Motivation and Morality in Intimate Partner Violence: A Partial Test of Situational Action Theory

Abstract

This work represents a partial test of the motivation-perception process within Situational Action Theory (SAT) using the context of intimate partner violence (IPV). Specifically, the role of morality as a moderating factor in the relationship between motivation and IPV perpetration is explored for both the provocation and temptation motivation pathways defined in SAT. This research uses a mixed-methods approach of a questionnaire and semi-structured interview vignettes to address the three aims: (a) to explore the relationship between motivation and IPV perpetration as moderated by personal IPV morality, (b) examine the applicability of provocation and temptation as motivational pathways for IPV, and (c) provide support for the understanding and explanation of IPV through a general theory of moral rule-breaking. Regression analysis through the PROCESS Macro for SPSS was utilised for the quantitative questionnaire data, and thematic analysis was used for the qualitative vignette data to inform and provide context to the patterns and relationships observed through the quantitative analysis. The final sample of this study comprised of n=298 valid individual responses to the questionnaire, and from this group a sub-sample of n=26 interviews were completed. In this thesis, I have defined IPV as acts of moral rule-breaking, and identified IPV morality as a key explanatory variable in understanding the relationship between SAT’s motivational pathways (provocation and temptation) and IPV perpetration. I situated both provocation and temptation as motivational pathways for IPV and explored the differences in the role of morality between these pathways. In doing so, I provide evidence that while motivation, regardless of provocation or temptation, is necessary for IPV to occur, it by itself is not sufficient. For both the provocation and temptation pathway, personal IPV morality influences how a person responds to provocation by determining whether or not they see IPV behaviours as an action alternative. As such, the most significant finding of this research is that IPV morality is the key mechanism to understanding how and why some people respond to motivation (provocation or temptation) with IPV and others do not. Further, this work presents evidence as to there being differences in IPV morality strength by motivation pathways, as well as in the strength of the moderating effect it has on the relationship between motivation and IPV perpetration.