University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

You always say that: physical aggression perpetration, linguistic behavior, and conflict intensity in young adult dating couples

(USC Thesis Other)

You always say that: physical aggression perpetration, linguistic behavior, and conflict intensity in young adult dating couples

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 1"
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE

You always say that: Physical aggression perpetration, linguistic behavior, and conflict intensity
in young adult dating couples

Hannah F. Rasmussen
Psychology
Master of Art
University of Southern California
December 2017

AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 2
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Behavioral Correlates of Aggression ....................................................................................... 5
Linguistic Behavior ................................................................................................................... 7
Current Study .......................................................................................................................... 12
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Participants .............................................................................................................................. 13
Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 14
Measures .................................................................................................................................. 15
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 19
Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................... 19
Physical Aggression and Linguistic Behavior ....................................................................... 20
Linguistic Behavior and Perceived Conflict ......................................................................... 21
Linguistic Behavior as a Mediator ........................................................................................ 22
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 28
Conclusions and Implications ................................................................................................ 29
References .................................................................................................................................... 30

AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 3
Abstract
Young adults are at higher risk for experiencing physical aggression in their dating relationships,
however little is known about behavioral interaction patterns in these couples. This study
examined 70 young adult couples’ subtle linguistic behaviors during laboratory conflict
discussions for their associations with physical aggression perpetration and perceptions of the
intensity of conflict experienced during the discussion. Conflict discussions were analyzed for
positive (positive emotion words, we-talk, and assent words) and negative (negative emotion
words, you-talk, and certainty words) linguistic behaviors using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word
Count (LIWC) system. Actor-partner interdependence models (APIMs) revealed partner effects
of physical aggression perpetration on linguistic behaviors, specifically for females, and partner
effects of linguistic behavior on reports of the intensity of perceived conflict during the
discussion. In addition, female’ linguistic behavior—assent words and you-talk—mediated the
relationship between males’ physical aggression and report of conflict intensity, and males’
linguistic behavior—assent words—mediated the relationship between males’ physical
aggression and females’ report of conflict intensity. The findings suggest the importance of
looking at subtle patterns in couples’ language as possible triggers in iterative cycles between
conflict and physical aggression for some couples.

