psychological and physical aggression, respectively, reported lower scores on the five mindfulness facets than non-perpetrators. To examine this question, we first dichotomized individuals into perpetrators and non-perpetrators. To be considered a perpetrator of either form of aggression, individuals had to indicate that they had engaged in at least one act of aggression that fell into each respective subscale of the CTS2. This method of classifying individuals into perpetrators and non-perpetrators was commonly used in the dating violence literature (Bell & Naugle, 2007; Cornelius, Shorey, & Beebe, 2010; Hesse, Strauss, Shorey, Stuart, & Cornelius, 2021; Rhatigan & Street, 2005; Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2011). T-tests were then used to examine differences between perpetrators/non-perpetrators on all five mindfulness facets. As displayed in Tables 3 and 4, at both Time 1 and Time 2, perpetrators of psychological aggression reported significantly lower scores on the nonreactivity, nonjudging, and act with awareness subscales than non-perpetrators. Effect size differences (d) between groups were also calculated (Cohen, 1988). The effect sizes for differences between groups for all psychological aggression scales were in the small-medium range. Additionally, perpetrators of physical aggression reported significantly lower scores on the nonjudging and nonreactivity subscales than non-perpetrators at both Time 1 and Time 2. All effect size differences for the significant effects between groups were in the small-medium range.

Table 3.

Differences Between Time 1 Perpetrators/Non-Perpetrators of Psychological and Physical Aggression on Mindfulness.

	PerpetratorsM (SD)	Non-PerpetratorsM (SD)	d	T
Psychological Violence	(n = 249)	(n = 132)
Describe	26.52 (5.56)	27.41 (5.81)	.10	−1.58
Act with Awareness	25.84 (5.80)	27.75 (6.43)	.32	−3.21**
Nonjudging	26.01 (6.54)	28.59 (6.51)	.38	−3.96**
Nonreactivity	20.86 (3.91)	20.86 (4.47)	.20	−2.04*
Observing	25.95 (5.42)	26.00 (5.24)	.01	−0.10
Physical Violence	(n = 56)	(n = 304)
Describe	26.04 (5.25)	27.45 (5.72)	.10	−1.76
Act with Awareness	26.64 (5.84)	26.89 (6.12)	.18	−0.29
Nonjudging	24.75 (7.81)	27.23 (6.79)	.27	−2.54*
Nonreactivity	19.76 (3.37)	21.53 (4.17)	.30	−3.02**
Observing	25.15 (5.52)	26.04 (5.52)	.15	−1.11

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 4.

Differences Between Time 2 Perpetrators/Non-Perpetrators of Psychological and Physical Aggression on Mindfulness.

	PerpetratorsM (SD)	Non-PerpetratorsM (SD)	d	T
Psychological Violence	(n = 203)	(n = 159)
Describe	26.66 (5.51)	27.50 (5.83)	.15	−1.39
Act with Awareness	25.95 (5.88)	27.47 (6.31)	.25	−2.37*
Nonjudging	25.40 (7.02)	28.42 (6.32)	.45	−4.23**
Nonreactivity	20.64 (4.27)	21.54 (4.11)	.22	−2.01*
Observing	25.98 (5.48)	25.73 (5.75)	.05	0.427
Physical Violence	(n = 56)	(n = 304)
Describe	26.47 (5.14)	27.09 (5.75)	.11	−0.74
Act with Awareness	26.30 (5.80)	26.75 (6.12)	.07	−0.50
Nonjudging	24.04 (7.88)	27.34 (6.57)	.49	−3.35**
Nonreactivity	19.95 (4.96)	21.23 (4.05)	.31	−2.08*
Observing	25.52 (6.23)	25.96 (5.46)	.08	−0.55

p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

This study was the first to utilize a short-term longitudinal design to provide additional data on the relationship between facets of mindfulness and the perpetration of dating violence. Although some prior research indicated that increased mindfulness was associated with less dating violence (Brem et al., 2015; Shorey, Larson, & Cornelius, 2014; Shorey, Seavey, et al., 2014), this field is in its infancy and more research is necessary to discern the relationship between these variables, particularly because mindfulness-based interventions are widespread and effective for a range of psychological difficulties. The findings of this investigation suggest a number of associations between different facets of mindfulness and dating violence perpetration.

