University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Trajectories of physical and emotional partner aggression in marriage

(USC Thesis Other)

Trajectories of physical and emotional partner aggression in marriage

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content TRAJECTORIES OF PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL
PARTNER AGGRESSION IN MARRIAGE
by
Katrina Amity Vickerman
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)
May 2006
Copyright 2006 Katrina Amity Vickerman
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 1437844
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 1437844
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table of Contents
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
Abstract
V
Introduction 1
Method
17
Results
27
Discussion
39
References
48
Appendix A
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Tables
Table 1: Differences between 3-year returners and <3-year returners 18
Table 2: Proportion of Couples Endorsing Aggression Items 22
Table 3: Descriptive Information for Partner Physical and
Emotional Aggression 27
Table 4: Correlations Among Physical Aggression Variables 27
Table 5: Correlations Among Emotional Aggression Variables 28
Table 6: Intercept and Slope Parameters for Physical and Emotional
Spouse Aggression 35
Table 7: Variance Decomposition in Three-level Growth Models
for Physical and Emotional Partner Aggression 37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Figures
Figure 1: Frequency of Husbands’ Physical Aggression Over Time 29
Figure 2: Frequency of Wives’ Physical Aggression Over Time 29
Figure 3: Conditional Probabilities of Husband Physical Aggression:
Times 1 to 3 30
Figure 4: Conditional Probabilities of Wife Physical Aggression:
Times 1 to 3 30
Figure 5: Frequency of Husbands’ Emotional Aggression Over Time 32
Figure 6: Frequency of Wives’ Emotional Aggression Over Time 33
Figure 7: Conditional Probabilities of Husband Emotional Aggression:
Times 1 to 3 33
Figure 8: Conditional Probabilities of Wife Emotional Aggression:
Times 1 to 3 34
Figure 9: Trajectory of Husbands’ and Wives’ Physical Aggression
Over Time with Effect of Years Married 36
Figure 10: Trajectory of Husbands’ and Wives’ Emotional Aggression
Over Time 38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract
Spouse aggression was examined in 98 community couples over three years. Three-
level generalized HLM models were run to examine trajectories of physical and
emotional aggression over time and evaluate the effect o f years since marriage on
aggression. Physical aggression significantly decreased over time. However, wives’
physical aggression, compared to husbands’, was significantly higher at time 1 and
decreased more quickly. There was an effect of years married on physical
aggression intercepts, but no significant effect on change over time, such that, with
more years since marriage, aggression trajectories shifted down to lower levels, but
continued to change at the same rate. For emotional aggression, spouses’ intercepts
were not significantly different. However, wives’ emotional aggression remained
relatively stable, while husbands’ aggression actually increased over time.
Discussion addresses how results are consistent with other studies and areas of future
research to inform interventions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Introduction
Estimates indicate that 1.5% of women in the United States and 0.9% of men
are physically assaulted or raped by an intimate partner each year (Tjaden
&Thoennes, 1998). Other figures reveal that as many as 16% of couples report
intimate physical aggression each year (Straus & Gelles, 1990). Lifetime
prevalence rates suggest that 25% of women and 8% of men may experience
physical aggression from an intimate partner at some time during their life (Tjaden &
Thoennes, 1998). Research has shown that intimate relationship aggression has
deleterious mental and physical health consequences (Carlson, McNutt, Choi, &
Rose, 2002; Coker, et al., 2002; Gelles & Straus, 1990; Laffaye, Kennedy, & Stein,
2003). Much of this research has focused on women, however, researchers have also
pointed to negative health consequences for men (Coker, et al., 2002; Simonelli &
Ingram, 1998). Beyond the individual victims of violence, intimate aggression also
leads to consequences for society as a whole, including costs for medical, legal, and
law enforcement services (Gelles & Straus, 1990). Although female victims are
often the focus of intimate violence research, the considerable rates of aggression
towards men suggest the importance of evaluating both male and female aggression.
Similarly, investigators have recognized the importance o f expanding conceptions of
aggression, beyond just physical, to include emotional or psychological aggression,
which some women have reported being even more upsetting than physical abuse
they have experienced (Follingstad, et al., 1990). A multi-faceted examination of
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
couple aggression and examining changes in aggression over time will lead to a more
comprehensive understanding of aggression in intimate relationships.
In the current study, husbands’ and wives’ use of physical and emotional
aggression will be examined over three time points. Examining aggression
longitudinally provides important information about the stability and trajectory of
aggression, while highlighting the potential fallibility of defining a couple as
aggressive based on one time point. Another key component o f this study is
examining the impact of years since marriage on aggression trajectories. Examining
aggression longitudinally over a three year segment in couples’ lives and considering
effects of the stage in relationship development on aggression will contribute
valuable data about the course of partner aggression over the lifespan.
Physical Aggression
Intimate aggression can be evaluated by examining the number of victims in
a sample, the severity of aggression, and/or the frequency of aggression. The
National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey addressed the first two criteria
and found that rates of women being victimized are significantly greater than rates of
male intimate victimization and that gender differences increase with more severe
types of assault (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Information garnered from the NVAW
Survey currently may provide the best representation of intimate aggression in the
United States population due the survey’s strong methodology; however, its
conclusions contradict many other findings in the literature suggesting that males and
females may perpetrate similar amounts of aggression. Studies using large national
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
samples (Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980), and studies
focusing on college (Hamby & Sugarman, 1999; Hines & Saudino, 2003), dating
(Capaldi & Owen, 2001; Foshee, 1996), community (Margolin, 1987), newlywed
(O’Leary, Barling, Arias, Rosenbaum, Malone, & Tyree, 1989) and clinic (Cascardi,
Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992) populations have found that females use as much
or more physical aggression in intimate relationships than males do. For example,
the 1985 National Family Violence Survey found that 4.8% of women perpetrate
severe aggression annually, while 3.4% of men are perpetrators o f severe aggression
each year (Straus & Gelles, 1990). A meta-analysis of gender differences in the use
of intimate physical aggression indicated that women were more likely to use
aggression in intimate relationships and to use aggression more frequently (Archer,
2000). However, it is notable that the effect sizes for these differences were small,
sexual violence was not considered, and the included studies were biased towards
dating and/or college samples.