Keywords: physical aggression, dating relationships, LIWC, young adults
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 4
Introduction
Physical aggression in couple relationships is a weighty societal problem, with serious
physical and mental health consequences (Black et al., 2011). However, scientific efforts to
better understand relationship aggression are stymied because the perpetration of physical
aggression largely occurs in private. Although, it is not possible to directly observe patterns of
escalation that actually culminate in aggression, research using lab-based dyadic conflict
discussion paradigms suggests that married couples who are physically aggressive show subtle
behavioral differences in their observed communications, for example, different nonverbal
behaviors, more trouble exiting negative exchanges, more hostility and anger, and fewer positive
behaviors than non-aggressive couples (Berns, Jacobson, & Gottman, 1999; Burman, Margolin,
& John, 1993; Jacobson et al., 1994).
These verbal and non-verbal behaviors are typically assessed by human coders (Heyman,
2001). However a relatively new method of observation, linguistic analysis, examines the words
individuals use to gain insight into their psychological states and traits as well as their
relationship functioning (Pennebaker, Francis, & Booth, 2001). Language is a natural,
spontaneously occurring process that can reveal differences in thoughts and feelings that may be
outside an individual’s conscious awareness, and consequently are less vulnerable to social
desirability influences (Ireland et al., 2010; Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003), and
undetectable by human coders (Burkhart & Borelli, 2016; Rohrbaugh, Shoham, Skoyen, Jensen
& Mehl, 2012). As language provides the basis for conflict, and research has demonstrated the
importance of particular linguistic behaviors for couple relationships, it is possible that physical
aggression manifests in language in unique ways and that particular linguistic behaviors may be
important for an individual’s subjective experience of conflict.
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 5
Young adults provide a particularly important population in which to study the
association between communication patterns and aggression because younger couples report
more physical aggression than older couples (Breiding, Black, & Ryan, 2008; Kim, Laurent,
Capaldi, & Feingold, 2008), and some researchers suggest the peak of physical aggression occurs
between adolescence and young adulthood (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012). Physical
aggression, reported to occur in 22% to 56% of young adult couples (Magdol et al., 1997;
McLaughlin, Leonard, & Senchak, 1992; O’Leary, Malone, & Tyree, 1994), also incurs large
costs, especially since patterns of aggression in early relationships often continue over multiple
relationships and into long-term committed relationships (Lorber & O'Leary, 2004; O’Leary et
al., 1989). Yet even less is known about communication patterns related to physical aggression
in young, compared to more established couples (see Capaldi & Crosby, 1997; Capaldi, Kim, &
Shortt, 2007 for exceptions). As younger age is a risk factor for relationship aggression (Capaldi
et al., 2012), young adult couples represent an important demographic in which to observe
dyadic interactions surrounding conflict. The present study aims to discover how physical
aggression in young adult dating couples translates into linguistic behavior during conflict, and
how linguistic behavior in this context, in turn, effects couples’ subjective experience of conflict.
Together, these steps aim to shed light on everyday communication processes that underlie
typical couple conflict and that also might be prominent in physically aggressive young couples.
Behavioral Correlates of Aggression
Even in the relatively public context of video-recorded laboratory-based discussions,
husbands and wives in physically aggressive relationships display a number of behaviors that set
them apart from non-aggressive spouses, including being more negative, less positive, and
showing fewer problem-solving behaviors during conflict discussions (Berns et al., 1999).
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 6
Specifically, Gordis, Margolin, and Vickerman (2005) found that in couples reporting recent
physical aggression, wives demonstrated more hostility, anger, and contempt, and less warmth
and validation towards their husbands. In addition, husbands demonstrated more hostility, anger,
and contempt, and less flexibility and agreeableness towards their wives’ perspective.
Additionally, compared to non-aggressive couples, physically aggressive couples reciprocate
anger, engaging in negative contingency behaviors, and are less able to exit these negative
behavior patterns (Cordova, Jacobson, Gottman, Rushe, & Cox, 1993; Burman et al., 1993).
With findings on young adults’ communication patterns based primarily on self-report
data, it is difficult to know if the same behavioral correlates of aggression in married couples
exist in younger samples. Perpetrators of aggression in young adult couples report that they have
a difficult time controlling their anger, they openly express their anger, and their anger motivates
their aggression (Follingstad, Bradley, Laughlin, & Burke, 1999; Harned, 2001; Robertson &
Murachver, 2007). Although not directly observed by the investigators, studies find that physical
aggression in young couples is associated with poor communication skills, feeling overwhelmed
with negative emotion, expression of criticism, anger, and hostility, unwillingness to
compromise, and less acceptance of their partners’ point of view during conflict (Cornelius,
Shorey, & Beebe, 2010; Follingstad et al., 1999).
The self-report data suggest that physical aggression in young couples is often
bidirectional (Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 1991; O'Leary, Slep, Avery-Leaf,
Cascardi, 2008; Robertson & Murachver, 2007), with males and females sometimes reporting
approximately equivalent rates of physical aggression (Hines & Saudino, 2003). Other studies
report higher rates of physical aggression perpetration by women than men (Archer, 2000; Riggs,
O'Leary, & Breslin, 1990). Yet, female victims also tend to report more serious injuries than
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 7
male victims (Harned, 2001), including serious consequences such as being unconscious and
needing medical attention (Capaldi & Owen, 2001). In addition, males and females report
different motivations for their aggression. For example, females are more likely to report using
physical aggression for self-defense (O’Keeffe, 1997), to get their male partners’ attention
(Capaldi & Crosby, 1997), in retaliation for feeling emotionally injured, and to communicate the
intensity of their anger (Follingstad et al., 1991). Males were more likely to report using physical
aggression to intimidate their partners (Makepeace, 1986), in retaliation to being hit first, in
response to feelings of jealousy (Follingstad et al., 1991), and to gain control over their partner
(O’Keeffe, 1997).
Capaldi and colleagues (2007) actually observed young adult couples in the lab and
coded aversive physical behaviors (e.g. poking or shoving) during a series of interactional tasks
(e.g., planning a date, problem-solving discussions, etc.). Although observed infrequently, hostile
physical contact ranged, across 4 waves, from 7-10% for males and 11-46% for females, with
higher percentages observed in younger (18 years) than older partners (26 years). Observed
aversive physical contact during discussions was associated with reported physical aggression as
well as reported injuries; the prevalence of injuries was higher (27%) when both the male and
female exhibited aversive physical contact during the discussions as contrasted with the male
alone (15%). This study revealed that subtle physical behaviors are linked to aggression, which
highlights the importance of looking at other subtle behavioral correlates of aggression, such as
word choice or language use.
Linguistic Behavior
In light of the difficulties of capturing meaningful examples of physical aggression in
observed interactions, we turn to linguistic cues to identify more nuanced behaviors that may be
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 8
related to relationship aggression. Language is an essential and indispensible component of
couple communication, and such, likely has profound effects on the way that couple interactions
develop (Fitzsimons & Kay, 2004). Studying subtle differences in how aggressive partners
communicate during conflict may allow us capture how conflict escalates toward aggression.
LIWC is a computer program that analyzes the frequency of different word categories in
spoken and written narratives, removing the subjectivity associated with coder rating systems.
LIWC contains categories for content words and process words, which provide opportunities to
analyze not only what people say, but also how they say it. The microbehavioral linguistic
analysis afforded by LIWC may prove to be important for studying relational dynamics,
including aggression. For example, the LIWC dictionary for assessing negative emotion contains
744 words (Pennebaker, Boyd, Jordan, & Blackburn, 2015); although human coders can observe
interactions for displays of affect and parts of speech they would label “negative emotion,” it is
unlikely they would identify and code over 700 negatively valenced emotion words.
Additionally, LIWC can code style and process words (e.g. prepositions, pronouns, articles),
which are not consciously produced but constitute half of our spoken language, making them so
common most people do not pay attention to their use (Burkhart & Borelli, 2016). This kind of
powerful processing can provide information about linguistic behavior that may reveal patterns
of gradual escalation in conflict.
Other research demonstrates that word usage reflects underlying psychological states
such as thoughts, feelings, and motives (Pennebaker et al., 2003; Newman, Pennebaker, Berry &
Richards, 2003) as well as perceived status in social relationships (Tausczik & Pennebaker,
2010). Although most of the research on word choice (e.g., total number of words, positive and
negative emotions, swear words) has been linked to individual behaviors and personality traits
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 9
(Pennebaker & King, 1999), there is a growing literature examining language use in close
relationships. In romantic relationships, first-person plural pronoun use, or we-talk, is related to
increased relationship satisfaction (Sillars, Shellen, McIntosh, & Pomegranate, 1997), lower
physiological arousal (Sieder, Hirschberger, Nelson, & Levenson, 2009), and more effective
problem solving (Simmons, Gordon, & Chambless, 2005). On the other hand, second-person
pronouns, or you-talk is associated with decreased relationship satisfaction (Slatcher, Vazire, &
Pennebaker, 2008) and increased blame and negativity (Simmons et al., 2005).
To our knowledge, no studies have examined linguistic behavior as it relates to physical
relationship aggression. With a focus on young adult couples, the present study proposes to use
LIWC analyses to capture specific linguistic content, modeled after human coder observations of
aggressive married couples. Additionally, we will use process categories, which will allow us to
examine nuanced behavior patterns in the discussions. The specific categories used in this
investigation are described in detail below.
Positive Linguistic Behavior. Numerous studies have found that positive emotional
expression is related to better outcomes for relationships (Gottman & Levenson, 2000;
Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998), and positive emotion words are related to higher
relationship satisfaction (Slatcher et al., 2008) and relationship stability (Slatcher & Pennebaker,
2006). In conflict discussions with married couples, violent men display less positive emotion
than non-violent men (Berns et al., 1999). Additionally, comparisons between couples that have
never experienced aggression to those that have experienced aggression in the recent past find
that women in aggressive couples use less positive humor than women in couples with no history
of aggression (Gordis et al., 2005). Studies that have coded aggressive couples’ positive emotion,
use anywhere from two to six positive affect codes (Berns et al., 1999; Gordis et al., 2005), so
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 10
the application of linguistic analyses specifically for positive emotion may be illuminating. The
positive emotion word category is comprised of 620 words, providing significantly more
opportunities to capture couples’ positive emotion.
A majority of the literature using LIWC to analyze couple discussions has focused
specifically on partners’ pronoun use. Although seemingly subtle, pronoun use can have
profound effects on partners’ wellbeing and relationship functioning. A handful of studies
examining couples managing a serious illness found that independent of a patient’s own we-talk,
the spouse’s we-talk during couple discussions predicted favorable symptom course in patients
with heart failure (Rohrbaugh, Mehl, Shoham, Reilly, & Ewy, 2008), alcohol abstinence in
patients with problematic alcohol use (Rentscher, Soriano, Rohrbaugh, Shoham, & Mehl, 2015),
and smoking cessation in patients with heart or lung disease (Rohrbaugh et al., 2012), suggesting
that hearing a partner convey togetherness in this way is protective to one’s health.
A handful of studies have investigated assent words, which are used to measure
agreement (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010) and depending on the context, validation of another
person’s point of view. Studies examining assents words used by individuals in group social
interactions find that after repeated interaction, assents are indicative of group agreement
(Leshed, Hancock, Cosley, McLeod, & Gay, 2007). Assents such as “Ok” and “mmhmm” may
play an important role in couple conflict as they may be forms of validation or agreeableness.
Gordis and colleagues (2005) demonstrated the importance of these positive behaviors by
showing that men in physically aggressive couples, compared to non-aggressive couples, are less
willing to agree with their partner’s point of view and that women in aggressive couples,
compared to non-aggressive couples, are less likely to show validation towards their partners.
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 11
Negative Linguistic Behavior. Although negative emotion words have not been
examined in couple discussions they have been used to measure emotional reactions to
relationally salient experiences. For example, researchers found that negative emotion word use
in written responses increased among members of long-distance romantic relationships after
asking them to imagine an ambiguous relational threat (Borelli, Rasmussen, Burkhart, & Sbarra,
2014). Borelli and colleagues (2013), found that attachment style significantly predicted adult’s
linguistic behavior, assessed by LIWC emotion categories, suggesting that internal relationship
schemas are reflected in the emotional content of speech. In the context of aggression, one study
examined anger word use in speech samples from male partners describing their marital
relationship to a stranger, and found that perpetrators of relationship aggression used
significantly more anger words (Schweinle, Ickes, Rollings, & Jacquot, 2010).
As mentioned earlier, a majority of the literature on linguistic behavior in couple
discussions has focused on partners’ pronoun use. In behavioral therapy for couples, decreasing
“you-statements” is one target of communication training indicating clinical theory has identified
you-talk during conflict as problematic (Baucom & Epstein, 1990; Jacobson & Christensen,
1998). Empirical research on conflict discussions shows that both individuals’ you-talk and their
partners’ you-talk is negatively associated with couples’ perception of their communication skills
(Biesen, Schooler, & Smith, 2016), and distressed couples use significantly more you-talk than
non-distressed couples (Williams-Baucom, Atkins, Sevier, Eldridge, & Christensen, 2010). This
particular category may be indicative of a negative interaction pattern, and may be one marker of
relationship distress associated with physical aggression.
Although the LWIC category Certainty has not been specifically examined in the context
of social interactions or interpersonal relationships, this category could offer some valuable
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 12
insights into couple conflict. In his longitudinal examination of conflict in married couples,
Gottman (1993) identified a particular pattern of behavior in which hostile couples engaged in a
sequence of negative behaviors that began with a “you always” or “you never” phrase. Although
not empirical, vignettes of couple conflict characterized by the demand/withdrawal patterns,
common in physically aggressive couples, highlight inflexible and blaming language use such as,
“Why do you always have to go to every game?” and “I feel like I never see you” (Eldridge &
Christensen, p. 289). In the context of conflict, greater use of certainty-related words may be
indicative of a blaming or demanding linguistic style.
Current Study
The current study investigates the association between relationship physical aggression
and linguistic behavior in young adult couples using laboratory-based conflict discussions. In
addition, it evaluates the impact of particular linguistic behaviors on the perceived intensity of
conflict during these discussions. To date, this is the first study to examine links between
physical aggression and linguistic behavior during conflict. Linguistic analysis may uncover
subtle behaviors that could highlight patterns of behavior that human coders may miss. In
addition, this work attempts to extend the observational domestic violence literature to young
adult couples, who may be at higher-risk for physical aggression due to their age.
Considering the novelty of examining physical aggression and linguistic behavior, first,
we tested models examining each partners’ perpetration of aggression for its association with
their own and their partners’ linguistic behavior. Based on behavioral observation in physically
aggressive married couples, we hypothesized that higher levels of male and female physical
aggression perpetration would be associated with fewer positive linguistic behaviors, assessed
via positive emotion words, we-talk, and assent words, and more negative linguistic behaviors,
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 13
assed via negative emotion words, you-talk, and certainty words (Hypothesis 1). Second, we
examined the impact of partners’ linguistic behavior on their own and their partners’ perceptions
of the intensity of conflict during the discussion. We hypothesized that fewer positive linguistic
behaviors (positive emotion words, we-talk, assent words) and more negative linguistic
behaviors (negative emotion words, you-talk, certainty words) would be associated with
perceptions of higher intensity of conflict during the discussion (Hypothesis 2). Finally, we
hypothesized a mediation model in which physical aggression perpetration affects linguistic
behavior in the discussion, that in turn, impacts the perception of conflict intensity during the
discussion (Hypothesis 3).
Method
Participants
Participants included 70 heterosexual couples who met the following criteria for
participation: dating for at least two months at the time of the study, and at least one partner
between the ages of 18 and 25 years old. Approximately a third of the couples (n = 24) included
one dating partner who previously participated in a larger study examining family aggression.
The original cohort is a large, ethnically diverse sample of young adults who were recruited in
late childhood as part of a longitudinal study. In the current study, individuals from this sample,
now young adults, return with a current dating partner for another wave of data collection. The
remainder of the sample (n = 46 couples) was recruited through flyers and Internet postings in
the Los Angeles community. On average, couples have been together 2.57 years (SD = 2.05
years), 39% (n = 27) report living together, and 3% (n = 2) were married at the time of the study.
Participants average 22.78 years of age (SD = 2.57) and are diverse in terms of race and ethnicity
(see Table 1).
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 14
Procedure
Overview. The conflict discussions and post-discussion questionnaires were part of a
larger laboratory study comprised of several dyadic interactions and a number of self-report
questionnaires. The conflict discussion was designed to capture an interaction sample of the
couple discussing one or more relationship topics that are meaningful concerns in their
relationship. To identify the topics for the discussion, participants completed a 25-item listing of
common relationship issues for young adult couples. For each item, the participant indicated how
upsetting the topic was on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = Not at all; 4 = A lot), and the extent to
which he or she had discussed the topic with their partner using a 3-point scale (0 = Not at all, 2
= A lot). Partners then met with separate experimenters in individual priming interviews with the
goal of identifying the most significant areas of conflict in the relationship. Research assistants
then conferred with each other to select two to three areas for discussion that represent both
partners’ “hot” topics. Based on ratings of current conflict areas, some of the most commonly
reported conflict topics include: time together versus time apart, friends, past relationships, and
partner’s personal habits. Before the discussion participants are told:
“For your next conversation, we’re going to ask you to take 10 minutes to talk to each
other about things in your relationship that you wish could be different. One or both of you
indicated that it could be helpful to talk about the following topics [LIST TWO TO THREE
TOPICS] you can talk about any combination of these topics. The most important thing to us is
that you have something to talk about for the full 10 minutes. You can talk about these in any
order that you wish. Please try to talk in as much detail as you can and use this an opportunity to
let each other know how you really feel about these topics, and try to use up the full time.”
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 15
Following the 10-minute discussion, participants filled out additional questionnaires
about the discussion and their relationship. Couples used a 5-point scale to report how often they