Based on prior research (Shorey, Seavey, et al., 2014), we hypothesized that individuals lower in the nonreactivity and acting with awareness facets of mindfulness would evidence greater perpetration of dating violence in their relationships. Contrary to these hypotheses, the results suggested that the nonjudging aspect of mindfulness was most consistently associated with aggression. The nonjudging facet measures the ability to withhold judgment of internal experiences as good or bad, suggesting that individuals who perpetrate aggression in their dating relationships may struggle in the evaluation of these emotional states, and this may manifest in behaving in an aggressive manner. That is, it seems likely that in reacting to emotional states, particularly negative ones that precede or coincide with relationship aggression, individuals may engage in destructive behaviors, including aggression. While not directly predicted by our hypotheses, it is not inconsistent with other recent research in IPV suggesting a relationship between physical IPV perpetration and nonjudging (Brem et al., 2019). These data also suggested that nonjudging was related to lower levels of both physical and psychological perpetration through distress tolerance, which has been linked to IPV (Brem et al., 2019; Shorey et al., 2017).

In addition, there is increasing evidence within the literature that emotion regulation abilities are predictive of violence perpetration (Holley, Ewing, Stiver, & Bloch, 2017; Lilly & Mercer, 2014; Shorey, McNulty, Moore, & Stuart, 2015), and emotion regulation and mindfulness appear to be closely related (Goodall et al., 2012). Indeed, in the initial research on the FFMQ, the nonjudging facet was correlated with difficulties in emotion regulation (Baer et al., 2006). In addition, research suggested that emotion regulation can mediate the relationship between mindfulness and negative emotion lability as well as positive emotion differentiation (Hill & Updegraff, 2012). Furthermore, research indicated that anger rumination mediated the relationship between the nonjudging facet of mindfulness and general aggression (Peters et al., 2015). Thus, perhaps individuals with deficits in nonjudging are more likely to utilize poor emotion regulation strategies, such as rumination, which can, in turn, lead to aggression perpetration. While mindfulness and emotion regulation have demonstrated some overlap in factor analyses (Coffey, Hartman, & Fredrickson, 2010; Goodall et al., 2012), there are conceptual and statistical differences between these constructs. As noted by Coffey et al. (2010), it is likely that dispositional mindfulness facilitates higher emotional clarity, which then helps one manage negative affect. Therefore, although we would expect emotion regulation and mindfulness to be related, it is likely that dispositional mindfulness provides important precursors to emotion regulation. Future research should extend these findings by also assessing other predictors of dating violence perpetration, such as emotion regulation and rumination, in conjunction with mindfulness.

Consistent with previous research (Shorey, Seavey, et al., 2014), when perpetrators and non-perpetrators of aggression were compared, results demonstrated that in addition to the non-judging facet, the nonreactivity as well as the act with awareness facets of mindfulness differentiated perpetrators from non-perpetrators of psychological aggression. That is, compared to their non-perpetrator counterparts, perpetrators of psychological aggression reported a reduced ability to allow their internal experiences to just come and go from awareness without reacting to them, in addition to an increased likelihood to act automatically, without conscious thought. Furthermore, the nonreactivity facet of mindfulness also differentiated perpetrators of physical aggression. These results suggest that perpetrators of aggression were less able to accept their emotional experiences (Baer et al., 2006). Previous research examining the relationship between emotion regulation and dating violence demonstrated that perpetrators of IPV report more impulse control difficulties when they experience negative emotions (Shorey, Brasfield, Febres, & Stuart, 2011). Moreover, the nonreactivity and act with awareness facets were related to impulsiveness in general (Peters et al., 2011). Thus, it is possible that the nonreactivity and act with awareness subscales are associated with dating violence due to one’s inability to regulate one’s impulsive tendencies to avoid or remove negative emotion states, which may increase risk of perpetration in an attempt to regulate one’s emotions. Again, while emotion regulation and mindfulness may assess some of the same processes, experimental and treatment outcome studies support their distinction and suggest that mindfulness facilitates and is associated with emotion regulation (Roemer, Williston, & Rollins, 2015).

Directions for Future Research

While the intent of this study was to preliminarily establish the longitudinal relation between mindfulness and dating violence perpetration, future research should strive to further investigate the relation between mindfulness, dating violence, and other constructs previously shown to be related to dating violence. Prior research indicated that emotion regulation mediated the relationship between mindfulness and a variety of constructs, including psychological distress (Coffey et al., 2010), as well as emotion lability and positive emotion differentiation (Hill & Updegraff, 2012). At the same time, research would suggest that anger rumination can mediate the relationship between the nonjudging facet of mindfulness and general aggression perpetration (Peters et al., 2015). Other researchers have found that anger management mediated the relationship between the mindfulness facets, act with awareness and nonreactivity, and both physical and psychological aggression perpetration (Shorey, Seavey, et al., 2014). In addition, mindfulness moderated the relationship between perceived partner infidelity and female dating violence perpetration (Brem et al., 2019), as well as the relationship between alcohol consumption and sexual aggression perpetration (Gallagher et al., 2010). Thus, future research should further examine the role of mindfulness as a potential moderating variable as well as potential mediators of the mindfulness-aggression association.