Although the National Violence Against Women Survey concludes that
“intimate partner violence should be considered first and foremost a crime against
women” (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, p.12), considering aggression perpetrated by
both males and females may lead to a better understanding of intimate aggression,
particularly in certain couples. Temple, Weston, & Marshall (2005) found that
aggression was actually more severe and frequent in relationships where both
partners are aggressive, but one partner is the primary aggressor, than in
relationships with only one aggressive partner or relationships with symmetrical
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
bidirectional aggression. Moreover, these researchers found that females’ health
outcomes were actually worse for women in relationships with asymmetrical
bidirectional aggression versus unilateral aggression or symmetrical bidirectional
aggression (Temple, Weston, & Marshall, 2005). Several studies have shown that
more than half of physical intimate aggression is bidirectional and that females and
males perpetrate similar amounts of unilateral aggression (Cascardi, Langhinrichsen,
& Vivian, 1992; Hines & Saudino, 2003; Margolin, 1987; Vivian & Langhinrichsen-
Rohling, 1994). Compiling reports from 103 community married couples, Margolin
(1987) found that 51.5% of couples reported no physical aggression in the last year,
29.1% reported bidirectional physical aggression, 8.7% reported only husband to
wife aggression, and 10.7% reported only wife to husband aggression.
Findings about high rates of aggression perpetrated by females appear to
contradict conclusions drawn from feminist research (e.g. Walker, 1979, 1984),
which is often based on shelter samples and corresponds with more traditional
conceptions of male-only perpetration of intimate violence. In weighing these
conclusions, it is integral to evaluate the samples from which participants are drawn
(in terms of age, relationship status, inclusion criteria, etc.) and to be cognizant of
populations to which findings may be generalized (Archer, 2000; O ’Leary, 2000).
Johnson (1995) suggested that divergent findings arise from researchers accessing
virtually non-overlapping samples and proposed two types of intimate aggression:
common couple violence and patriarchal terrorism. Common couple violence is
characterized by low-level, often bidirectional aggression, most likely resulting from
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
breakdowns in communication or arguments getting out of control. In contrast,
patriarchal terrorism is unidirectional, often husband to wife aggression, which is
likely to escalate and is marked by attempts by the perpetrator to frighten and control
his partner. More recently, Johnson has retermed these categories situational couple
violence and intimate terrorism (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnson & Leone, 2005).
Examining a sample of incarcerated men, women from domestic violence
shelters, and college students, Graham-Kevan & Archer (2003) found some support
for Johnson’s (1995) dichotomy. Additionally, Johnson and colleagues have
attempted to distinguish those experiencing situational couple violence and those
experiencing intimate terrorism in several samples. They found that women
classified as experiencing intimate terrorism had more negative mental and physical
health symptoms, and that, on average, these women experienced more frequent and
more severe partner aggression than women experiencing situational couple
violence. The authors argue these findings provide some preliminary support for the
importance of making a qualitative distinction between the two types o f partner
aggression (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnson & Leone, 2005; Leone, Johnson,
Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004). Other studies have found severe bidirectional aggression
(Jacobson, et al., 1996), significant levels of coercive control and physical aggression
perpetrated by some females (Swan & Snow, 2002), and notable levels of severe
aggression in community samples (Gordis, Margolin, & Vickerman, 2005),
suggesting that aggression categories may not be as clear-cut as Johnson proposes.
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Still, Johnson’s theory provides an important way to contextualize aggression in
community samples in relation to more traditional notions of domestic violence.
Although males and females may perpetrate similar amounts of aggression in
some samples, researchers argue that the aggression perpetrated by men and women
is qualitatively different (Jacobson, et al., 1996; Straus & Gelles, 1990). An act of
aggression by a female may not carry the same threat as a similar act perpetrated by
a male, due to gender differences in size and strength. In fact, the minor and severe
items on the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) were originally classified in terms of the
likelihood of causing injury (Straus & Gelles, 1986), so, arguably, some acts by a
man categorized as severe may not be severe when perpetrated by a woman (Hines
& Saudino, 2003). Also, a female may be categorized as aggressive or even severely
aggressive due to an act of self-defense. Although some research has suggested that
females do use more aggression within a relationship than males, indicating that not
all aggressive acts would be in self-defense (Hines & Saudino, 2003), this has not
been thoroughly explored. Relatedly, researchers have found that the impact of
intimate aggression is more negative for females than males (Cascardi,
Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992; Vivian & Langhinrichsen, 1994). Women are
more likely to suffer injuries (Archer, 2000; Cantos, Neidig, & O’Leary, 1994;
Foshee, 1996; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998), seek medical attention, report depression,
and suffer from increased stress (Stets & Straus, 1990). Clearly women may be
more victimized by intimate partner aggression, however, considering both partners’
use of aggression allows for a more complete understanding of dysfunction in the
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
relationship system, especially because aggression may be an interactive and
synergistic phenomenon for some couples (Vivian & Langhinrichsen-Rohling,
1994).
Emotional Aggression
Women have reported that experiencing psychological aggression can be
more upsetting than physical aggression (Follingstad, et al., 1990) and that emotional
aggression, even in the absence of physical aggression, causes harm (Henning &
Klesges, 2003; Marshal, 1996). Psychological aggression can be more predictive of
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder symptomatology (Pico-Alfonso, 2005; Street & Arias,
2001) and a woman’s desire to leave an abusive relationship (Arias & Pape, 1999)
than physical aggression alone. Additionally, emotional aggression has been found
to be associated with relationship dissatisfaction, whereas this association is
sometimes not found with physical aggression (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997). These
findings illustrate the importance of considering both physical and emotional
aggression when evaluating violence in intimate relationships.
Most research on emotional aggression has focused on female victims.
However, in studies evaluating male and female victimization, no consistent gender
differences have been found. Some studies find women are more victimized by
psychological aggression (Coker, et al., 2002; Foshee, 1996), whereas others find
men are more victimized (Kasian & Painter, 1992; Swan & Snow, 2002), and still
other studies find no differences (Hamby & Sugarman, 1999; Hines & Saudino,
2003; O’Heam & Davis, 1997). Furthermore, similar to findings about physical
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
aggression, research indicates that emotional aggression is often bidirectional (Hines
& Saudino, 2003; O ’Heam & Davis, 1997; Swan & Snow, 2002).