have conversations like the conflict discussion (0 = Never; 4 = Very often) and how similar the
laboratory discussion was to other discussions they have had (0 = Not at all similar; 4 = Very
similar). Most couples (78%) reported they have discussions like the conflict discussion
sometimes or often and several couples (7%) reported having similar discussions very often.
Sixty-three couples (90%) stated that the laboratory discussion was somewhat similar to very
similar to discussions they have had before and the remaining seven couples (10%) said the
laboratory discussion was only slightly similar to discussions they have had before.
Measures
Physical Aggression. Couples’ dating aggression over the entire duration of their
relationship was assessed during the lab session through the How Partners Treat Each Other
scale (HPTEO), which is adapted from the How Friends Treat Each Other scale (HFTEO,
Bennett, Guran, Ramos, & Margolin, 2011) for use with romantic partners. To measure physical
aggression, we used a 9-item subscale that assesses physically aggressive behaviors (e.g.,
Grabbed your arm in a way that it hurt). Participants go through an identical listing of items
twice, once as the perpetrator (e.g. How often did you slap your partner?) and once as the victim
of aggression (e.g. How often did your partner slap you?). Response options range on a 5-point
scale from 0 = Never happened to 4 = Happened more than 10 times. Using both self-reports and
partner-reports for each item (e.g., both male and female report how often he grabbed her arm
and both report how often she grabbed his arm), we used maximum rating across reporters on
each actor for each item (see Margolin, Gordis, Medina, & Oliver, 2003 for similar procedures).
Then we calculated the mean score across all items for each partner. Internal consistency was
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 16
adequate (α = .74 for male perpetration and .86 for female perpetration). There was one extreme
outlier in physical aggression perpetration among the male participants that we winsorized to the
next highest score for all analyses (Dixon, 1960). Fifty-one percent of females and 36% of males
reported some act of physical aggression
Linguistic Behavior. In order to assess couples linguistic behavior, all conflict
discussions were video recorded and transcribed verbatim by research assistants. Before LIWC
editing, each transcript was reviewed at least three times by a minimum of two research
assistants. If by the third review the transcribers disagreed regarding any text, a third research
assistant edited the transcripts a fourth time to make final changes. Research assistants then
separated the couple transcripts into files that contained only male or only female speech to
analyze person’s speech independently, and edited the separate transcripts for the necessary
changes consistent with the requirements of the LIWC program, i.e., taking out laughter
(Pennebaker et al., 2001) and flagging all “filler” words and nonfluencies (“oooh,” “like”).
Similar to the original transcription process, the LIWC edited transcripts were reviewed at least
three times by a minimum or two research assistants. If there were remaining questions or
disagreements about editing a particular passage, a third research assistant reviewed the LIWC
transcript a fourth time. Finally, the transcripts were analyzed with LIWC software to extract the
codes of interest.
The LIWC program uses an internal dictionary comprised of 74 standardized linguistic
(e.g., Prepositions) and psychological (e.g., Negative Emotions) dimensions. Every word was
compared to the categories of interest in this dictionary in order to calculate the percentage of
total words each category represented (e.g. the percentage of words used that were emotion
words). Pennebaker and colleagues (2015) provide reliability data for the newest version of the
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 17
LIWC program, but caution the reliability coefficients for language are often much lower when
computed using normal methods as the psychometrics of language are quite different than self-
report (e.g. people do not repeat the same ideas in the same way as they write about or talk
through an experience). In order to get a more accurate estimation of internal consistency,
Pennebaker and colleagues use the Spearman-Brown prediction formula to create corrected
alphas, which are included below in Table 2. The validity of the LIWC categories has been
examined in numerous studies across a number of different disciplines (see Tausczik &
Pennebaker, 2010 for a review). In the current study, we examined the LIWC categories of
Positive Emotion, First-person Plural Pronouns (we-talk), Assent, Negative Emotion, Second-
person Pronouns (you-talk), and Certainty. Table 2 presents summary information, examples
words, and speech samples for each of these categories of words.
Perceived Conflict. Following the conflict discussion, partners completed a post-
discussion questionnaire that assessed perceived conflict. Conflict was assessed through the item,
“How much conflict did you experience with your partner in this discussion?” On a 5-point scale
from 0 = None to 4 = A lot, the most common response for females was “None” (44%), followed
by “A little” (26%), “Some” (20%), “A moderate amount” (6%), and “A lot” (4%), and the
most common response for males was “A little” (40%), followed by “None” (29%), “Some”
(20%), “A moderate amount” (9%), and “A lot” (3%).
Overview of Analyses. Study hypotheses were tested using a series of actor-partner
interdependence models (APIM; Kenny, 1996; Kenny & Cook, 1999). The APIM accounts for
the interdependence of dyadic data and allows for independent estimation of the impact of a
person’s characteristics on their own outcomes, actor effects, and the impact of a person’s
characteristics on their partner’s outcomes, partner effects. First, we conducted six APIMs, one
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 18
for each language category, to examine the actor and partner effects of males’ and females’
perpetration of physical aggression on males’ and females’ linguistic behavior during the conflict
discussion (Hypothesis 1). Next, in a parallel set of APIMs, we examined the actor and partner
effects of the impact of males’ and females’ linguistic behavior on males’ and females’
independent reports of the intensity of conflict during the discussion (Hypothesis 2).
Finally, based on the sequential nature of our hypotheses (Collins, Graham, & Flaherty,
1998), data were fit using the actor-partner interdependence mediation model (APIMeM;
Ledermann & Bodenmann, 2006). The APIMeM is an extension of the APIM with the addition
of a mediating variable. The standard APIMeM (Figure 1) has six actor effects and six partner
effects, and four paths that can be mediated by two mediators creating eight simple indirect
effects (IEs). To investigate the indirect direct effect of physical aggression perpetration on
perceived conflict through linguistic behavior we fit six separate APIMeMs, one for each of
three positive and three negative linguistic behaviors (Hypothesis 3). The paths in the APIMeMs
correspond to the paths in Hypotheses 1 & 2: the effects of partners’ physical aggression
perpetration on their own (a
A1
and a
A2
) and their partners’ (a
P1
and a
P2
) linguistic behavior and
the effect of partners’ linguistic behavior on their own (b
A1
and b
A2
) and their partners’ (b
P1
and
b
P2
) reports of the degree of conflict they experienced. The direct effects of partners’ physical
aggression perpetration on their own reports of conflict are represented by the c
A1
and c
A2
, and
the direct effects of partners’ physical aggression perpetration on their partners’ reports of
conflict are indicated by the c
P1
and c
P2
. To test for mediation we used 5000 bootstrapped
samples in order to estimate the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (CI) of the IEs. If the
95% CIs for the IE did not include zero, findings were considered significant at the p < .05 level
(Hayes, 2013). Except for the estimation of the 95% CIs for the IEs, all APIMs and APIMeMs
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 19
paths were estimated using structural equation modeling (SEM) with robust estimation
procedures to account for the non-normality and non-independence of the data.
Variables were grand mean centered and all models controlled for the length of the
romantic relationship (in months) and whether the couple was cohabitating. As all participants
were members of opposite-sex couples, we treated the dyads as theoretically distinguishable by
sex (Fitzpatrick, Gareau, Lafontaine, & Gaudreau, 2016). In addition, all models were run with
and without the two married couples who were included as participants due to being part of the
longitudinal sample. Inclusion of these couples did not substantially change the results, so the
results presented here include the full sample.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for the main study variables and
demographic characteristics separately for male and female partners. In addition, the table shows
the results of paired samples t-tests comparing males and females: Two gender differences
emerged indicating that females perpetrated significantly more physical aggression and were
significantly younger than males. Table 3 shows the bivariate correlations for all study variables.
All variables are presented separately for females and males with the exception of months they
have been together as a couple. Females’ and males’ physical aggression perpetration were
significantly correlated, as were females’ and males’ post-discussion conflict ratings. Female
physical aggression perpetration was positively associated with female you-talk, negative
emotion word use, and intensity of conflict ratings, and positively associated with male you-talk.
Male physical aggression perpetration was negatively associated with males’ use of assent
words. In addition, it was positively associated with female you-talk, certainty word use,
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 20
negative emotion word use, and conflict ratings, and inversely associated with female we-talk
and assent word use. Female conflict ratings were positively associated with female we-talk and
use of certainty words, and inversely associated with females’ use of assent words. Female
conflict ratings were positively associated with male you-talk and inversely associated with
males’ use of assent words. Finally, male conflict ratings were positively associated with female
you-talk and inversely associated with females’ use of assent words. We also examined the
associations between participants’ age, the length of their relationship, and whether they were
cohabitating and the main study variables. We found that length of relationship was inversely
associated with female assent words (r = -.27, p < .05). In addition to what is presented on the
table, male age was positively associated with female certainty words (r = .34, p < .01), female
negative emotion words (r = .34, p < .01), male physical aggression perpetration (r = .26, p <
.05), and male certainty words (r = .33, p < .01).
Physical Aggression and Linguistic Behavior
In each APIM examining the associations between physical aggression perpetration and
linguistic behavior, we controlled for length of relationship and cohabitation status. The saturated
APIMs examining Hypothesis 1 are presented in Figure 2 with both the unstandardized and the
standardized path coefficients. The primary significant findings are partner effects and
particularly male physical aggression to female language use. Five of six possible female partner
paths were significant. Males’ physical aggression perpetration was negatively associated with
females’ we-talk (-1.75, SE = 0.73, p = .01), use of assent words (-4.30, SE = 1.26, p = .001), and
use of positive emotion words (-1.61, SE = 0.78, p = .04) and positively associated with females’
you-talk (4.94, SE = 1.87, p = .01) and use of certainty words (1.47, SE = 0.67, p = .03); only
negative emotion words was not significant. One significant partner effect emerged for males:
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 21
female physical aggression perpetration was positively associated with males’ you-talk during
the discussion, 1.41, SE = 0.39, p < .001. Actor effects showed the one significant path for
males: Males’ physical aggression perpetration was negatively associated with males’ use of
assent words during the discussion, -4.06, SE = 1.21, p = .001. Across all six linguistic
behaviors, none of the actor effects for female were significant.
Linguistic Behavior and Perceived Conflict
To examine the associations between linguistic behavior and partners’ perceptions of the
intensity of conflict during the discussion (Hypothesis 2), we conducted six APIMs controlling
for length of relationship, cohabitation status, and each partners’ physical aggression
perpetration. Figure 3 presents the saturated APIMs with the unstandardized and the standardized
path coefficients.
Across the six models, two partner effects for males were significant: males’ perception
of the intensity of conflict during the discussion was impacted by their female partners’ use of
assent words and you-talk, such that greater use of assent words was associated with less
perceived conflict (-0.11, SE = 0.04, p = .01) and greater you-talk was associated with more
perceived conflict (0.14, SE = 0.06, p = .03). In addition, three partner effects were significant
for females. Female partners’ perception of the intensity of conflict during the discussion was
negatively associated with male partners’ use of assent words (-0.14, SE = 0.06, p = .02) and
positively associated with male partners’ you-talk (0.11, SE = 0.05, p = .02) and use of certainty
words (0.62, SE = 0.23 p = .01).
For actor effects, one actor path emerged as significant: females’ use of positive emotion
words was positively associated with her post-discussion perceptions of the intensity of conflict,
0.25, SE = 0.10, p = .01. No significant actor effects emerged for males.
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 22
Linguistic Behavior as a Mediator
We conducted six separate APIMeM analyses to fit the saturated model pictured in
Figure 1 for each of the linguistic categories. In each model we controlled for length of
relationship and cohabitation status. To test for mediation, we examined the bias-corrected 95%
CIs of the unstandardized estimates of the IEs of physical aggression perpetration on perceived
conflict; Table 4 presents the separate IEs for each mediation path.
Two linguistic behaviors were significant mediators of at least one direct path. Male and
female partners’ use of assent words each served as an indirect path for the association males’
physical aggression and perceived conflict (Figure 4 panel A). Females’ simple actor-partner IE
was significant, 0.58 (95% CI [0.01, 1.48]), suggesting that males’ use of assent words during
the discussion mediates the association between males’ physical aggression perpetration and
females’ perceptions of the conflict experienced during the discussion. In addition, males’
partner-partner simple IE was significant, 0.48 (95% CI [0.02, 1.14]). This suggests that females’
use of assent words during the discussion mediates the association between males’ physical
aggression perpetration and males’ perceptions of conflict during the discussion. In addition,
female partners’ you-talk was a significant mediator of the association between males’ physical
aggression perpetration and males’ perceived intensity of conflict during the discussion (Figure 4
panel B; partner-partner simple IE for males = 0.11 (95% CI [0.01, 1.90]).
Discussion
Based on this study, physical aggression perpetration in young adult relationships
manifests in subtle linguistic behaviors during conflict, and how partners in young adult couples
speak to one another plays a role in the intensity of their conflict. In line with our hypotheses,
male physical aggression perpetration was consistently associated with females’ linguistic
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 23
behavior in the discussion (Hypothesis 1). We found more physical aggression perpetration from
males was associated with fewer positive emotion words, less we-talk, fewer assent words, more
you-talk and more certainty words spoken by females during the discussion. Only females’
negative emotion word use was not associated with male physical aggression. However, our
other findings were mixed. Greater male physical aggression perpetration was associated with
fewer assent words spoken by males during the discussion, and greater female physical
aggression perpetration was associated with more you-talk from males during the discussion.
Contrary to expectation, female physical aggression perpetration was not associated with
females’ word use during the discussion. We also found some evidence that linguistic behavior
was related to the intensity of conflict couples reported (Hypothesis 2). As hypothesized, both
males and females reported greater intensity of conflict when their partners used more you-talk
and fewer assent words during the discussion, and females reported greater intensity of conflict
when their partners used more certainty words during the discussion. Surprisingly the more
positive emotion words females used the greater intensity of conflict they reported experiencing
in the discussion. Finally, estimation of the indirect effects uncovered important interpersonal
processes in which female linguistic behavior—specifically low assent words and high you-
talk—formed a link between male physical aggression perpetration and the intensity of conflict
males reported experiencing during the discussion (Hypothesis 3). Additionally, low levels of
males’ assent words explained the association between male physical aggression perpetration
and the intensity of conflict females reported experiencing. This study extends observational
research on young adult dating couples by demonstrating that potentially destructive and
dangerous patterns, such as physical aggression, are associated with subtle dimensions of
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 24
language use, and that particular linguistic categories may perpetuate negative interactional
cycles through amplifying the intensity of conflict.
As previous observational studies on physical aggression were largely conducted with
married couples, the association between self-reported physical aggression and observed
behavior in a laboratory discussion expands the literature on aggression in dating couples. This
finding is consistent with the only other observational study of young adult dating couples,
which found that couples that reported ever using physical aggression showed more physically
aversive behaviors (e.g., shoving, poking, slapping, kicking) than couples that reported never
using physical aggression (Capaldi et al., 2007). Unlike Capaldi and colleagues (2007), our
measure of self-reported physical aggression was a continuous variable. Measuring physical
aggression this way maintained the variability of dating aggression among our couples. In
addition, we did not collapse aggression across partners. Instead, by separately examining male
and female self-reported physical aggression perpetration, we found quite different impacts on
language use. Thus, although rates of dating aggression are quite similar for males and females
overall (Capaldi & Owen, 2001), and despite high rates of reciprocal physical aggression
between partners, our findings show that males’ physical aggression has a different cross-partner
affect on women’s language than vice versa. Finally, the behaviors Capaldi and colleagues
(2007) observed (e.g., shoving, poking) occurred at very low frequencies, with less than half of
the sample demonstrating these behaviors at any given time point. In the current sample, only
four individuals across four different couples received a zero for any of the LIWC categories we
analyzed, meaning all six LIWC categories were observed in 97% of individuals (94% of
couples). Thus, these findings demonstrate that physical aggression has implications for
language use that is very ordinary and used to a certain extent by all couples.
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 25
The most consistent finding revealed here is the unique impact of males’ physical
aggression perpetration on their female partners’ positive and negative linguistic behavior.
Although the rates of male physical aggression were lower than the rates of female physical
aggression in this sample, males’ physical aggression perpetration had a significant association
with females’ behavior whereas females’ physical aggression was associated only with males’
you-talk. The combination of these gender differences was somewhat surprising given the
literature on dating couples demonstrating similarities between male and female physical
aggression. Studies with dating couples have found that females perpetrate and initiate physical
aggression as often as or more than males do (Archer, 2000; DeMaris, 1992; Follingstad et al.,
1991; Harned, 2001), and there is some evidence that females in physically aggressive dating
relationships cause as many injuries as males do (Capaldi & Owen, 2001), However, it appears
that males’ physical aggression perpetration may have a different impact on interactional patterns
during conflict than females’ physical aggression perpetration. It is typically recognized that
male physical aggression poses a greater threat than female physical aggression (Cantos, Neidig,
& O’Leary, 1994; Cascardi, Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992). Although we did not assess the
consequences of the aggression perpetrated in these couples, the observed linguistic findings for
females congruent to males’ aggression suggest that females may be more watchful during
conflict discussions as manifest through more frustration and impatience, and less collaboration.
Our investigation identified a handful of meaningful linguistic categories in the
examination of physical aggression in dating couples: positive emotion, we-talk, assent words,
you-talk, and certainty words. These linguistic behaviors, and their association with physical
aggression, match other behaviors observed in married couple interactions, such as warmth,
positive affect, flexibility, agreeableness, hostility, and criticism (Berns et al., 1999; Gordis et al.,
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 26
2005). The lack of findings for negative affect, however, is surprisingly as that is a
communication behavior anticipated to be associated with aggression and conflict. This finding
raises the possibility that the use of negative emotion words is not the same as the expression of
negative emotion, for example, through vocal inflection and facial expressions. It also suggests