It is also plausible that mindfulness-based interventions are a promising direction for dating violence prevention programs. As noted, mindfulness-based interventions have already been shown to be effective in improving a host of health outcomes including self-awareness, emotion regulation (Goodall et al., 2012; Hanley & Garland, 2017), emotional exhaustion (Hulsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang, 2013), depression, anxiety, and psychological distress (Bohlmeijer et al., 2010; Kuyken et al., 2016). Furthermore, these interventions have been successfully implemented with college students (De Vibe et al., 2013; McIndoo, File, Preddy, Clark, Hopko, 2016). Given previous research, mindfulness-based interventions likely enhance psychological health through improvements in emotion regulation (Roemer et al., 2015). It is possible that such interventions could act directly in reducing violence perpetration or by improving another variable related to violence perpetration, such as emotion regulation, psychological distress, or decreased impulsiveness. Mindfulness interventions offer a promising approach, necessitating additional research to further explore the effectiveness, practicality, and long-term outcomes of dating violence prevention programs that incorporate mindfulness-based interventions.

Limitations

As with all research, several limitations should be addressed in future work. This study was conducted at two Midwestern universities within the United States and as a result the sample consisted of college students of primarily non-Hispanic Caucasian ethnicity, limiting its generalizability. This study is limited in its diversity of students of color, sexual minorities, socioeconomic status, religious beliefs, and nationality. Future research should consider the use of non-college students, as well as examination of the relationship between mindfulness and IPV with individuals who identify as male or non-binary. The prospective design of this study does not allow for the determination of causality among study variables. In addition, while only participants who completed measures at both time points were included in the study, only 44% of original participants completed time 2 measure. The inclusion of additional incentives, such as monetary compensation, would likely improve retention rates and should be incorporated into future research using longitudinal designs. Furthermore, we did not ask participants whether they had formal training in mindfulness meditation, or other forms of meditation, which may have impacted dispositional mindfulness. Future research should control for previous mindfulness meditation experience. There are also recent debates in the literature with regard to the definitional ambiguity of “mindfulness,” which should be clarified as we evolve as a scientific field (Van Dam et al., 2018). It is also possible that social desirability may have impacted results, such as through the under-reporting of violence and the over-reporting of mindfulness skills. Future research should include measures of social desirability and determine whether this affects the association between mindfulness and dating violence.

In summary, this study expanded upon the relation between mindfulness and female dating violence perpetration. The findings demonstrated that the nonjudging facet of mindfulness was most consistently related to both forms of violence perpetration. Perpetrators of psychological aggression had deficits in nonreactivity (the ability to refrain from reacting from emotionally distressing stimuli), act with awareness (the ability to make conscious decisions and not functioning automatically), and nonjudging facets of mindfulness. Perpetrators of physical aggression demonstrated deficits within the nonjudging and nonreactivity facets of mindfulness. These findings replicate some aspects of previous research while also yielding novel results, demonstrating the need for further investigation of the relation between mindfulness and dating violence perpetration. Future research should extend these findings while also investigating the potential mediating or moderating role of other constructs, as well as the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions within dating violence prevention programming.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tara L. Cornelius

Author Biographies

Calvin Hesse, BS, is a recent graduate of Grand Valley State University with a major in psychology. He is currently pursuing his MD at the University of Michigan, with the hope of specializing in genetics and oncology.

Ryan C. Shorey, PhD, is an assistant professor of clinical psychology at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. His research focuses primarily on IPV as well as the influence of substance use on IPV perpetration. He is also interested in the role of mindfulness-based interventions in improving substance use and IPV treatment outcomes.

Meagan J. Brem, MA, is a clinical psychology doctoral student at the University of Tennessee. Her research interests include risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence, including jealousy, mindfulness, and cyber abuse.

Gregory L. Stuart, PhD, is a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Tennessee–Knoxville and was the director of Family Violence Research at Butler Hospital. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University.