Marshal (1996) suggested that emotional aggression may provide a context
within which physical and/or sexual violence can occur. Out of 578 community
women selected because of their experiences with psychological aggression, only
13% had not experienced some form of physical aggression from their partner and
56.6% of the women had experienced sexual violence (Marshal, 1996). Studies have
found that perpetration of emotional and physical aggression is highly correlated for
both males (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997; Hamby & Sugarman, 1999; Hines & Saudino,
2003; Margolin, John, & Foo, 1998; Murphy & O’Leary, 1989) and females
(Capaldi & Crosby, 1997; Hamby & Sugarman, 1999; Hines & Saudino, 2003).
Swan & Snow (2002) selected females who reported being physically aggressive
with their partner in the last 6 months and created a typology based on physical and
psychological aggression. Although women were selected for their levels of
aggression, the authors categorized 34% of these women as primarily being victims
of violence, 12% were primarily the aggressors, 32% revealed bidirectional
aggression, but the male exhibited more coercive control, and for 18% there was
bidirectional aggression, but the female exhibited more coercive control. In
understanding the context of aggression, it is important to consider physical and
emotional aggression perpetrated by both partners in a relationship.
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Stability and Change in Aggression Over Time
Examining aggression over multiple time points is necessary in order to
understand the trajectory o f aggression, and also in recognizing limitations of
labeling couples as ‘aggressive’ or ‘not aggressive’. Traditionally, violence research
has assumed that there is an escalating pattern of violence and control, which
continues to increase in severity until the woman leaves or is seriously, even fatally,
injured (e.g., Walker, 1979.) However, research has suggested that this may not be
the case for a proportion of couples. This apparent incongruence may overlap with
Johnson’s (1995) typology, such that spouses engaging in intimate terrorism may be
likely to follow the traditionally assumed path of escalating aggression, while
couples engaging in situational couple violence may correspond more with research
findings indicating that there is desistance in aggression for some couples.
Although aggression in the previous year has been found to be related to
future aggression, studies have shown that aggression is not completely stable year to
year (Aldarando, 1996; Capaldi, Shortt, & Crosby, 2003; O’Leary, et al., 1989). Of
the few studies examining intimate aggression longitudinally, most have focused on
male to female aggression and used only two time points. These studies suggest that
23-50% of aggressive males will desist from aggression at a second time point,
depending on the sample in question (Feld & Straus, 1990; Gordis, Margolin, &
Vickerman, 2005; Quigley & Leonard, 1996). Examining cessation of husband
aggression over three time points, Aldarondo (1996) found 50-60% of physically
aggressive husbands desisted or interrupted their aggression following a year of
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
aggression. Desistance rates are lower as the severity (Aldarondo, 1996; Quigley &
Leonard, 1996) and frequency (Feld & Straus, 1990) o f time one aggression
increases. In addition, around 10% of males who were not violent at the first time
point may report aggression a year later (Feld & Straus, 1990; Gordis, Margolin, &
Vickerman, 2005). These studies indicate that male to female aggression may
decrease over time for some dyads and that caution must be used in supposing that
aggression groupings are stable and concrete phenomenon.
Few longitudinal studies have examined emotional and physical aggression,
considered aggression by both partners, or used more than two time points. O’Leary,
et al. (1989) examined both husbands’ and wives’ levels of physical aggression in a
newlywed sample over three years. Fifty percent of males and 35% of females
reported no aggression during the study. Eight percent of husbands and 17% of
wives were stably aggressive over all three time points. The prevalence of wife to
husband aggression significantly decreased over the three time points; however,
there were no changes in husband to wife aggression. At the final time point, 25% of
husbands and 32% of wives had physically aggressed towards their spouse in the
previous year. Examining this same sample, Lorber and O ’Leary (2004) reported
that 41% of men who were physically aggressive at premarriage were also
aggressive at all three post-marriage assessments, indicating a notable continuance of
physical aggression. In a ten year follow-up to this study, Fritz and O ’Leary (2004)
found that husbands’ and wives’ physical aggression significantly decreased in the
first decade of marriage, however there was no significant change in emotional
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
aggression for either spouse. This study examined only wives’ reports on their own
and their partners’ use o f aggression.
In a sample of young at-risk couples, Capaldi, Shortt, & Crosby (2003),
found that 40% of aggressive males and 32% of aggressive females desisted from
aggression over a 2.5 year time period. Additionally, 20% of men and women
engaged in physical aggression at time 2, even though they had not perpetrated
physical aggression at time 1. Males perpetrated significantly more physical
aggression at time 2 than time 1; however, males’ perpetration of psychological
aggression and female perpetrated psychological and physical aggression did not
differ over time. Males’ and females’ use of aggression over time has not been
evaluated extensively in older populations. Findings from these dating and
newlywed samples may not generalize to middle-aged couples involved in longer
relationships.
In a sample of couples selected due to the husbands’ perpetration of severe
aggression, it was found that half of the husbands in still intact couples had reduced
their levels of physical aggression a year later, with only 7% completely desisting
from aggression at the second time point. Despite some reduction in levels of
physical aggression over time, husbands did not reduce emotional abuse (Jacobson,
et al., 1996). Following up with 772 couples from the 1985 National Family
Violence Survey, Aldarondo (1996) found that nearly one fourth of husbands were
stably physically aggressive over three time points and that these husbands reported
the highest levels of psychological aggression towards their wives. However, over
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40% of those men who were aggressive at the first time point were not aggressive at
times 2 and 3. Also, notably, Aldarondo found that some men engage in an
intermittent pattern of abuse, where they may be aggressive one year, not be
aggressive the next, but then become aggressive again after a year of nonaggression.
Although the Jacobson et al. (1996) study doesn’t focus on newlywed couples, as
many of the other longitudinal studies in the literature do, selecting couples for
severe husband-to-wife aggression may limit the generalizability of findings to
identified or treatment seeking individuals. Aldarondo (1996) provided interesting
information about the variability of patterns of husbands’ physical aggression over
three years, but did not examine wife to husband aggression or trajectories of
emotional aggression.
