3.2.1. Psychological State Profiles and Appraisal Scores
Significant ‘period’ effects were found for PANAS positive and negative affect (F(1, 93) = 13.28, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.125 and F(1, 93) = 9.71, p = 0.002, ηp2 = 0.095, respectively), with all groups showing large decreases in their positive scores and increases in negative scores after the stressor ended (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, a significant ‘period x group’ interaction effect was only found for PANAS positive affect (F(2, 91) = 3.47, p = 0.035, ηp2 = 0.071), with both groups of IPV perpetrators showing larger decreases than controls, although these differences were not significant.
Regarding appraisal, differences were observed in satisfaction (
F(2, 88) = 16.41,
p = 0.005,
η2p = 0.270) as well as in the internal and external locus of control (
F(2, 88) = 5.64,
p = 0.005,
η2p = 0.126 and
F(2, 88) = 5.64,
p = 0.005,
η2p = 0.126, respectively), with both groups of IPV perpetrators obtaining lower satisfaction scores (
p < 0.001 in both cases) and higher external locus of control scores than controls (
p < 0.05 in both cases). Moreover, the groups differed in the evaluator’s perception of the participants’ cooperation (
F(2, 88) = 6.00,
p = 0.004,
η2p = 0.125) and frustration tolerance (
F(2, 88) = 10.10,
p < 0.001,
η2p = 0.219). Both groups of IPV perpetrators (HA and LA) obtained lower scores on cooperation (
p = 0.006) and tolerance to frustration than controls (
p < 0.001) (see
Table 2).
3.2.2. Electrodermal and Cardiorespiratory Responses
The cognitive task carried out in this study was effective in eliciting electrodermal and cardiorespiratory responses because significant effects of ‘period’ on the SCL, RR, HR, PEP, HF, and RSA were found in the total sample: ɛ = 0.61, F(1.82, 168.05) = 22.96, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.20, β = 1; ɛ = 0.69, F(2.08, 191.71) = 85.56, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.48, β = 1; ɛ = 0.94, F(2.82, 265.20) = 5.97, p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.06, β = 0.94; ɛ = 0.70, F(2.09, 197.34) = 110.15, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.54, β = 1; and ɛ = 0.77, F(2.33, 214.43) = 13.76, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.13, β = 0.99, respectively. Analyzing each group separately, intra-group comparisons revealed significant effects of ‘period’ in LA IPV perpetrators on SCL: ɛ = 0.48, F(1.44, 37.51) = 12.14, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.32, β = 0.97; HR, ɛ = 0.83, F(2.50, 65.24) = 24.38, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.48, β = 1; RR, ɛ = 0.61, F(1.83, 264.46) = 3.89, p = 0.029, ηp2 = 0.10, β = 0.66; and PEP, ɛ = 0.96, F(2.88, 92.15) = 3.63, p = 0.017, ηp2 = 0.10, β = 0.77, respectively. Moreover, in HA IPV perpetrators and controls, there was a significant ‘period’ effect on: SCL, ɛ = 0.65, F(1.97, 63.22) = 10.04, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.24, β = 0.98, and ɛ = 0.41, F(1.23, 42.03) = 4.09, p = 0.041, ηp2 = 0.10, β = 0.83, respectively; HR, ɛ = 0.59, F(1.78, 57.24) = 28.78, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.47, β = 1, and ɛ = 0.62, F(1.86, 63.44) = 35.08, p = 0.041, ηp2 = 0.50, β = 1, respectively; HF, ɛ = 0.74, F(2.22, 71.20) = 25.10, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.44, β = 1, and ɛ = 0.77, F(2.32, 78.88) = 49.65, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.59, β = 1, respectively; and RSA, ɛ = 0.88, F(2.66, 69.32) = 7.28, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.21, β = 0.96, and ɛ = 0.84, F(2.52, 85.80) = 6.08, p = 0.002, ηp2 = 0.15, β = 0.92, respectively. In all the groups, SCL, HR, and RR increased from resting to the preparatory period, and from the preparatory period to the tasks, then decreased until recovery. Moreover, in all groups, the PEP shortened from resting to the task period, and then lengthened until recovery. Conversely, parasympathetic markers (HF and RSA) decreased from resting to the tasks and then increased until recovery.
3.2.3. Differences between Groups in Electrodermal and Cardiorespiratory Variables in Response to a Set of Cognitive Tests
A significant ‘period × group’ interaction was found for SCL (
F(4.18, 192.29) = 2.09,
p = 0.05,
ηp2 = 0.44,
β = 0.75) and RR (
F(5.19, 238.84) = 3.86,
p = 0.002,
ηp2 = 0.07,
β = 0.95). In fact, LA IPV perpetrators scored higher than controls during the preparatory and recovery periods (
p < 0.05 in both cases). Additionally, LA IPV perpetrators presented higher RR values during the preparatory, task, and recovery periods than HA IPV perpetrators and controls (
p < 0.001 in all cases) (see
Figure 1).
Finally, there was a significant ‘group’ effect for SCL (
F (2, 92) = 3.62,
p = 0.030,
ηp2 = 0.07,
β = 0.66), and RR (
F(2, 92) = 11.49,
p < 0.001,
ηp2 = 0.20, β = 0.99), with LA IPV perpetrators showing higher SCL and RR than controls (
p = 0.025 and
p < 0.001, respectively). Moreover, differences were found between groups in the AUCg for SCL (
F(2, 92) = 3.51,
p = 0.034,
ηp2 = 0.07,
β = 0.64) and RR (
F(2, 92) = 9.75,
p < 0.001,
ηp2 = 0.27,
β = 0.65), with LA IPV perpetrators showing higher values than controls (
p = 0.029 and
p = 0.030). Furthermore, LA IPV perpetrators also had a higher RR AUCg than HA IPV perpetrators (
p < 0.001) (see
Figure 2).
No significant effects of ‘period × group’ or ‘group’ were observed for HR, PEP, HF, or RSA. Furthermore, there were no differences in the AUCi or AUCg in these variables.