Tara L. Cornelius, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Grand Valley State University. Her research interests include the functional role of intimate partner violence and the role of substance use and emotion regulation in aggression, as well as risk minimization in research participation.

References

Adair

K. C.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Castro-Schilo

Kim

Sidberry

(2018). Present with you: Does cultivated mindfulness predict greater social connection through gains in decentering and reductions in negative emotions? Mindfulness, 9, 737-749. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0811-1

Anderson

D. K.

Saunders

D. G.

(2003). Leaving an abusive partner: An empirical review of predictors, the process of leaving, and psychological well-being. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4, 163-191.

Archer

(2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.

Baer

R. A.

(2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 2, 125-143.

Baer

R. A.

Smith

G. T.

Hopkins

Krietemeyer

Toney

(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27-45.

Bates

E. A.

(2016). Current controversies within intimate partner violence: Overlooking bidirectional violence. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 937-940. doi:10.1007/s10896-016-9862-7

Bell

K. M.

Naugle

A. E.

(2007). Effects of social desirability on students’ self-reporting of partner abuse perpetration and victimization. Violence and Victims, 22, 243-256.

Blanck

Perleth

Heidenreich

Kröger

Ditzen

Bents

Mander

(2018). Effects of mindfulness exercises as stand-alone intervention on symptoms of anxiety and depression: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 102, 25-35. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/docview/2049940037?accountid=39473

Bliton

C. F.

Wolford-Clevenger

Zapor

Elmquist

Brem

M. J.

Shorey

R. C.

Stuart

G. L.

(2016). Emotion dysregulation, gender, and intimate partner violence perpetration: An exploratory study in college students. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 371-377. doi:10.1007/s10896-015-9772-0

10.

Bohlmeijer

Prenger

Taal

Cuijpers

(2010). The effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction therapy on mental health of adults with a chronic medical disease: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 68, 539-544. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.10.005

11.

Borders

Jajodia

Earleywine

(2010). Could mindfulness decrease anger, hostility, and aggression by decreasing rumination? Aggressive Behavior, 36, 28-44.

12.

Bowen

Chawla

Marlatt

G. A.

(2010). Mindfulness-based relapse prevention for substance use disorders: A clinician’s guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

13.

Brem

M. J.

Khaddouma

Elmquist

Floimbio

A. R.

Shorey

R. C.

Stuart

G. L.

(2019). Relationships among dispositional mindfulness, distress tolerance, and women’s dating violence perpetration: A path analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 2996-3016.

14.

Brem

M. J.

Wolford-Clevenger

Zapor

Elmquist

Shorey

R. C.

Stuart

G. L.

(2015). Dispositional mindfulness as a moderator of the relationship between perceived partner infidelity and women’s dating violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 250-267.

15.

Caetano

Ramisetty-Mikler

Field

C. A.

(2005). Unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Violence and Victims, 20, 393-406. doi:10.1891/vivi.2005.20.4.393

16.

Campbell

J. C.

(2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331-1336. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8

17.

Cavanagh

Strauss

Cicconi

Griffiths

Wyper

Jones

(2013). A randomised controlled trial of a brief online mindfulness-based intervention. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51, 573-578. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2013.06.003

18.

Coffey

K. A.

Hartman

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2010). Deconstructing mindfulness and constructing mental health: Understanding mindfulness and its mechanisms of actions. Mindfulness, 1, 235-253.

19.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

Cornelius

T. L.

Resseguie

(2007). Primary and secondary prevention programs for dating violence: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 364-375.

21.

Cornelius

T. L.

Shorey

R. C.

Beebe

S. M.

(2010). Self-reported communication variables and dating violence: Using Gottman’s marital communication conceptualization. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 439-448.

22.

De Vibe

Solhaug

Tyssen

Friborg

Rosenvinge

J. H.

Sørlie

Bjørndal

. (2013). Mindfulness training for stress management: A randomised controlled study of medical and psychology students. BMC Medical Education, 13, 107. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-107

23.

Dimidjian

Linehan

M. M.

(2003). Defining an agenda for future research on the clinical application of mindfulness practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 166-171.

24.

Elmquist

Hamel

Febres

Zapor

Wolford-Clevenger

Brem

. . . Stuart

G. L.

(2016). Motivations for psychological aggression among dating college students. Partner Abuse, 7, 157-168. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.7.2.157

25.

Elmquist

Wolford-Clevenger

Zapor

Febres

Shorey

R. C.

Hamel

Stuart

G. L.

(2016). A gender comparison of motivations for physical dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 186-203. doi:10.1177/0886260514555130

26.