Partner Aggression Over the Life Course
Few studies have examined couples at different points in their relationship
development and even fewer have examined couples at a variety o f points in their
relationship and examined aggression over more than one time point. Much of the
information available about changes in partner aggression over the lifespan and over
relationship development must be gleaned from compiling findings from multiple
studies that target different populations. For example, the Cascardi, Shortt, & Croby
(2003) study discussed earlier examined adolescents identified as at risk. In this
sample, male to female aggression actually increased from time 1 to time 2.
Similarly, findings from young dating samples (e.g., Foshee, 1996) provide
information about partner aggression during early adolescence, a time when many
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
individuals begin to develop romantic relationships. Studies focusing on newlywed
samples contribute information about a subsequent stage of relationship
development. Finally, studies like the Gottman, et al (1996) provide some
information about partner aggression in middle adulthood. However, Gottman’s
sample was specifically chosen for severe aggression and, thus, may not provide
much information about aggression in the general population. Large scale cross-
sectional studies like Straus’s National Family Violence Surveys examine
individuals from late adolescence into late adulthood and also provide information
about changes in aggression over the life span. Examining this sample, Suitor,
Pillemer, & Straus (1990) found that couple physical aggression does decrease with
age and that this reduction is not merely an artifact of generation or cohort
differences.
Pulling together much of the above mentioned evidence, O ’Leary (1999)
hypothesized that the proportion of males engaging in physical partner aggression
may be around 15% at age 15 as adolescents are beginning to develop romantic
relationships. Then, the proportion of males perpetrating partner aggression steadily
increases to about 35% at age 25, and then begins to decline over the life course.
O ’Leary (1999) notes that this hypothesized aggression trajectory coincides with
population rates of male aggression more generally (e.g., Wilson & Hemstein, 1985).
O ’Leary also reanalyzed data from the 1985 National Family Violence Survey and
found some supporting evidence for this hypothesized inverse u-shaped curve.
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fritz & O ’Leary (2004) conducted the longest follow-up with couples
currently reported in the literature. They found that males’ and females’ rates of
physical aggression consistently decrease over the first decade of marriage, while
emotional aggression for both spouses does not significantly change. This study
focused on only females’ reports of aggression and only 39% of the original sample
participated in the ten year follow-up assessment. These sources of information start
to provide an understanding of partner aggression over the life course and over time
within a relationship; however, more research is needed. Also, very little
information is available about changes in emotional aggression over time and over
the life course.
The present study examines emotional and physical aggression perpetrated by
husbands and wives over three time points. As contrasted with studies on intimate
relationship aggression using dating, early marriage, or clinic samples, the present
study examines middle-aged community couples in relatively stable relationships,
who were not specifically selected for levels of aggression or presentation for
therapy. Since rates of intimate aggression may peak in the early to mid twenties
and then decline over the lifespan (Fritz & O ’Leary, 2004; Suitor, Pillemer, &
Straus, 1990), findings from young adult samples may not generalize to middle-aged
or older couples. Also, the present study focuses on couples with three time points
of data. Previous investigations examining changes in aggression over time that
included couples without all follow-up assessments and that had low percentage
return at follow-up may have found average decreases in aggression over time due to
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
attrition rates being higher for more aggressive couples. Because it is plausible that
couple attrition leads to data that is not missing at random, using techniques that
assume random missingness may not be appropriate. Examining couples with
complete data will allow for an evaluation of this effect. A notable strength of this
study is that both husbands’ and wives’ reports are obtained about their own and
their spouse’s use of aggression. Although spouses have moderate reliability
between their reports of aggression (O’Leary & Arias, 1988), more aggression is
detected when both spouses’ reports are used than when only one partner’s report is
obtained (Margolin, 1987). It is generally concluded that researchers attain a more
complete picture of relationship aggression with two reporters.
Based on previous literature, it is hypothesized that both husbands’ and
wives’ physical aggression will decrease over time; however, it is expected that there
will be significant variability in aggression trajectories. The literature provides less
guidance about the likely trajectory of emotional aggression over time. With no
information suggesting that emotional aggression is likely to decrease or increase
during this time frame, we expect that husbands’ and wives’ emotional aggression
will remain relatively stable. Therefore, the trajectory o f emotional aggression will
be explored in this study. Finally, because spouses in this study have been married
for a varying number of years, the influence of time elapsed since marriage is
examined. It is hypothesized that the number of years the couple has been married
will have a significant effect on aggression values, such that couples who are earlier
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in marriage will report more aggression and couples later in marriage will report
fewer acts of aggression.
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Methods
Participants
Participants are part of a larger, longitudinal study evaluating the effects of
family conflict and community violence on family processes and children’s
functioning. One hundred nineteen families were seen in the lab at Year 1, 102 of
these families returned for Year 2, and 103 families returned for Year 3. The
sample was recruited through advertisements in the Los Angeles community.
Inclusion criteria for Year 1 required that: (a) each family unit included two parents
and one target child, (b) the child was 9-10 years old, (c) both parents and the target
child resided together, (d) the parents are the child’s biological parents or the child
has resided with a non-biological parent for three or more years, and (e) each
member of the family is able to complete the research protocol in English. Families
received $100 for their first laboratory visit, $125 for their second visit, and $150 for
their Year 3 visit. Participation took four hours at the Year 1 meeting and about
three hours for the Year 2 and 3 visits. Following each visit, families are asked to
complete daily diaries for two weeks.
Of the 119 couples, 98 participated in all three years of procedures, 9
participated in two of the three years, and 1 2 only participated in the first assessment.
