Method Participants  145 undergraduates: 38 men (26.2%) and 107 women (73.8%) earning research participation credit for Psychology courses  Recruited online from the human subjects research pool at University of Tennessee  Eligibility: (1) at least 18 years of age, (2) in a current dating relationship of at least 1 month, (3) their current dating partner needed to be at least 18 years of age  Age: M= 19.0 years, SD=1.2  102 (70.3%) Freshmen, 23 (15.9%) Sophomores, 13 (9.0%) Juniors, 6 (4.1%) Seniors  88.3% Caucasian, 6.9% African-American, 3.4% Asian-American, 0.7% Latino, 0.7% Indian/Middle Eastern, 0.7% Pacific Islander, 0.7% Bi-racial Measures  Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration. The CTS2 5 was used to assess prevalence and frequency of participant perpetration and victimization of psychological (α=0.75; α=0.76), physical (α=0.85; α=0.90), and sexual (α=0.73; α=0.73) aggression. Scale Construction  The APAS consists of 30 items: 15 worded for MP and repeated for FP. Items assessing psychological and physical partner aggression were adapted from the CTS2 5, while items assessing sexual partner aggression were adapted from the Sexual Experiences Survey 7. "Acceptability” was defined as the degree to which one “personally believed” each act of partner aggression is “okay" for either a male to do to his female partner, or a female to do to her male partner. Each item was rated using a 5-point Likert scale with anchors at the endpoints (1 = Strongly believe that this is not okay, 5= Strongly believe that this is okay) and at the midpoint (3= Neutral). An "acceptability" total (range 15-75) was calculated by summing the values of all items. Social Approval of Aggression among Intimate Partners: The Development of the Acceptability of Partner Aggression Scales Jeniimarie Febres, Hope Brasfield, Ryan C. Shorey, Heather C. Zucosky, John Lounsbury, & Gregory L. Stuart University of Tennessee -Knoxville Discussion  The acts of partner aggression included in this study were overall rated as unacceptable by a consistent majority of participants, with physical and sexual acts rated as less acceptable than psychological aggression. This supports their inclusion on measures assessing maladaptive relationship dynamics.  Further, since up to 24 (16.6%) participants rated as "Neutral" acts that have been previously labeled "severe", in future research it may be worth examining what makes these individuals different from those who rate such acts as less acceptable.  Consistent with our hypothesis, male-perpetrated aggression was rated as less acceptable than female-perpetrated aggression. As mentioned, this perception could be influenced by existing gender socialization and higher rates of injuries reportedly sustained by female than male victims of partner aggression. However, this is concerning considering the documented, albeit less well-known, adverse effects male victims sustain. Therefore, intervention programs may benefit from placing equal emphasis on partner aggression consequences across genders and further examining in what other ways participants may be distinguishing between partner aggression perpetrated by men and women.  As hypothesized, with the exception of psychological aggression, one's own involvement with partner aggression (perpetration and victimization) was associated with acceptability of FP and MP. This supports the inclusion in intervention programs of psychoeducation not only about the prevalence and negative consequences of partner aggression, but about correlates of partner aggression; knowing more about antecedent risk and protective factors may encourage critical thinking about partner aggression and concrete ways to change one’s behavior. Introduction  In psychology, as in many fields, what is considered deviant from the norm is dictated, in part, by what is currently socially acceptable. The fact that categories of mental illness do not hold across societies 1 or over time within societies 2 is evidence of this.  Assuming social perception plays a significant role in the definition of abnormality makes it particularly important to regularly assess constructs subject to change based on the social climate. Aggression among intimate partners is one such construct. For instance, prior to 1976, unwanted sexual acts between marital partners was not illegal in the United States 3.  With the Acceptability of Partner Aggression Scales (APAS), we were interested in examining the present social acceptability of partner aggressive acts within heterosexual relationships. Moreover, inspired by research showing that partner aggression is often bidirectional in nature 6, we examined whether the acceptability of such acts varied by gender of the perpetrator. Finally, we examined whether one's acceptance of partner aggression was associated with one's own involvement with partner aggression perpetration and/or victimization. Hypotheses  Based on higher rates of injuries sustained by females than males as a result of partner aggression and gender socialization against men hitting women, we hypothesized that MP would be rated as less acceptable than FP.  We hypothesized that one's acceptance of partner aggression would be associated with one’s own involvement in partner aggression, based on the theory of cognitive dissonance. Results  A majority (≥64.1%) of participants rated each item as unacceptable. More respondents rated physical and sexual acts of aggression (≥75.9%) as less acceptable than psychological aggression (≥64.1%). A number of participants (8.3%-16.6%) rated acts as "Neutral", including physical and sexually aggressive acts categorized as "severe" in the existing literature.  Both the APAS MP and APAS FP demonstrated excellent reliability (.98 and.97, respectively) and were significantly associated with one another (r=.89, p<.01).  Participant reports of their own perpetration and victimization of all three types of partner aggression were positively associated with the MP and FP, with the exception of psychological aggression perpetration and MP.  Acceptability by gender of the perpetrator was significantly different such that participants overall believed that female-perpetrated aggression was significantly more acceptable than male-perpetrated aggression (t(144)= 4.22, p<.001). The same held true when acceptability reported by male (t(37)= 3.40, p<.01) and female (t(106)= 2.80, p<.01) participants were examined separately.  Those who reported perpetration and victimization of physical assault endorsed more acceptance of both the MP (t(142)= 2.17, p<.05; t(142)= 2.87, p<.01) and FP (t(142)= 3.40, p<.01; t(142)= 4.44, p<.001) than those who had no history of perpetration or victimization. Likewise, those who reported perpetration and victimization of sexual coercion endorsed more acceptance of both the MP (t(142)= 2.93, p<.01; t(139)= 2.20, p<.05) and FP (t(142)= 3.68, p<.001; t(139)= 3.17, p<.01) than those who had no history of perpetration or victimization. Perpetrators and victims of psychological aggression were not any more accepting on the MP or the FP than their counterparts.