Fernandez

A. C.

Wood

M. D.

Stein

L. A. R.

Rossi

J. S.

(2010). Measuring mindfulness and examining its relationship with alcohol use and negative consequences. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 608-616.

27.

Fiebert

M. S.

(2010). Examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An annotated bibliography. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 14, 49-91. doi:10.1007/s12119-009-9059-9

28.

Gallagher

K. E.

Hudepohl

A. D.

Parrott

D. J.

(2010). The power of being present: The role of mindfulness on the relation between men’s alcohol use and sexual aggression toward intimate partners. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 1-9.

29.

Goodall

Trejnowska

Darling

(2012). The relationship between dispositional mindfulness, attachment security, and emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 622-626.

30.

Hanley

A. W.

Garland

E. L.

(2017). Clarity of mind: Structural equation modeling of associations between dispositional mindfulness, self-concept clarity and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 334-339. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.028

31.

Heppner

W. L.

Kernis

M. H.

Lakey

C. E.

Campbell

W. K.

Goldman

B. M.

Davis

P. J.

Cascio

E. V.

(2008). Mindfulness as a means of reducing aggressive behavior: Dispositional and situational evidence. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 486-496.

32.

Hesse

Strauss

Shorey

R. C.

Stuart

G. L.

Cornelius

T. L.

(2021). Examination of the transient changes in affect resulting from participation in research addressing interpersonal aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9-10), NP5014-NP5032. doi:10.1177/0886260518795172

33.

Hettrich

E. L.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2007). Females’ reasons for their physical aggression in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1131-1143.

34.

Hill

C. L. M.

Updegraff

J. A.

(2012). Mindfulness and its relationship to emotional regulation. Emotion, 12, 81-90. doi:10.1037/a0026355

35.

Holley

S. R.

Ewing

S. T.

Stiver

J. T.

Bloch

(2017). The relationship between emotion regulation, executive functioning, and aggressive behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 1692-1707. doi:10.1177/0886260515592619

36.

Hopwood

T. L.

Schutte

N. S.

(2017). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of mindfulness-based interventions on post-traumatic stress. Clinical Psychology Review, 57, 12-20. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2017.08.002

37.

Hulsheger

U. R.

Alberts

H. J. E. M.

Feinholdt

Lang

J. W. B.

(2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 310-325. doi:10.1037/a0031313

38.

Kelly

Garland

E. L.

(2016). Trauma-informed mindfulness-based stress reduction for female survivors of interpersonal violence: Results from a stage I RCT. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72, 311-328. doi:10.1002/jclp.2227

39.

Kohls

Sauer

Walach

(2009). Facets of mindfulness—Results of an online study investigating the Freiburg mindfulness inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 224-230. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.009

40.

Kuyken

Warren

F. C.

Taylor

R. S.

Whalley

Crane

Bondolfi

. . . Dalgleish

(2016). Efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in prevention of depressive relapse: An individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized trials. JAMA Psychiatry, 73, 565-574. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.0076

41.

Leisring

P. A.

(2013). Physical and emotional abuse in romantic relationships: Motivation for perpetration among college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1437-1454.

42.

Lilly

M. M.

Mercer

M. C.

(2014). The interaction of emotion regulation and world assumptions in predicting female intimate partner violence perpetration. Partner Abuse, 54, 439-457.

43.

McIndoo

C. C.

File

A. A.

Preddy

Clark

C. G.

Hopko

D. R.

(2016). Mindfulness-based therapy and behavioral activation: A randomized controlled trial with depressed college students. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 77, 118-128. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2015.12.012

44.

Mikolasek

Berg

Witt

C. M.

Barth

(2018). Effectiveness of mindfulness-and relaxation-based eHealth interventions for patients with medical conditions: A systematic review and synthesis. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 1-16. doi:10.1007/s12529-017-9679-7

45.

Ngo

Q. M.

Ramirez

J. I.

Stein

S. F.

Cunningham

R. M.

Chermack

S. T.

Singh

Walton

M. A.

(2018). Understanding the role of alcohol, anxiety, and trait mindfulness in the perpetration of physical and sexual dating violence in emerging adults. Violence against Women, 24, 1166-1186. doi:10.1177/1077801218781886

46.

Peters

J. R.

Erisman

S. M.

Upton

B. T.

Baer

R. A.

Roemer

(2011). A preliminary investigation to the relationships between dispensational mindfulness and impulsivity. Mindfulness, 2, 228-235.

47.