For the present investigation, only those couples with three years of data will be
included in the analyses. On average, husbands and wives included in the analyses
were 40.9 (SD=6.74) and 37.8 (SD=6.10) years old, respectively, at time 1 of the
study. Also, at time 1, couples had been together for an average of 14.03 years
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(SD=4.70) and married for an average of 12.54 (SD=5.44) years. Families reported
a median income of $63,700 (average= $70,748, SD=$35,751, Range= both parents
unemployed to $165,000). On average, couples had 2.67 children (SD=1.39,
Range=l-7). Sixteen (16.3) percent of couples are African-American, 8.2% are
Asian/Pacific Islander, 25.5% are Caucasian, 22.4% are Hispanic/Latino, and 27.6%
are multiethnic or other ethnicities. Table 1 reports t-tests comparing the 98 couples
who were seen for three years with those seen for only one or two years.
Table 1. Differences between 3-year returners and <3-year returners.
Time 1 Measures
3-Year
Returners
(N=98)
M SD
<3-Year
Returners
(N=21)
M SD
t-Ratio
Wife Age 37.77 6 . 1 0 37.24 4.74 1.08
Husband Age 40.94 6.74 41.03 7.07 -0.06
Wife Education (# of yrs) 14.34 2.47 13.90 2.59 .48
Husband Education (# of yrs) 14.34 2.41 13.14 2.76 2 .0 1 *
Family Income 70,748 35,751 51,664 38,534 2.15*
# of Children 2.67 1.39 3.52 1.63 -2.47*
# of Years Living Together 14.03 4.70 1 2 . 1 0 4.81 1.71
# of Years Married 12.54 5.44 1 0 . 0 0 5.80 1.76
Husband to Wife Physical Aggr. .69 1.70 1.24 2.42 -0.56
Wife to Husband Physical Aggr 1.32 2.59 1.67 2.78 -1.23
Husband to Wife Emotional Aggr. 1.69 3.34 1.52 2.71 0 . 2 2
Wife to Husband Emotional Aggr 2 . 1 2 3.71 4.29 5.88 -1.62a
Not.e\ a Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was significant. T-ratio for equal variances
not assumed reported. * p<.05
Several significant differences were found between 3-year returners and <3
year returners on demographic variables. Couples who returned for three
assessments had fewer children, higher average family income, and husbands with
slightly more education. No differences were found between the two groups on time
1 aggression variables. Chi-square analyses indicated some differences between 3-
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
year returners and <3-year returners on couple ethnicity, rf(4, N = 119) = 10.60,p <
.05. Couples who did not return for three years were more likely to be African-
American. Sixty-two percent of African-American couples returned for 3 years of
assessment, while 88.9% of Asian/Pacific Islander, 92.6% of Caucasian, 8 8 % of
Latino/Hispanic, and 84.4% of mixed ethnicity couples returned for three years of
assessment.
Procedures
During each laboratory visit, two graduate students explained procedures and
obtained consent to participate from both parents and assent from the child(ren). In
separate rooms, family members answered paper and computer-based questionnaires.
When necessary, graduate students read questionnaires aloud to the child. In
addition, in Years 2 and 3, both parents and the target child participated in a video
taped family interaction task. At Year 3, when applicable, a sibling was invited to
participate. The sibling filled out paper and computer-based questionnaires and the
children participated in a video-taped play task. The Domestic Conflict Inventory
(DCI) was administered as part of these procedures. Spouses completed the DCI on
computers in separate, private rooms. The DCI was administered the same way at all
three time points.
Measures
Physical and Emotional Aggression. At each time point, husbands and wives
completed the revised Domestic Conflict Inventory (DCI; Margolin, Burman, John,
& O’Brien, 2000). The DCI is a 61-item questionnaire about conflict and aggression
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
used in intimate relationships (see Appendix A). Both spouses report about wife-to-
husband and husband-to-wife behaviors. The DCI includes items from Straus’
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996)
plus additional items. Respondents are asked whether an item has ever occurred,
whether the behavior has occurred in front of the child, and how many times it has
occurred in the previous year. Each item receives a 0-5 score based on the following
frequency ranges: (0) none, (1) once per year, (2) 2-5 per year, (3) 6-12 per year, (4)
2-4 per month, and (5) > once per week. Husband and wife reports are combined by
taking the maximum reported behavior for each item, based on the assumption that
individuals are more likely to underreport aggression than report aggression that has
not occurred.
Independent psychometric information is not yet available for the revised
DCI. For the original DCI, the internal consistency reliability coefficient for
husbands’ self reports of physical aggression was .76 and .53 for emotional
aggression. For wives’ reports, internal consistency reliability coefficients for
husbands’ physical and emotional aggression were .84 and .74, respectively (Foo,
1996). Test retest-reliability was calculated for reports of physical and emotional
aggression given over a two-week interval. Coefficients for husbands’ physical
aggression were .70 for husbands’ self reports and .90 for wives’ reports. Reliability
coefficients for husbands’ emotional aggression were .82 for husbands’ self-reports
and .81 for wives’ reports (Burman, Margolin, & John, 1991). Test-retest reliability
information is not available for wives’ physical and emotional aggression. From
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
year 1 DCI reports in the current sample, Cronbach alphas for husband physical and
emotional aggression (maximum of husbands’ and wives’ reports) were .78 and .75,
respectively. Similarly, the internal consistency alpha for wives’ physical aggression
was .78 and for wives’ emotional aggression was .75.
There are 15 physical aggression items on the DCI: (a) pushed, grabbed, or
shoved, (b) slapped, (c) thrown an object at, (d) physically twisted arm, (e) shaken,
(f) kicked, bit, or hit with fist, (g) hit or tried to hit with something, (h) beat up, (i)
thrown or tried to throw bodily, (j) physically forced sex, (k) burned, (1) choked or
strangled, (m) threatened with a knife or gun, (n) used a knife or gun, and (o)
slammed against the wall. A total physical aggression score was calculated by
summing respondents’ maximum response (0 to 5) on the 15 physical aggression
items.
The following items were used to compose an emotional aggression score: (a)
damaged a household item, or some part of your home, out of anger towards your
spouse, (b) deliberately disposed of or hid an important item of your spouse’s, (c)
purposely hurt your spouse’s pet, (d) purposely damaged or destroyed your spouse’s
clothes, car, and/or other personal possessions, (e) locked your spouse out of the
house, (f) told your spouse that he/she could not work, go to school, or other self-
improvement activities, (g) prevented spouse from seeing friends or family, (h)
restricted your spouse’s use of the car or telephone, (i) tried to turn family, friends,
or children against your spouse, (j) frightened your spouse,
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2. Proportion of Couples Endorsing Aggression Ttems
Aggression Item
Hus.