that relational processes that occur during such discussions may be more subtle than the actual
labeling of angry, fearful, or sad emotional states. Further surprising findings include the absence
of actor effects: Other than the association between males’ physical aggression perpetration and
males’ assent, both females and males’ physical aggression is not associated with their own
language use. Physical aggression was not associated with using language reflecting more
irritation or accommodation.
Linguistic behavior, across the multiple categories of language examined in this
investigation, was associated with partners’ perceptions of the intensity of conflict experienced
during the discussion. Our results build upon research finding that the use of particular linguistic
categories during a conflict discussion, specifically more you-talk, was inversely associated with
couples’ global report of communication quality (Biesen et al., 2016). Here we extend that
research by demonstrating you-talk, and other linguistic behaviors, directly impact perceptions of
the quality of the interaction the behaviors were observed in. Although a few studies have
examined how linguistic behavior during an interaction relates to individuals’ assessment of the
interaction, and their evaluations of the other people taking part in the interaction (Gonzales,
Hancock, & Pennebaker, 2010; Ireland et al., 2010; Rains, 2016), no studies have examined how
linguistic behaviors during conflict discussions relate to partners’ reactions to each other or the
discussion itself. The counterintuitive finding showing an association between positive emotions
and conflict deserves further explication and replication. It is possible, however, that female
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 27
partners try to ‘soften the blow’ of difficult, conflictual discussions through use of positive
emotions. More generally, these results offer preliminary evidence that couples’ perceptions of
conflict are reflected in part with the choice of words used and that LIWC is a meaningful tool in
identifying those word choices.
Our findings highlighting linguistic behavior as a link between physical aggression
perpetration and intensity of conflict provide further evidence for the value of examining
language use during conflict. Specifically, the significant indirect effects were representative of
interpersonal processes in which female partners’ word use—assents and you-talk—formed a
link between male physical aggression and male partners’ report of the intensity of conflict, and
male partners’ word use—assents—formed a link between male physical aggression and female
partners’ report of the intensity of conflict. It is worth noting that the APIMeM for you-talk
revealed four significant direct partner paths: male physical aggression on female you-talk,
female physical aggression on male you-talk, female you-talk on male perceptions of conflict,
and male you-talk on female perceptions of conflict. The joint test of significance (Fritz &
MacKinnon, 2007) would suggest that the female partner-partner indirect effect was also
significant—meaning male you-talk formed a link between female physical aggression and
female partners’ report of the intensity of conflict—however we tested significance of the
indirect effects using the bias-corrected confidence intervals obtained through bootstrapping
(Hayes, 2013). The joint test of significance has more power than other tests of mediation
however, it does not provide confidence intervals for the indirect effects and it is difficult to use
for complex models with multiple mediators, like the models presented here (MacKinnon,
Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). Therefore, we report three rather than four
significant indirect effects. All of the indirect effects included partner paths, which suggests that
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 28
something truly interpersonal occurred as the link between male physical aggression and one
partners’ experience of conflict is mediated by the other partners’ linguistic behavior (Kenny,
Kashy, & Cook, 2006). It is not simply perpetrating physical aggression or being the victim of
physical aggression that predicts the intensity of conflict individuals experience during a
discussion with their dating partner. Instead, each partners’ behavior during the discussion also
plays a role.
Limitations
Several limitations of this study deserve notice. First, our measure of physical aggression
assessed frequencies of particular behaviors, all of which were classifiable as physical
aggression, but ranged in severity. This measure precluded us from teasing apart differences
between couples that reported more severe (e.g. punching) versus less severe (e.g. pushing)
behaviors within the group of physical aggression items. Relatedly, we did not measure any
consequences from physical aggression, such as injuries, so we do not know about the severity or
impact of physical aggression and, similarly, we do not know how seriously the victims perceive
the physical aggression. Second, we measured the intensity of conflict experienced by each
partner using a single item. A more comprehensive measure of perceived conflict might provide
a more reliable measure. Third, our goal was to examine subtle linguistic behaviors; however
there may be other nuanced features of interaction, such as vocal tone (see Weusthoff, Baucom,
& Hahlweg, 2013 for a review), that are equally as valuable for highlighting subtle behavioral
patterns in aggressive couples. In fact, it is likely that a combination of these factors would offer
the most detailed picture of subtle differences in interactions between aggressive and non-
aggressive couples. Fourth, although the LIWC categories we chose paralleled concepts from
observations of physically aggressive couples and findings reported from other studies using
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 29
LIWC, there may be other LIWC categories that are important for aggression or combinations of
categories that may provide a clearer picture of the linguistic behavior of aggressive couples.
Finally, since we were interested in young adult dating couples, our sample was comprised of
couples with varying degrees of commitment and as such cannot be generalized to older, more
committed, or married couples.
Conclusions and Implications
This study advances what is known about physical aggression and observable behavior in
young adult couples and provides insight into gender differences in the communication patterns
associated with physical aggression perpetration. The high prevalence of physical aggression
among young adult dating couples makes them an important demographic in which to study
interaction patterns during conflict. Through uncovering subtle patterns of behavior that
physically aggressive couples show during conflict, research may expose important points for
early intervention in physically aggressive dating relationships. It is possible that bringing
attention to potentially problematic linguistic behaviors could reduce conflict and interrupt the
pattern of conflict escalation towards violence.
"
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 30
References
Baucom, D. H., & Epstein, N. (1990). Cognitive-behavioral marital therapy. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Bennett, D. C., Guran, E. L., Ramos, M. C., & Margolin, G. (2011). College students’ electronic
victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress and
associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims, 26, 410-429. doi: 10.1891/0886-
6708.26.4.410
Berns, S.B., Jacobson, N.S., Gottman, J.M. (1999). Demand-withdraw interaction in couples
with a violent husband. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 666–674.
PMID: 10535233
Biesen, J. N., Schooler, D. E., & Smith, D. A. (2016). What a difference a pronoun makes: I/We
versus you/me and worries couples’ perceptions of their interaction quality. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 35, 180-205. doi: 10.1177/0261927X15583114
Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J.,
& Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
(NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Borelli, J. L., David, D. H., Rifkin-Graboi, A., Sbarra, D. A., Mehl, M. R., & Mayes, L. C.
(2013). Language use in the Adult Attachment Interview: Evidence for attachment-
specific emotion regulation. Personal Relationships, 20, 23-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-
6811.2012.01394.x
Borelli, J. L., Rasmussen, H. F., Burkhart, M., & Sbarra, D. A. (2014). Relational savoring in
long distance romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 31
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(8), 1083-1108. doi:
10.1177/0265407514558960
Breiding, M. J., Black, M. C., & Ryan, G. W. (2008). Prevalence and risk factors of intimate
partner violence in eighteen U.S. states/territories, 2005. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 34(2), 112–118. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.10.001
Burkhart, M. L., & Borelli, J. L. (in preparation). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. In B. J.
Carducci (Ed.), The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individuals differences:
Research methods and techniques of assessment (Vol. 2).
Burman, B., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1993). America’s angriest home videos: Behavioral
contingencies observed in home reenactments of marital conflict. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 61, 28-39. PMID: 8450105
Cantos, A. L., Neidig, P. H., & O’Leary, K. D. (1994). Injuries of women and men in a treatment
program for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 113-124.
Capaldi, D. M. & Crosby, L. (1997). Observed and reported psychological and physical
aggression in young, at-risk, couples. Social Development, 6(2), 184-206. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00101.x
Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of
physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 101–111.
doi: 10.1007/s10896-007-9067-1
Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk
factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231-280. doi: 10.1891/1946-
6560.3.2.231
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 32
Capaldi, D. M., & Owen, L. D. (2001). Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk
young couples: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of
Family Psychology, 15, 425-440. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.15.3.425
Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital aggression, impact, injury and
health correlates of domestic violence. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1178-1184.
Collins, L. M., Graham, J. W., & Flaherty, B. P. (1998). An alternative framework for defining
mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 295-312. doi: 10.1207/
s15327906mbr3302_5
Cordova, J. V., Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Rushe, R., & Cox, G. (1993). Negative
reciprocity and communication in couples with a violent husband. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 102, 559–564. PMID: 8282924
Cornelius, T. L., Shorey, R. C., & Beebe, S. M. (2010). Self-reported communication variables
and dating violence: Using Gottman's marital communication conceptualization. Journal
of Family Violence, 25, 439-448. doi: 10.1007/s10896-010-9305-9
DeMaris, A. (1992). Male versus female initiation of aggression: The case of courtship violence.
In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp.111-120),
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Dixon, W. J. (1960). Simplified estimation from censored normal samples. Annals of
Mathematical Statistics. 31 (2), 385–391. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177705900
Eldridge, K., & Christensen, A. (2002). Demand-withdraw communication during conflict: A
review and analysis. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage:
Developments in the study of couple interaction. Advances in personal relationships (pp.
289–322). New York: Cambridge University Press.
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 33
Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated
effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233-239.
Fitzpatrick, J., Gareau, A., Lafontaine, M., & Gaudreau, P. (2016). How to use the Actor-Partner
Interdependence Model (APIM) to estimate different dyadic patterns in MPLUS: A step-
by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12, 74-86. doi:
10.1177/0149206313501200
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Kay, A. C. (2004). Language and interpersonal cognition: Causal effects of
variations in pronoun usage on perceptions of closeness. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30(5), 547-557. doi: 10.1177/0146167203262852
Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R. G., Laughlin, J. E., & Burke, L. (1999). Risk factors and
correlates of dating violence: The relevance of examining frequency and severity levels
in a college sample. Violence and Victims, 14, 365-380.
Follingstad, D. R., Wright, S., Lloyd, S., & Sebastian, J. A. (1991) Sex differences in
motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of
Applied Family Studies, 40(1), 51-57. doi: 10.2307/585658
Gonzales, A. L., Hancock, J. T., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language style matching as a
predictor of social dynamic in small groups. Communication Research, 37, 3-19. doi:
10.1177/0093650209351468
Gordis, E. B., Margolin, G., & Vickerman, K. A. (2005). Communication and frightening
behavior among couples with past and recent histories of physical marital aggression.
American Journal of Community Psychology.36, 177-191. PMID:16134053
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 34
Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, or avoidance in marital
interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 61, 6-15. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.6
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will
divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737-745. doi:
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x
Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Harned, M. S. (2001). Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and
outcomes of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 16, 269-285. PMID: 11437117
Heyman, R. E. (2001). Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applications,
stubborn truths, and shaky foundations. Psychological Assessment, 13(1), 5-35. PMID:
11281039
Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual
aggression among college students using the revised conflict tactics scales. Violence and
Victims, 18, 197-217. doi: 10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.197
Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., Scissors, L. E., Finkel, E. J., & Pennebaker, J.
W. (2010). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability.
Psychological Science, 22, 39-44. doi: 10.1177/0956797610392928
Jacobson, N. S., & Christensen, A. (1998). Acceptance and change in couple therapy: A
therapist’s guide to transforming relationships. New York: Norton.
Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Waltz, J., Rushe, R., Babcock, J., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A.
(1994). Affect, verbal content, and psychophysiology in the arguments of couples with a
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 35
violent husband. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 982-988. PMID:
7806730
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 13, 279–294.
Kenny, D. A. & Cook, W. L. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues,
analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433–448.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00202.x
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford.
Kim, H. K., Laurent, H. K., Capaldi, D. M., & Feingold, A. (2008). Men’s aggression toward
women: A 10-year panel study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(5), 1169-1187.
Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal
process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner
responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(5), 1238-1251. PMID: 9599440
Ledermann, T., & Bodenmann, G. (2006). Moderator- und mediatoreffekte bei dyadischen daten:
zwei erweiterungen des kteur-Partner-Interdependenz-Modells [Moderator and mediator
effects in dyadic research: Two extensions of the actor–partner interdependence model].
Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 27–40.
Leshed, G., Hancock, J. T., Cosley, D., McLeod, P. L., & Gay, G. (2007). Feedback for guiding
reflection on teamwork practices. In Proceedings of the GROUP’07 conference on
supporting group work (pp. 217-220). New York: Association for Computing Machinery
Press.
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 36
Lorber, M. F., & O'Leary, K. D. (2004). Predictors of the persistence of male aggression in early
marriage. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 319 - 338.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A
comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods, 7, 83-103. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Newman, D. L., Fagan, J., & Silva, P. A. (1997). Gender
differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21 year olds: Bridging the gap between
clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
65(1), 68–78.
Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., Medina, A. M., & Oliver, P. H. (2003). The co-occurrence of
husband-to-wife aggression, family-of-origin aggression, and child abuse potential in a
community sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 413-440. doi:
10.1177/0886260502250835
McLaughlin, I. G., Leonard, K. E., & Senchak, M. (1992). Prevalence and distribution of
premarital aggression among couples applying for a marriage license. Journal of Family
Violence, 7, 309-319.
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words:
Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
29, 665-675.
O’Keeffe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546-568. 10.1177/088626097012004005
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 37
O’Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence
and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263-268.
O’Leary, K. D., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1994). Physical aggression in early marriage: Pre-
relationship and relationship effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62,
594-602.
O’Leary, K. D., Slep, A. M. S., Avery-Leaf, S., & Cascardi, M. (2008). Gender differences in
dating aggression among multiethnic high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health,
42, 473-479. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.012
Pennebaker, J.W., Boyd, R.L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). T he development and
psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count
(LIWC): LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual
difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296 – 1312.
Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural
language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577.
Rains, S. A. (2016). Language style matching as a predictor of perceived social support in
computer-mediated interaction among individuals coping with illness. Communication
Research, 43, 694-712. doi: 10.1177/0093650214565920
Rentscher, K. E., Soriano, E. C., Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., & Mehl, M. R. (2015). Partner
pronoun use, communal coping, and abstinence during couple-focused intervention for
problematic alcohol use. Advanced online publication. doi: 10.1111/famp.12202
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 38
Riggs, D. S., O’Leary, K. D., & Breslin, F. C. (1990). Multiple correlates of physical aggression
in dating couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 61-73. doi:
10.1177/088626090005001005
Robertson, K., & Murachver, T. (2007). It takes two to tangle: Gender symmetry in intimate
partner violence. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 109–118.
Rohrbaugh, M. J., Mehl, M. R., Shoham, V., Reilly, E. S., & Ewy, G. A. (2008). Prognostic
significance of spouse we talk in couples coping with heart failure. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 76, 781– 789. doi:10.1037/a0013238
Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., Skoyen, J., Jensen, M., & Mehl, M. R. (2012). We-talk,
communal coping, and cessation success in a couple-focused intervention for health-
compromised smokers. Family Process, 51, 107–121. doi:10.1111/j.1545-
5300.2012.01388.x
Schweinle, W., Ickes, W., Rollings, K., & Jacquot, C. (2010). Maritally aggressive men: Angry,
egocentric, impulsive, and/or biased. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29,
399-424. doi: 10.1177/0261927X10377988
Sieder, B. H., Hirschberger, G., Nelson, K. L., & Levenson, R. W. (2009) We can work it out:
Age differences in relational pronouns, physiology, and behavior in marital conflict.
Psychology of Aging, 24, 604-613. doi: 10.1037/a0016950
Sillars, A., Shellen, W., McIntosh, A., & Pomegranate, M. (1997). Relational characteristics of
language: Elaboration and differentiation in marital conversations. Western Journal of
Communication, 61, 403–422. doi:10.1080/10570319709374587
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 39
Simmons, R. A., Gordon, P. C., & Chambless, D. L. (2005). Pronouns in marital interaction:
What do “you” and “I” say about marital health? Psychological Science, 16, 932–936.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005 .01639.x
Slatcher, R.B., & Pennebaker, J.W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the words: The
social effects of expressive writing. Psychological Science, 17, 660–664.
Slatcher, R. B., Vazire, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Am “I” more important than “we”?
Couples’ word use in instant messages. Personal Relationships, 15, 407-424.
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and
computerized text analysis Methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1),
24-54.
Weusthoff, S., Baucom, B. R., Hahlweg, K. (2013). The siren song of vocal fundamental
frequency for romantic relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 439. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00439
Williams-Baucom, K.J., Atkins, D.C., Sevier, M., Eldridge, K.A., & Christensen, A. (2010).
“You” and “I” need to talk about “us”: Linguistic patterns in marital interactions.
Personal Relationships, 17, 41–56.
Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A. L. (2001).
Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships
inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-
3590.13.2.277

AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 40
Table 1.
Mean values and (standard deviations) for major study variables (N = 70)
Females Males
t-test
M (SD) M (SD)
Physical Aggression 0.25 (0.49) 0.09 (0.16) 3.34**
Positive emotion words
a
3.03 (1.13) 2.92 (1.25) 0.63
We-talk
a
1.60 (1.11) 1.64 (1.25) -0.38
Assent words
a
3.42 (2.54) 3.19 (1.97) 0.62
Negative emotion words
a
1.70 (0.89) 1.66 (0.87) 0.28
You-talk
a
4.85 (1.84) 4.44 (2.16) 1.40
Certainty words
a
1.35 (0.59) 1.50 (0.67) -1.68
Conflict 1.00 (1.23) 1.17 (1.04) -1.14
Word Count 857.69 (261) 907.39 (282) -0.94
Age 22.26 (1.87) 23.30 (3.04) -3.58**
Percentage Percentage
Race and Ethnicity
Asian 13% 12%
Black/African American 10% 14%
White/Caucasian 30% 30%
Hispanic/Latino 27% 23%
Multi-racial 20% 20%
Other 0% 1%
Employed
Not employed 30% 26%
Part-time 50% 40%
Full-time 20% 34%
Student
Not a student 42% 52%
Part-time 14% 21%
Full-time 44% 27%
a
For LIWC word categories, the means represent mean % of total words.
* p < .05 (two tailed). ** p < .01 (two tailed). *** p < .001 (two tailed).

AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 41
Table 2.
LIWC category details and speech samples from couple conflict discussions across different language categories
Positive emotion
words
We-talk Assent words
Negative emotion
words
You-talk Certainty words
Examples Trust, good, calm We, us, our Agree, ok, yes Cry, jealous, mad You, your, thou Must, never, ever
Words in
Category
620 12 36 744 30 113
Corrected
alpha
a

.64 .82 .39 .53 .70 .73
Speech Samples of Couples High in Language Categories

F: Okay. What
bothers you? The
fact that we talk
about exes a lot? M:
Yeah I don’t like to
talk about exes.
Okay. I don’t think
it’s that valuable
personally, I know
you enjoy talking
about exes. I like
hearing about what
your life was before
what your life is
now. So meeting
your college friends
is exciting.
M: It’s hard
because we go to
work, then we get
home, and we’re
exhausted. And all
we really want to
do is just relax.
F: And I think that
it’s hard because
we spend all of our
time at work. So
when we get home,
we do want to
spend time with
each other. But
then like we do
that all the time.
M: Alright, well that
one has to do with
my phone. F: Okay.
Okay. Yeah I put my
phone because you
check my messages
and I’m like, “Okay
I have nothing to
hide” and like... Do
you not want me to?
No it’s not that I
don’t want you to.
I’m just like, “Why
is she looking at it?”
Yeah. I’m just
curious who you’re
talking to. Yeah.
M: Wait…so you
haven’t done
nothing wrong? F:
What have I done
wrong? There’s
plenty of things
that drove us to
where we are now,
jealousy and trust,
and relationships
with ex partners all
played a toll in our
life. I know but tell
me what have I
done wrong?
You’ve done lots of
things wrong.
M: What else do
you want to
discuss? F:
Sometimes I think
you don’t care. It’s
not that I don’t
care – you’re not
letting me show
you. You think I
don’t care period.
You don’t have any
trust for me. I
don’t. Because
when I trusted you
completely, you
took it for granted.
I didn’t. You did.
M: It’s dusty and, I
felt like I’d suffocate
in that room. Are
you serious? It’s
true. Well, why
didn’t you just push
me? I was playing
league so I forgot
ok? That’s, that’s
the other thing, you
can always stop, in
the middle and just
say, ok we gotta
vacuum, ‘cause, you
know your room
always gets dirty
F Score
for this
dyad
b