Peters

J. R.

Smart

L. M.

Eisenlohr-Moul

T. A.

Geiger

P. J.

Smith

G. T.

Baer

R. A.

(2015). Anger rumination as a mediator of the relationship between mindfulness and aggression: The utility of a Multidimensional Mindfulness Model. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 71, 871-884. doi:10.1002/jclp.22189

48.

Reed

L. A.

Tolman

R. M.

Ward

L. M.

(2017). Gender matters: Experiences and consequences of digital dating abuse victimization in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 59, 79-89. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.05.015

49.

Rhatigan

D. L.

Street

A. E.

(2005). The impact of intimate partner violence on decisions to leave dating relationships: A test of the Investment Model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1580-1597.

50.

Roemer

Williston

S. K.

Rollins

L. G.

(2015). Mindfulness and emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 52-57.

51.

Schumer

M. C.

Lindsay

E. K.

Creswell

J. D.

(2018). Brief mindfulness training for negative affectivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86, 569-583. doi:10.1037/ccp0000324

52.

Shorey

R. C.

Brasfield

Febres

Stuart

G. L.

(2011). An examination of the association between difficulties with emotion regulation and dating violence perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20, 870-885.

53.

Shorey

R. C.

Cornelius

T. L.

Bell

K. M.

(2008). A critical review of theoretical frameworks for dating violence: Comparing the dating and marital fields. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 185-194.

54.

Shorey

R. C.

Cornelius

T. L.

Bell

K. M.

(2011). Reactions to participating in dating violence research: Are our questions distressing participants? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 890-907.

55.

Shorey

R. C.

Febres

Brasfield

Stuart

G. L.

(2012). The prevalence of mental health problems in men arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 741-748.

56.

Shorey

R. C.

Larson

E. E.

Cornelius

T. L.

(2014). An initial investigation of the relation between mindfulness and female-perpetrated dating violence. Partner Abuse, 5, 3-20. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.5.1.3

57.

Shorey

R. C.

McNulty

J. K.

Moore

T. M.

Stuart

G. L.

(2015). Emotion regulation moderates the association between proximal negative affect and intimate partner violence perpetration. Prevention Science, 16, 873-880. doi:10.1007/s11121-015-0568-5

58.

Shorey

R. C.

Meltzer

Cornelius

T. L.

(2010). Reasons identified for violence in dating relationships: What does “self-defense” really mean? Violence and Victims, 25, 662-676.

59.

Shorey

R. C.

Seavey

A. E.

Quinn

Cornelius

T. L.

(2014). Partner-specific anger management as a mediator of the relation between mindfulness and female perpetrated dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 4, 51-64. doi:10.1037/a0033658

60.

Shorey

R. C.

Strauss

Elmquist

Anderson

Cornelius

T. L.

Stuart

G. L.

(2017). Distress tolerance and intimate partner violence among men in substance use treatment. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 1025-1028.

61.

Shorey

R. C.

Zucosky

Brasfield

Febres

Cornelius

T. L.

Sage

Stuart

G. L.

(2012). Dating violence prevention programming: Directions for future interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 289-296.

62.

Singh

N. N.

Lancioni

G. E.

Myers

R. E.

Karazsia

B. T.

Winton

A. S. W.

Singh

(2014). A randomized controlled trial of a mindfulness-based smoking cessation program for individuals with mild intellectual disability. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12, 153-168. doi:10.1007/s11469-013-9471-0

63.

Straus

M.A.

(2016). Gender violence, dyadic violence, and dyadic concordance types: A conceptual and methodological alternative to Hamby (2016) that incorporates both the gendered and dyadic interaction aspects of violence to enhance research and safety of women. Psychology of Violence, 6, 336-346. doi:10.1037/a0039616

64.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Buncy-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised conflict tactic scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.

65.

Thompson

B. L.

Waltz

J. A.

(2008). Mindfulness, self-esteem, and unconditional self-acceptance. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive Behavioral Therapies, 26, 119-126.

66.

Van Dam

N. T.

van Vugt

M. K.

Vago

D. R.

Schmalzl

Saron

C. D.

Olendzki

. . . Meyer

D. E

. (2018). Mind the hype: A critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 36-61.

67.

Whitaker

D. J.

Morrison

Lindquist

Hawkins

S. R.

O’Neil

J. A.

Nesius

A. M.

. . . Reese

(2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 151-166.

68.

Wincentak

Connolly

Card

(2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7, 224-241. doi:10.1037/a0040194