T1
Wife
T1
Hus.
T2
Wife
T2
Hus.
T3
Wife
T3
Physical Aggression Items:
Pushed, grabbed, or shoved 20% 27% 11% 10% 12% 13%
Slapped 5% 9% 2% 8% 5% 9%
Thrown an object at spouse 8% 20% 7% 9% 6% 8%
Physically twisted arm 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 1%
Shaken 5% 1% 3% 2% 3% 0
Kicked, bit, hit with fist 3% 15% 2% 8% 2% 7%
Hit or tried to hit with something 3% 10% 5% 8% 4% 6%
Beat up 0 1% 0 1% 0 1%
Thrown or tried to throw bodily 1% 2% 0 1% 2% 1%
Physically forced sex 6% 1% 3% 2% 6% 2%
Burned 0 0 0 1% 0 0
Choked or strangled 1% 0 0 2% 0 0
Threatened with a knife or gun 0 2% 0 1% 0 0
Used a knife or gun 0 1% 0 0 0 0
Slammed against the wall
4% 1% 0 1% 3% 0
Emotional Aggression Items:
Damaged an item/home out of
18% 19% 12% 21% 14% 16%
anger towards spouse
Deliberately disposed of/hid
6% 20% 11% 22% 17% 16%
important item ot spouse s
Purposely hurt spouse’s pet 1% 0 1% 1% 3% 0
Purposely damaged spouse’s
6% 10% 2% 7% 5% 3%
personal possessions
Locked spouse out of house 1% 8% 3% 8% 2% 5%
Told spouse that s/he couldn’t
7% 6% 5% 6% 8% 2%
work, go to school, etc.
Prevented spouse from seeing
13% 8% 18% 15% 12% 11%
Iriends or family
Restricted spouse’s use of car or
phone
Tried to turn family, friends, or
3% 5% 4% 8% 3% 6%
10% 14% 19% 24% 20% 19%
children against spouse
Frightened spouse 21% 20% 26% 24% 28% 22%
Prevented spouse from getting
0 0 1% 2% 1% 1%
needed medical care
Used humiliation to make
2% 1% 5% 3% 4% 0
spouse nave sex
Used threats to make spouse
2% 3% 5% 2% 4% 1%
have sex
Coerced spouse to engage in
5% 0 9% 0% 8% 2%
unwanted sexual practices
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(k) prevented your spouse from getting medical care that he/she needed, (1) **used
humiliation to make your spouse have sex, (m) **used threats to make your spouse
have sex, and (n) **coerced your spouse to engage in sexual practices he/she did not
want.
Similarly to physical aggression, an emotional aggression score was
computed by summing the respondents’ maximum response (0 to 5) to each of the
emotional aggression items. The above items with no asterisks have been used to
measure emotional aggression in several previous studies (Margolin, John, & Foo,
1998; Margolin, John, Ghosh, & Gordis, 1996). Those items with two asterisks are
new to the revised DCI and will be included in the emotional aggression scale.
Participants’ endorsement of each of the physical and emotional aggression items is
reported in Table 2.
Statistical Analysis Plan
To investigate the trajectory of husbands’ and wives’ emotional and physical
aggression over time, the data were first examined descriptively. Then, Hierarchical
Linear Modeling (HLM) was used to evaluate the trajectory of each type of
aggression in this sample. Spouse’s behavior within a couple and repeated measures
of behavior for each spouse are dependent observations. Therefore, the analyses
undertaken must take into account this non-independence. HLM capitalizes on the
“nesting” in the data by allowing an examination of variance components at different
levels (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). For these analyses, the data were examined
using three-level models, with the levels representing observations over time, nested
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in individual spouses, who are nested in couples. In the level 1 model, individual
spouse’s acts of aggression are examined over the three time points, resulting in a
regression equation for each spouse. At level 2, HLM determines the average
estimated value for the intercept and slope of aggression over time for husbands and
wives, as well as the variation around these values. Finally, at level 3, the effect of
the number of years since marriage on couples’ aggression trajectories is determined.
Aggression, in this study, is operationalized as a count o f aggressive acts in
the last year. Thus, for these aggression variables, negative values are not possible,
there is a notable proportion of zeroes, and the distributions are highly positively
skewed, such that transformations are inadequate to approximate a normal
distribution. Traditional HLM relies on the assumption of data being normally
distributed. However, generalized Hierarchical Linear Modeling allows for the
analysis o f count, binary, multinomial, or ordinal outcome variables (Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002). In the present study, a generalized Hierarchical Linear Model will be
used assuming a Poisson distribution, which is appropriate for count data. This
generalized model uses a log link function and a Poisson sampling model to calculate
predicted log event rates. Calculating the exponent function of these values produces
an event rate ratio coefficient. Intercept event rate ratio coefficients provide
information about the expected value for that variable. Event rate ratio coefficients
for slope terms indicate the expected proportion increase or decrease in a value from
one time point to the next.
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Two separate 3-level generalized hierarchical linear models were run. The
first model examines physical aggression in couples over time, while the other model
evaluates emotional aggression. For physical aggression, the Level 1 model is:
Log[L„*] = no* + Xhk (Year) „* + e„* [1 ]
In this equation, Xitk is the expected value for the number of acts of partner aggression
for individual i at time t (Year = 0 , 1 , or 2 ) in couple k; T i0 lk is the expected value for
partner aggression for individual i in couple k at Time 0, the first year of the study;
7t/,*is the slope parameter (rate of change) for individual i in couple k; and e„*is the
residual variance. The Level 2 models for physical aggression are:
K ()ik = B o o * + Bo/i (spouse gender),* + r0 ik [2 ]
niik= B/o* + B//* (spouse gender),* + rnk [3]
Here, in equation 2, the 7 io ,* value for each individual spouse from the Level 1
equation is used to determine B oo k, B o / * , and the random effect r o tk . B ook is the average
intercept expected value for acts of aggression across all individuals in the analyses
and B o / * indicates the variation in that value for husbands versus wives. Spouse
gender is entered as an uncentered variable, with wife coded as 0.5 and husband
coded as -0.5. In equation 3, the 7i/,* value for each spouse from the Level 1 equation
is used to determine B / o * , B / / * , and the random effect r„*. B / o * is the average expected
change in acts of aggression over time across individuals and B / / * is the variation in
this slope value for husbands versus wives.