3.92% 5.13% 11.15% 5.15% 8.78% 1.68%
M Score
for this
dyad
b

5.25% 6.94% 4.20% 3.53% 7.03% 3.37%
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 42
Speech Samples of Couples Low in Language Categories

M: That cell phone
needs to go. No, I’m
kidding.
F: You put it so it’s
a problem. Yeah, it’s
always been a
problem. You come
over to my house
and what do you do?
Go on the phone.
Go on your phone.
F: You never
express the way
you feel, ever. And
so I am really
excited that we
have this
opportunity to
have this
discussion
M: Um, I’ve never
been big on
expressing feelings,
ever. Even with
family, and I’ve
always been the
type of person to
keep things in.
F: When people pop
up randomly, it
makes me feel like,
“if they’re so close
to him, why hasn’t
he told me about
them yet?”
M: I don’t tell you
about everything
that I saw or
happened in a day.
No I don’t mean it
like that. It’s just
when you say, “Oh
I’ve known this
person.” I never
said I was close.
M: Have you still
been sending out
resumes and stuff?
F: Yeah, but I go
online and search
for stuff and... get
distracted? That or
I look up
information I need
to send but then I
don’t. It’s not
good. Sorry. It’s ok
I think, probably
once I start school,
you’re probably
gonna wanna find
a job. I got to.
F: I was saying,
right when you
feel hurt by me—
letting me know.
‘Cause I’m the
opposite to where I
instantly tell you.
M: Yeah. So what
should we do?
Let’s go through
and systematically
look through and
see what steps we
can take I guess.
Yeah. What would
be like practical
steps for me to take
M: You don’t pick
up on when I’m
feeling stressed or
sad. Which is
understandable
‘cause I’m not
usually like that.
F: Yeah, yeah.
M: You probably
don’t know whether
or not I’m sad. It’s
rare. Yeah it is rare
for you so I can’t
blame you there, I
mean that’s what
happened yesterday
Yeah.
F Score
for this
dyad
b

0.87% 0.41% 1.32% 0.68% 3.66% 0.00%
M Score
for this
dyad
b

0.65% 0.00% 1.81% 0.40% 0.81% 0.68%
Note. Female speech appears in bold and male speech appears in italics typeface. Words counted by the LIWC category of interest are
underlined.
a
Pennebaker and colleagues (2015) provide internal consistency data estimated using the Spearman-Brown prediction formula
b
Scores =
LIWC category/total words x 100.
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 43
Table 3.

Bivariate correlations of main study variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 Time together ---
Female variables
2 F Phy Agg .03 ---
3 F pos emo -.07 -.13 ---
4 F we-talk .06 -.22 .02 ---
5 F assent -.27
*
-.30
*
.33
**
.06 ---
6 F neg emo .08 .36
**
-.09 -.13 -.22 ---
7 F you-talk -.09 .27
*
-.02 -.43
***
-.22 .16 ---
8 F certainty .15 .13 -.14 .04 -.27
*
.20 .31
**
---
9 F word count .18 -.08 -.18 .09 -.35
**
-.08 -.04 .03 ---
10 F conflict .10 .33
**
.13 -.22 -.24
*
.18 .35
**
.28
*
-.01 ---
Male variables
11 M Phy Agg .05 .64
***
-.10 -.26
*
-.35
**
.28
*
.41
**
.31
**
-.10 .43
***
---
12 M pos emo -.09 -.02 -.32
**
.00 -.06 .33
**
-.16 .01 .06 -.14 -.11 ---
13 M we-talk .18 -.06 -.01 .76
***
.07 -.05 -.43
***
.11 -.01 -.13 -.08 .05 ---
14 M assent -.06 -.13 .02 .09 .10 .04 -.27
*
-.22 .22 .34
**
-.28
*
.35
**
.11 ---
15 M neg emo -.03 .05 .22 -.02 -.05
*
.38
**
.11 .18 -.06 .01 .10 .20 .02 -.09 ---
16 M you-talk .03 .28
*
-.09 -.37
**
-.22 .22 .27
**
.01 .02 .32
**
.15 .16 -.41
***
-.18 .07 ---
17 M certainty .19 .20 .06 .05 -.34
**
.07 .21 .33
**
-.09 .45
***
.20 -.01 .06 -.23 .06 .12 ---
18 M word count -.21 .08 -.06 .03 .48
***
-.10 .17 -.01 -.32
**
.06 .02 -.18 .03 -.41
***
.10 -.08 -.04 ---
19 M conflict .08 .22 .08 -.11 -.31
*
.12 .27
*
.11 .08 .32
*i*
.19 -.02 -.02 -.21 .02 .18 .07 -.03
Note. Together measured in months; F = female; M = male; Phy Agg = physical aggression; assent = assent words; certainty = certainty
words; pos emo = positive emotion words; neg emo = negative emotion words. Italics represent across partner correlations on the same
variable.
* p < .05 (two tailed). ** p < .01 (two tailed). *** p < .001 (two tailed).

AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 44
Table 4.

The total effects, total indirect effects, simple indirect effects, and direct effects c’ for
positive and negative linguistic behaviors.

Effect Estimate 95% CI
Positive emotion words
Female actor effect
Total effect 0.21 [-0.40, 1.76]
Total IE -0.02 [-0.25, 0.38]
Actor-actor IE 0.01 [-0.11, 0.32]
Partner-partner IE -0.02 [-0.33, 0.12]
Direct effect c’ 0.23 [-0.52, 1.50]
Male actor effect
Total effect 0.35 [-1.93, 3.50]
Total IE 0.03 [-0.55, 0.73]
Actor-actor IE -0.01 [-0.61, 0.35]
Partner-partner IE 0.04 [-0.34, 0.63]
Direct effect c’ 0.32 [-2.06, 3.69]
Female partner effect
Total effect 2.73 [-1.03, 5.47]
Total IE -0.27 [-1.31, 0.60]
Actor-partner IE 0.13 [-0.20, 1.25]
Partner-actor IE -0.41 [-1.27, 0.02]
Direct effect c’ 3.01 [-0.45, 5.70]
Male partner effect
Total effect 0.35 [-0.12, 0.06]
Total IE 0.00 [-0.16, 0.19]
Actor-partner IE 0.00 [-0.15, 0.06]
Partner-actor IE 0.00 [-0.10, 0.17]
Direct effect c’ 0.35 [-0.15, 2.07]
We-talk
Female actor effect
Total effect 0.21 [-0.40, 1.76]
Total IE 0.01 [-0.16, 0.18]
Actor-actor IE 0.01 [-0.07, 0.20]
Partner-partner IE 0.00 [-0.15, 0.14]
Direct effect c’ 0.20 [-0.43, 1.84]
Male actor effect
Total effect 0.35 [-1.93, 3.50]
Total IE 0.26 [-0.33, 1.16]
Actor-actor IE -0.07 [-0.92, 0.24]
Partner-partner IE 0.33 [-0.31, 1.42]
Direct effect c’ 0.09 [-2.41, 3.35]
Female partner effect
Total effect 2.73 [-1.03, 5.47]
Total IE 0.16 [-0.46, 0.85]
Actor-partner IE 0.06 [-0.33, 0.98]
Partner-actor IE 0.10 [-0.51, 1.17]
Direct effect c’ 2.57 [-1.18, 5.36]
Male partner effect
Total effect 0.35 [-0.12, 2.41]
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 45
Total IE 0.04 [-0.11, 0.25]
Actor-partner IE 0.04 [-0.08, 0.27]
Partner-actor IE 0.00 [-0.13, 0.13]
Direct effect c’ 0.32 [-0.18, 2.54]
Assent words
Female actor effect
Total effect 0.21 [-0.40, 1.76]
Total IE -0.03 [-0.26, 0.19]
Actor-actor IE 0.02 [-0.05, 0.14]
Partner-partner IE -0.05 [-0.24, 0.17]
Direct effect c’ 0.24 [-0.37, 1.65]
Male actor effect
Total effect 0.35 [-1.93, 3.50]
Total IE 0.81 [0.19, 1.81]
Actor-actor IE 0.33 [-0.06, 1.26]
Partner-partner IE 0.48 [0.02, 1.14]
Direct effect c’ -0.45 [-2.69, 2.91]
Female partner effect
Total effect 2.73 [-1.03, 5.47]
Total IE 0.72 [-0.02, 1.67]
Actor-partner IE 0.58 [0.01, 1.48]
Partner-actor IE 0.14 [-0.34, 0.61]
Direct effect c’ 2.01 [-1.74, 4.87]
Male partner effect
Total effect 0.35 [-0.12, 2.41]
Total IE 0.05 [-0.13, 0.26]
Actor-partner IE 0.07 [-0.05, 0.27]
Partner-actor IE -0.03 [-0.20, 0.06]
Direct effect c’ 0.31 [-0.16, 2.23]

