This study investigates associations between (a) relationship satisfaction and intimate partner violence (IPV: psychological, physical, and sexual) and (b) observed couple communication behavior. Mixed-sex couples (N = 291) were recruited via random digit dialing. Partners completed the Quality of Marriage Index (Norton, 1983), the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus et al., 1996), and one female-initiated and one male-initiated 10-min conflict conversations. Discussions were coded with Rapid Marital Interaction Coding System, 2nd Generation (Heyman et al., 2015). As hypothesized, lower satisfaction was associated with more hostility (p =.018) and less positivity (p < .001); more extensive IPV was associated with more hostility (p < .001). For negative reciprocity, there was a dissatisfaction × IPV extent × conversation-initiator interaction (p < .006). Results showed that conflict behaviors of mixed-sex couples are related to the interplay among gender, satisfaction, and the severity of couple-level IPV. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.
BakemanR.QueraV. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press.
2.
BellK. M.NaugleA. E. (2008). Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: Moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1096–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.03.003
3.
BurmanB.MargolinG.JohnR. S. (1993). America’s angriest home videos: Behavioral contingencies observed in home reenactments of marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.28
4.
ChristensenA.HeaveyC. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.73
5.
CicchettiD. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
CordovaJ. V.JacobsonN. S.GottmanJ. M.RusheR.CoxG. (1993). Negative reciprocity and communication in couples with a violent husband. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(4), 559–564. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.102.4.559
8.
CrenshawA. O.LeoK.ChristensenA.HoganJ. N.BaucomK. J. W.BaucomB. R. W. (2021). Relative importance of conflict topics for within-couple tests: The case of demand/withdraw interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(3), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000782
9.
EpsteinN. B.WerlinichC. A.LaTailladeJ. J. (2015). Couple therapy for partner aggression. In: GurmanA. S.LebowJ. L.SnyderD. K. (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 389–411). Guilford.
10.
FinkelE. J. (2008). Impelling and inhibiting forces in the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 193–207. http://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.193
11.
ForanH. M.BeachS. R. H.SlepA. M. S.HeymanR. E.WamboldtM. Z. (2013). Family problems and family violence: Reliable assessment and the ICD-11. Springer.
12.
FosterD. A.CaplanR. D.HoweG. W. (1997). Representativeness of observed couple interaction: Couples can tell, and it does make a difference. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.9.3.285
13.
FriendD. J.BradleyR. P. C.GottmanJ. M. (2017). Displayed affective behavior between intimate partner violence types during non-violent conflict discussions. Journal of Family Violence, 32(5), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9870-7
14.
GordisE. B.MargolinG.VickermanK. (2005). Communication and frightening behavior among couples with past and recent histories of physical marital aggression. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1–2), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-6241-6
15.
GottmanJ. M. (1994). What predicts divorce?Erlbaum.
16.
GottmanJ. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically-based marital therapy. Norton.
17.
HeaveyC. L.ChristensenA.MalamuthN. M. (1995). The longitudinal impact of demand and withdrawal during marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(5), 797–801. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.63.5.797
18.
HeaveyC. L.LayneC.ChristensenA. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in marital interaction: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.16
19.
HeymanR. E. (2001). Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applications, stubborn truths, and shaky foundations. Psychological Assessment, 13(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.1.5
20.
HeymanR. E. (2004). Rapid marital interaction coding system. In KerigP. K.BaucomD. H. (Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 67–94). Erlbaum.
21.
HeymanR. E.Hunt-MartoranoA. N.MalikJ.SlepA. M. S. (2009). Desired change in couples: Gender differences and communication. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(4), 474–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015980
22.
HeymanR. E.LorberM.F.KimS.Wojda-BurlijA.K.StanleyS.M.IvicA.SnyderD.K.RhoadesG.K.WhismanM.A.BeachS. R. H. (In press). Overlap of relationship distress and intimate partner violence in community samples. Journal of Family Psychology.
23.
HeymanR. E.SayersS. L.BellackA.S. (1994). Global marital satisfaction versus marital adjustment: An empirical comparison of three measures. Journal of Family Psychology, 8(4), 432–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.8.4.432
24.
HeymanR. E.SchleeK. A. (1997). Toward a better estimate of the prevalence of partner abuse: Adjusting rates based on the sensitivity of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(3), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.11.3.332
25.
HeymanR. E.WeissR. L.EddyJ. M. (1995). Marital interaction coding system: Revision and empirical evaluation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(6), 737–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(95)00003-G
Holtzworth-MunroeA.SmutzlerN.StuartG. L. (1998). Demand and withdraw communication among couples experiencing husband violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(5), 731–743. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.66.5.731
28.
Holtzworth-MunroeA.StuartG. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 476–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476
29.
JacobsonN. S.GottmanJ. M.WaltzJ.RusheR.BabcockJ.Holtzworth-MunroeA. (1994). Affect, verbal content, and psychophysiology in the arguments of couples with a violent husband. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(5), 982–988. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.62.5.982
30.
JohnsonM. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(2), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.2307/353683
31.
JohnsonM.P. (2010). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. University Press of New England.
32.
Langhinrichsen-RohlingJ.McCullarsA.MisraT. A. (2012). Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(4), 429–468. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.429
33.
MargolinG.JohnR. S.GlebermanL. (1988). Affective responses to conflictual discussions in violent and nonviolent couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.56.1.24
34.
MargolinG.JohnR. S.O’BrienM. (1989). Sequential affective patterns as a function of marital conflict style. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1989.8.1.45
35.
NewtonR. R.ConnellyC. D.LandsverkJ. A. (2001). An examination of measurement characteristics and factorial valdity of the revised conflict tactics scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164401612011
36.
NollerP.RobertsN. D. (2002). The communication of couples in violent and nonviolent relationships: Temporal associations with own and partners’ anxiety arousal and behavior. In NollerP.FeeneyJ. A. (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 348–378). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511500077.018
37.
NortonR. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/351302
O’LearyK. D.VivianD.MaloneJ. (1992). Assessment of physical aggression against women in marriage: The need for multimodal assessment. Behavioral Assessment, 14(1), 5–14.
40.
PattersonG. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Castalia.
41.
PreacherK. J.CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437
42.
RivaraF. P.AndersonM. L.FishmanP.ReidR. J.BonomiA. E.CarrellD.ThompsonR. S. (2009). Age, period, and cohort effects on intimate partner violence. Violence and Victims, 24(5), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.5.627
43.
SanfordK. (2006). Communication during marital conflict: When couples alter their appraisal, they change their behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(2), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.2.256
44.
SchaferJ.CaetanoR.ClarkC. L. (2002). Agreement about violence in U.S. couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(4), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502017004007
45.
SlepA. M. S.CascardiM.Avery-LeafS.O’LearyK. D. (2001). Two new measures of attitudes about the acceptability of teen dating aggression. Psychological Assessment, 13(3), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.3.306
46.
SlepA. M. S.HeymanR. E. (1998). Situation-specific attitudes toward IPV scale. [Unpublished manuscript]. Family Translational Research Group, New York University.
47.
SommerJ.IyicanS.BabcockJ. (2019). The relation between contempt, anger, and intimate partner violence: A dyadic approach. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(15), 3059–3079. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516665107
48.
StithS. M.McCollumE. E.RosenK. H. (2011). Couples therapy for domestic violence: Finding safe solutions. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12329-000
49.
StrausM. A. (2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204265552
50.
StrausM. A.HambyS. L.Boney-McCoyS.SugarmanD. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001
51.
WaltzJ.BabcockJ. C.JacobsonN. S.GottmanJ. M. (2000). Testing a typology of batterers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(4), 658–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.4.658
52.
WeissR. L.BirchlerG. R. (1975). Areas of Change questionnaire. [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Psychology, University of Oregon.
53.
WhismanM. A.BeachS. R. H.SnyderD. K. (2008). Is marital discord taxonic and can taxonic status be assessed reliably? Results from a national, representative sample of married couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(5), 745–755. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.5.745
54.
XuS.LorberM. F. (2014). Interrater agreement statistics with skewed data: Evaluation of alternatives to Cohen’s kappa. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(6), 1219–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037489.supp
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