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Finally, in Level 3, the effect of the number o f years spouses have been
married is examined. Analyses investigating the trajectory o f husbands’ and wives’
emotional aggression will be conducted using an analogous model.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Results
Descriptive Information
Means and standard deviations for aggression variables at the three time
points are presented in Table 3. Correlations among physical aggression variables
are presented in Table 4 and correlations among emotional aggression variables are
presented in Table 5. Husbands’ and wives’ physical aggression scores are
positively correlated at each time point (rs = .32-.46). Spouses’ emotional
aggression scores are also positively correlated within each time point (rs = .41-.47).
Table 3. Descriptive Information for Partner Physical and Emotional Aggression
Measure Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
# Endorsing
Aggression
Husband Physical Aggr.-Time 1 .69 1.70 0 - 1 0 25 (25.5%)
Husband Physical Aggr.-Time 2 .46 1.44 0 - 1 1 17 (17.3%)
Husband Physical Aggr.-Time 3 .63 1.95 0-14 18(18.4%)
Wife Physical Aggr.-Time 1 1.32 2.59 0-13 3 4 (34.7%)
Wife Physical Aggr.-Time 2 .83 2.31 0-13 23 (23.5%)
Wife Physical Aggr.-Time 3 .53 1.23 0-5 21 (21.4%)
Husband Emotional Aggr.-Time 1 1.69 3.34 0-24 42 (42.9%)
Husband Emotional Aggr.-Time 2 2 . 1 2 3.68 0 - 2 0 51 (52.0%)
Husband Emotional Aggr.-Time 3 2.36 3.59 0-19 53 (54.1%)
Wife Emotional Aggr.-Time 1 2 . 1 2 3.71 0-17 47 (48.0%)
Wife Emotional Aggr.-Time 2 2.70 4.86 0-25 54 (55.1%)
Wife Emotional Aggr.-Time 3 1.82 3.48 0 - 2 0 45 (45.9%)
Table 4. Correlations Among Physical Aggression Variables
1 . 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6 .
1. Husbands’ PA T1 .63***
4 7 *** .19a
.30**
2. Husbands’ PA T2 —
g 75***
,19a .24* .16
3. Husbands’ PA T3 — .36*** .17a .36***
4. Wives’ PA T1 .50***
4 7 ***
5. Wives’ PA T2 — .63***
6 . Wives’ PA T3 —
Note. PA= Physical aggression, *** p<.0 0 1 , **p<.0 1 , *p<.05,a p<.09
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5. Correlations Among Emotional Aggression Variables
1 . 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6 .
1. Husbands’ EA T1 — 4 3 *** 29** ***
.24*
4g***
2. Husbands’ EA T2 — .36*** .23* .33***
3. Husbands’ EA T3 — .30**
3 4 *** 3 4 ***
4. Wives’ EA T1 — 6 8 ***
5 4 ***
5. Wives’ EA T2 —
63***
6 . Wives’ EA T3 —
Note. EA= Emotional aggression, *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05
Figure 1 depicts individual trajectories of husbands’ physical aggression over
the three time points and Figure 2 depicts the individual trajectories for wives’
physical aggression. As can be seen in these figures, there is notable variability in
aggression trajectories. Figures 3 and 4 depict the persistence versus desistance of
husbands’ and wives’ physical aggression from time 1 to time 3 and the conditional
probabilities of aggression over time. Overall, 7.1% of couples reported husband
physical aggression at all three time points, 1 2 .2 % reported husband physical
aggression at two time points, 15.3% reported husband physical aggression at one
time point, and 65.3% were not physically aggressive during the time of the study.
For wives’ physical aggression, couples reported that 10.2% were physically
aggressive at three time points, 14.3% were aggressive at two time points, 20.4% at
one time point, and 55.1% were not physically aggression during the time of the
study.
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 1. Frequency o f Husbands’ Physical Aggression Over Time
14.70-r
O) 10.85-
m
7.00-
3.15-
-0.70
0.45 1.55 -0 .10 1.00
YEAR
2.10
Figure 2. Frequency of Wives' Physical Aggression Over Time
13.65-1
10.08-
O)
U)
6.50
2.93-
-0.65
1.55 2.10 0.45 1.00
YEAR
-0 .10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 3. Conditional Probabilities of Husband Physical Aggression: Times 1 to 3
TIME 1 TIME 2 TIME 3
Yes .08 (6)
No .92(67)
No .33 (2)
No .74 (73)
No .56(14)
No .36 (4)
Yes .64 (7)
Yes .29 (4)
Yes .04 (3)
Yes .67 (4)
No .96 (64)
Yes .26 (25)
Yes .44 (11)
No .71 (10)
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent number o f couples.
Figure 4. Conditional Probabilities of Wife Physical Aggression: Times 1 to 3
TIME 1 TIME 2 TIME 3
Y e s .17 (1)
No .65 (11)
Yes .09 (6)
No .91 (58)
Yes .35 (6)
No .50 (17)
No .83 (5)
Yes .35 (34)
No .93 (54)
Yes .59 (10)
No .65 (64)
Yes .07 (4)
No .41 (7)
Yes .50 (17)
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent number of couples.
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
For husbands’ physical aggression, 56% of physically aggressive husbands
desisted from physical aggression from Time 1 to Time 2, while 35% of physically
aggressive husbands at Time 2 desisted from physical aggression at Time 3. Overall,
couples reported that 6 (6.1%) husbands were physically aggressive in Time 2, even
though they weren’t aggressive at Time 1, and 7 (7.1%) husbands were aggressive in
Time 3, but weren’t aggressive at Time 2. Similarly, for wives’ physical aggression,
50% of physically aggressive wives desisted from aggression from Time 1 to Time
2, and 52% of physically aggressive wives desisted from Time 2 to Time 3.
