........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Intimate Partner Violence ............................................................................................................ 7 Priming & Schemas ................................................................................................................... 21 Semantics .................................................................................................................................. 25 Masculinity and its contributions to aggressive behavior ......................................................... 32 The Current Study ..................................................................................................................... 34 Method ....................................................................................................................................................... 35 Materials .................................................................................................................................... 35 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 36 Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 38 Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 44 Discussion .................................................................................................................................................. 49 General Discussion .................................................................................................................... 49 Limitations: ............................................................................................................................... 53 Future Directions: ...................................................................................................................... 54 References .................................................................................................................................................. 58 Appendix A: Emotion Table Consent Form ............................................................................. 75 Appendix B: Emotion Table Debriefing Form ......................................................................... 76 Appendix C: Poster ................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix D: Eligibility Forms .................................................................................................. 78 1) Male ............................................................................................................................................... 78 2) Female ............................................................................................................................................ 79 Appendix E: Time Sheet ........................................................................................................... 80 Appendix F: Confidentiality Agreement ................................................................................... 81 Appendix G: Partner Consent Form .......................................................................................... 82 Appendix H: Faces of Strangers ................................................................................................ 84 Appendix I: Partner Debriefing Form ....................................................................................... 85 SEMANTIC RESPONSE BEHAVIOR FOLLOWING A STATUS PRIME Konefal 3 Appendix J: Participant Consent Form ..................................................................................... 87 Appendix K: Vignettes .............................................................................................................. 89 A) Non-Romantic Vignettes: .............................................................................................................. 89 B) Romantic Vignettes: ...................................................................................................................... 91 Appendix L: Survey .................................................................................................................. 94 Appendix M: Likelihood Survey ............................................................................................... 96 Appendix N: Participant Debriefing Form ................................................................................ 97 Appendix O: Certificate of Completion (Protecting Human Research Participants) ................ 98 Appendix P: Approval from Institutional Review Board .......................................................... 99 SEMANTIC RESPONSE BEHAVIOR FOLLOWING A STATUS PRIME Konefal 4 Abstract Intimate Partner Violence is a potential result of an imbalance within a romantic relationship that comes with grave consequences. Often, abusers find that their higher status position assists them in their ability to harm someone with a lower status position, which thereby leading to higher likelihood of aggression. It is currently unknown whether or not people who verbalize this status imbalance through semantic choice will have a higher likelihood of aggressing. The power of suggestion is a strong phenomenon. Not only can semantics be used in priming to affect various types of behavior such as emotional responses (Hansen & Shantz, 1995), but they can also predict likelihood of behaving in a certain manner (Amrhein, Miller, Yahne, Palmer, & Fulcher, 2003). I hypothesize that when primed with an imbalance in status within a social relationship via the imposition of a social hierarchy, subjects will choose higher ratings of their emotional responses to vignettes and identifying with the words that result from those ratings, which represent their emotional expression. I additionally hypothesize that the variations between social relationships, such as whether the relationship is of a romantic or non-romantic nature, will ultimately influence this decision-making process as well. This is not necessarily stating that the participants will have a higher likelihood of aggression, but rather is attempting to bridge the gapIntimate Partner Violence is a potential result of an imbalance within a romantic relationship that comes with grave consequences. Often, abusers find that their higher status position assists them in their ability to harm someone with a lower status position, which thereby leading to higher likelihood of aggression. It is currently unknown whether or not people who verbalize this status imbalance through semantic choice will have a higher likelihood of aggressing. The power of suggestion is a strong phenomenon. Not only can semantics be used in priming to affect various types of behavior such as emotional responses (Hansen & Shantz, 1995), but they can also predict likelihood of behaving in a certain manner (Amrhein, Miller, Yahne, Palmer, & Fulcher, 2003). I hypothesize that when primed with an imbalance in status within a social relationship via the imposition of a social hierarchy, subjects will choose higher ratings of their emotional responses to vignettes and identifying with the words that result from those ratings, which represent their emotional expression. I additionally hypothesize that the variations between social relationships, such as whether the relationship is of a romantic or non-romantic nature, will ultimately influence this decision-making process as well. This is not necessarily stating that the participants will have a higher likelihood of aggression, but rather is attempting to bridge the gap between the semantic tendency to verbalize one's position within the hierarchy of a relationship and verbally aggressive behavior, which is represented by high ratings for negatively-valenced emotions followed by confirmation of identification. By bridging this gap between semantics and aggression, I am hoping to provide a potential way to identify aggressors before they aggress. The results of this experiment revealed no significance in terms of emotional ratings or for the emotional identification, but there was directionality within the emotional ratings which suggests that this line of inquiry deserves further inspection. SEMANTIC RESPONSE BEHAVIOR FOLLOWING A STATUS PRIME Konefal 5 In a relationship, there is supposed to be a balance between both partners in which one partner is not considered more powerful than the other. If there is a lack of balance, there is an imbalance in power and thereby there is the potential for abuse (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). The likelihood of abuse is based on a plethora of factors causing someone to aggress and purposefully verbally, physically, emotionally, or sexually hurt another person. This behavior is a consequence of neurological abnormalities, familial history, or societal pressures and it takes three distinct forms: physical, psychological, and sexual. If someone falls victim to abuse, it has the potential to lead to many different negative side effects. Disorders such as substance misuse and abuse (Walker, Cole, & Leukefield, 2002; Hien & Ruglass, 2009), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, (Jones Hughes & Unterstaller, 2001; Hien & Ruglass, 2009), depression (Campbell et al., 1995; Danielson et al., 1998; Hien & Ruglass, 2009) or possibly a combination of multiple side effects (Hien & Ruglass, 2009) are just a few of the potential side effects of abuse. Furthermore, perpetuated violence and abuse have a high potential to