Effect Estimate 95% CI
Negative emotion words
Female actor effect
Total effect 0.21 [-0.40, 1.76]
Total IE 0.05 [-0.19, 0.40]
Actor-actor IE 0.04 [-0.13, 0.58]
Partner-partner IE 0.00 [-0.18, 0.20]
Direct effect c’ 0.16 [-0.46, 1.70]
Male actor effect
Total effect 0.35 [-1.93, 3.50]
Total IE 0.02 [-0.44, 0.66]
Actor-actor IE -0.01 [-0.88, 0.26]
Partner-partner IE 0.04 [-0.21, 0.83]
Direct effect c’ 0.33 [-1.91, 3.75]
Female partner effect
Total effect 2.73 [-1.03, 5.47]
Total IE -0.01 [-0.60, 0.47]
Actor-partner IE -0.05 [-1.12, 0.19]
Partner-actor IE 0.05 [-0.22, 0.86]
Direct effect c’ 2.74 [-1.00, 5.64]
Male partner effect
Total effect 0.35 [-0.12, 2.41]
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 46
Total IE 0.04 [-0.19, 0.39]
Actor-partner IE 0.04 [-0.12, 0.55]
Partner-actor IE 0.00 [-0.17, 0.18]
Direct effect c’ 0.31 [-0.23, 2.30]
You-talk
Female actor effect
Total effect 0.21 [-0.40, 1.76]
Total IE 0.16 [-0.10, 0.55]
Actor-actor IE 0.00 [-0.11, 0.32]
Partner-partner IE 0.16 [-0.03, 0.48]
Direct effect c’ 0.05 [-0.67, 1.43]
Male actor effect
Total effect 0.35 [-1.93, 3.50]
Total IE 0.65 [-0.16, 2.21]
Actor-actor IE -0.03 [-0.55, 0.20]
Partner-partner IE 0.68 [0.01, 2.12]
Direct effect c’ -0.30 [-2.51, 2.92]
Female partner effect
Total effect 2.73 [-1.03, 5.47]
Total IE 0.43 [-0.39, 1.73]
Actor-partner IE -0.06 [-0.84, 0.37]
Partner-actor IE 0.49 [-0.05, 1.70]
Direct effect c’ 2.30 [-1.17, 5.37]
Male partner effect
Total effect 0.35 [-0.12, 2.41]
Total IE 0.09 [-0.16, 0.51]
Actor-partner IE 0.01 [-0.14, 0.40]
Partner-actor IE 0.08 [-0.09, 0.35]
Direct effect c’ 0.26 [-0.31, 2.15]
Certainty words
Female actor effect
Total effect 0.21 [-0.40, 1.76]
Total IE 0.09 [-0.16, 0.85]
Actor-actor IE -0.02 [-0.21, 0.10]
Partner-partner IE 0.11 [-0.06, 0.93]
Direct effect c’ 0.12 [-0.43, 1.30]
Male actor effect
Total effect 0.35 [-1.93, 3.50]
Total IE 0.14 [-0.45, 1.29]
Actor-actor IE -0.02 [-0.68, 0.26]
Partner-partner IE 0.16 [-0.29, 1.43]
Direct effect c’ 0.21 [-1.99, 3.82]
Female partner effect
Total effect 2.73 [-1.03, 5.47]
Total IE 0.42 [-0.71, 2.26]
Actor-partner IE 0.25 [-0.63, 1.74]
Partner-actor IE 0.17 [-0.32, 1.40]
Direct effect c’ 2.31 [-1.18, 4.73]
Male partner effect
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 47
Total effect 0.35 [-0.12, 2.41]
Total IE -0.03 [-0.45, 0.14]
Actor-partner IE -0.02 [-0.23, 0.08]
Partner-actor IE -0.01 [-0.45, 0.07]
Direct effect c’ 0.38 [-0.14, 2.49]
Note. Significant effects appear in bold typeface.
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 48

Figure 1. Hypothesized actor-partner interdependence mediation model.
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 49

Panel A Panel B
Panel D
Panel C
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 50

Figure 2. APIMs examining the actor and partner effects of males’ and females’ perpetration of
physical aggression on males’ and females’ linguistic behavior. Significant paths represented by
black, unbroken arrows and non-significant paths represented by grey, broken arrows.
Unstandardized estimates and standard errors are in italics and standardized estimates are bolded.

Panel E Panel F
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 51

Panel B Panel C Panel A
Panel D
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 52

Figure 3. APIM models examining the actor and partner effects of males’ and females’ linguistic
behavior on males’ and females’ perception of conflict during the discussion. Significant paths
indicated by black, unbroken arrows and non-significant paths indicated by grey, broken arrows.
Unstandardized estimates and standard errors are in italics and standardized estimates are bolded.
Panel F Panel E
AGGRESSION AND LANGUAGE 53

Figure 4. APIMeM for LIWC categories with significant indirect effects (IEs and 95% CIs
reported in Table 4). Models show the actor and partner effects of males’ and females’ physical
aggression perpetration on males’ and females’ linguistic behavior and reports of intensity of
conflict during the discussion, and the actor and partner effects of males’ and females’ linguistic
behavior on males’ and females’ perception of conflict during the discussion. Significant direct
paths indicated by black, unbroken arrows and non-significant paths indicated by grey, broken
arrows. Unstandardized estimates and standard errors are in italics and standardized estimates are
bolded.
Panel A
Panel B

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Young adults are at higher risk for experiencing physical aggression in their dating relationships, however little is known about behavioral interaction patterns in these couples. This study examined 70 young adult couples’ subtle linguistic behaviors during laboratory conflict discussions for their associations with physical aggression perpetration and perceptions of the intensity of conflict experienced during the discussion. Conflict discussions were analyzed for positive (positive emotion words, we-talk, and assent words) and negative (negative emotion words, you-talk, and certainty words) linguistic behaviors using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) system. Actor-partner interdependence models (APIMs) revealed partner effects of physical aggression perpetration on linguistic behaviors, specifically for females, and partner effects of linguistic behavior on reports of the intensity of perceived conflict during the discussion. In addition, female linguistic behavior—assent words and you-talk—mediated the relationship between males’ physical aggression and report of conflict intensity, and males’ linguistic behavior—assent words—mediated the relationship between males’ physical aggression and females’ report of conflict intensity. The findings suggest the importance of looking at subtle patterns in couples’ language as possible triggers in iterative cycles between conflict and physical aggression for some couples.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Couple conflict during pregnancy: Do early family adversity and oxytocin play a role?

PDF

Young adult dating couple interactions in daily life: links to family aggression and physiological processes

PDF

Couples’ neuroendocrine activity in response to family conflict discussions: the role of self-reported anger and previous marital aggression

PDF

Spouse aggression, depression, and physical health: a multivariate longitudinal study of midlife couples

PDF

Family aggression, prosocial friends, and the risk of dating and friend victimization in late adolescence

PDF

Prior exposure to aggression and young adults' negative expectancies about romantic partner discussions

PDF

The old ball and linkage: couples’ prenatal conflict behavior, cortisol linkage, and postpartum depression risk

PDF

Investigating discrimination and depression within a couple context

PDF

Using observed peer discussions to understand adolescent depressive symptoms and interpersonal interactions

PDF

Biological and behavioral correlates of emotional flexibility and associations with exposure to family aggression

PDF

Family aggression exposure and community violence exposure associated with brain volume in late adolescence: a comparison of automated versus manual segmentation

PDF

Examining the longitudinal relationships between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior among a sample of maltreated and non-maltreated adolescents

PDF

Social dynamics of intragroup aggression and conflict resolution in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) at Kanyawara, Kibale National Park, Uganda

PDF

The physiology of compassion in couples’ discussions about loss

PDF

An investigation of the factors associated with electronic aggression among college students

PDF

Parents' attunement: relation to adolescent problem behavior and the moderating role of marital conflict

PDF

Relationships and meaning: examining the roles of personal meaning and meaning-making processes in couples dealing with important life events

PDF

Links between discrimination and sleep difficulties: romantic relationships as risk and resilience factors

PDF

The relationship between dating status and academic and social functioning among Latinx and Asian-American middle adolescents

PDF

Evaluating a cultural process model of depression and suicidality in Latino adolescents

Asset Metadata

Creator Rasmussen, Hannah Faith (author)

Core Title You always say that: physical aggression perpetration, linguistic behavior, and conflict intensity in young adult dating couples

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 10/09/2017

Defense Date 04/18/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag dating relationships,LIWC,OAI-PMH Harvest,physical aggression,Young adults

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Margolin, Gayla (committee chair), John, Richard (committee member), Saxbe, Darby (committee member)

Creator Email hfrasmus@usc.edu,hrasmussen818@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-442201

Unique identifier UC11265552

Identifier etd-RasmussenH-5826.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-442201 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RasmussenH-5826.pdf

Dmrecord 442201

Document Type Thesis

Rights Rasmussen, Hannah Faith

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA