From victimization to perpetration: impulsivity, emotion dysregulation and threat sensitivity across intimate partner violence roles

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent form of aggressive behaviour shaped by relational dynamics and disproportionately affecting individuals with psychiatric disorders. While research has traditionally examined aggression within specific diagnostic categories, transdiagnostic approaches are increasingly recognised as better suited to identify shared underlying mechanisms. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework situates aggression within the negative valence and cognitive control systems, conceptualising IPV as arising from dysfunctions in impulsivity, emotion regulation, and threat sensitivity. Individuals involved in IPV may take on perpetrator, victim, or victim-perpetrator roles, with dual involvement occurring more frequently and linked to more severe outcomes. This study examined whether IPV role groups differ across these domains, particularly whether victim-perpetrators exhibit the most pronounced dysfunctions.

In this cross-sectional study, 106 participants were recruited within the Collaborative Research Centre 379 “Neurobiopsychology of Aggression”, including 90 individuals with psychiatric diagnoses and 16 healthy controls. Data collection is ongoing, with full recruitment targeted for summer 2026. IPV involvement was assessed using the UN Multi-Country Study tool, classifying participants into perpetrator-only, victim-only, victim–perpetrator, and no IPV history groups. Impulsivity, emotion dysregulation, and threat sensitivity were measured using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-15), Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS-36), and Threat Sensitivity Scale (TSS), respectively. General aggression was assessed with the Life History of Aggression questionnaire (LHA). Group differences were analysed using ART-ANCOVA, predictors of IPV perpetration via hierarchical robust regression (HC3), and differences across IPV roles using MANCOVA with Pillai’s Trace.

Patients reported significantly higher IPV involvement than healthy controls (F(1, 89) = 4.71, p = .033, η² = .05). General aggression significantly predicted IPV perpetration beyond covariates (β = .37, p < .001). The combined contribution of impulsivity, emotion dysregulation, and threat sensitivity explained additional variance in IPV perpetration (ΔR² = .156, p = .003), although no individual total score reached independent significance. Consistent with this, MANCOVA on total scores showed no significant multivariate effect of IPV role group (Pillai’s Trace = .13, p = .339), while psychiatric status emerged as a significant covariate (Pillai’s Trace = .16, p = .004), with patients predominantly represented in the victim–perpetrator group.

Notably, exploratory analyses at the subscale level revealed a specific effect for “difficulties controlling impulsive behaviour when distressed” (DERS-36 subscale; χ²(3) = 10.19, p = .017, η² = .09). Post-hoc comparisons indicated that victim–perpetrators reported significantly greater difficulties than victims (p = .048), highlighting a domain-specific impairment not captured by global scores.

These findings suggest that psychiatric disorder and general aggression are more strongly associated with IPV perpetration than global neurocognitive scores. However, subscale-level analyses reveal meaningful differences across IPV roles. Difficulties controlling impulsive behaviour when distressed may represent a specific marker distinguishing dual-role involvement from victimisation alone, aligning with an RDoC-informed conceptualisation of IPV. Interpretation is limited by the small healthy control group (n = 16) and the very small perpetrator-only group (n = 3). Ongoing recruitment will enable more robust conclusions regarding neurocognitive profiles across IPV role groups.

References

No references