Although not aggressive at the prior time point, 6 (6.1%) wives were physically
aggressive at Time 2 and 10 (10.2%) wives were physically aggressive at Time 3.
Overall, of husbands who were aggressive at Time 1, 40% desisted from aggression
in Times 2 and 3. For wives, 32.4% of those aggressive at time 1 completely
desisted from aggression in Times 2 and 3. These values indicate that there is
desistance in aggression, although rates differ depending on the time point of
interest, and a small percent of couples start being aggressive, even though they were
not aggressive at the previous time point.
Figures 5 and 6 depict individual trajectories over time for husbands’
emotional aggression and wives’ emotional aggression, respectively. In Figures 7
and 8 , the number of emotionally aggressive husbands and wives at each time point
and the conditional probabilities of emotional aggression over time are reported.
Examining emotional aggression, 23.5% of husbands were emotionally aggressive at
all three time points, 23.5% were emotionally aggressive at two time points, 31.6%
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were emotionally aggressive at one time point, and 21.4% of couples did not report
husband emotional aggression during this time frame. Thirty-nine percent of
husbands, who were not emotionally aggressive at Time 1, were emotionally
aggressive at Time 2, and 51.6% of husbands who were not emotionally aggressive
at Time 2, were emotionally aggressive at Time 3. Regarding desistance, 31% of
emotionally aggressive husbands desisted from emotional aggression from Time 1 to
Time 2, and 27.5% of aggressive husbands desisted between Times 2 and 3.
Figure 5. Frequency of Husbands’ Emotional Aggression Over Time
18.1
O)
12.00
12 5.40-
-1.20
1.55 2.10 0.45 1.00
YEAR
-0.1 o
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 6. Frequency of Wives’ Emotional Aggression Over Time
26.25-r
Q) 19.38-
U)
2 12.50-
5.63-
-1.25
0.45 1.00
YEAR
1.55 2.10 -0 .10
Figure 7. Conditional Probabilities of Husband Emotional Aggression: Times 1 to 3
TIME 1 TIME 2 TIME 3
Yes .69 (29)
Yes .39 (22)
No .62 (21)
No .21 (6)
Yes .79 (23)
No .61 (34)
No .31 (13)
No .36 (8)
Yes .38 (13)
Yes .64 (14)
Yes .43 (42)
No .57 (56)
No .77 (10)
Yes .23 (3)
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent number o f couples.
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 8 . Conditional Probabilities of Wife Emotional Aggression: Times 1 to 3
TIME 1 TIME 2 TIME 3
No .65 (33)
Yes .35 (18)
No .23(11)
Yes .77 (36)
Yes .22 (4)
Yes .21 (7)
No .79 (26)
Yes .81 (29)
Yes .48 (47)
No .78 (14)
No .52 (51)
No .55 (6)
No .19 (7)
Yes .45 (5)
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent number of couples.
For wives’ emotional aggression, 29.6%, 16.3%, 27.6%, and 26.5% of wives
were emotionally aggressive at three, two, one, and no time points, respectively.
Thirty-five percent of wives who were not aggressive at Time 1 were aggressive at
Time 2, and 27.3% of non-aggressive wives at Time 2 were emotionally aggressive
at Time 3. Twenty-three percent of emotionally aggressive wives at Time 1 desisted
from emotional aggression at Time 2, while 38.9% of emotionally aggressive wives
at Time 2 desisted at Time 3. These values indicate that, while there is some
stability in emotional aggression from year to year, there is also significant
variability.
Spouses ’ Physical Aggression Over Time
As seen in Table 6 , there is a significant effect of spouse gender on physical
aggression intercepts, with wives’ initial aggression values greater than husbands’.
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6. Intercept and Slope Parameters for Physical and Emotional Spouse
Aggression
Fixed Effect Event Rate Ratio Confidence
Interval
t-ratio
Physical Aggression
Model for initial status, H o ik
Intercept, (h o o k
Intercept 0.98 (0.45,2.17) -0.04
Years married 0.92 (0.86, 0.98) -2.71**
Spouse gender, (hoik
Intercept 2.18 (1.30,3.66) 2.98**
Model for growth rate, % nk
Slope intercept, (hjok
Intercept 0.57 (0.36, 0.89) -2.51*
Years married 1 .0 1 (0.98, 1.05) 0.76
Spouse gender, (hnk
Intercept 0.71 (0.51,0.996) -1.99*
Emotional Aggression
Model for initial status, % o ik
Intercept, (h 0 o k
Intercept 1 . 6 8 (0.86, 3.26) 1.54
Years married 0.95 (0.91, 1.00) -1.93
Spouse gender, (hoik
Intercept 1.24 (0.88, 1.76) 1.23
Model for growth rate, % nk
Slope intercept, (hwk
Intercept 1 .0 1 (0.77, 1.34) 0.09
Years married 1 .0 1 (0.99, 1.03) 0.62
Spouse gender, (hnu
Intercept 0.79 (0.66, 0.93) -2.78**
Note. **p<.01, *p<.05
There is also a significant effect for number of years married on the intercept, with
individuals who have been married longer reporting lower levels of aggression.
Physical aggression for both husbands and wives significantly decreased over the
three years of the study. Moreover, rates of change for husbands’ and wives’
physical aggression differed significantly. Husbands’ aggression decreases, on
average, by 17% each year, while wives’ physical aggression decreases 43% each
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
year. Length of marriage did not have a significant effect on rates of change for
physical aggression. Figure 9 depicts the trajectories of husbands’ and wives’
physical aggression from the first to third assessments, with the effect of length of
relationship illustrated by trajectories depicted at 1 0 , 1 2 , and 15 years married (the
25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of this variable). The variance components for these
parameters indicate significant variability around the initial expected values and
around rates of change for husbands’ and wives’ physical aggression trajectories at
level 2 (see Table 7). At the couple level, significant variability remains around
initial aggression values, however variability in average couple level rates of change
in physical aggression is not significant.
Figure 9. Trajectory of Husbands’ and Wives’ Physical Aggression Over Time with
Effect of Years Married
0.621
Husb, YrsMarry = 10
— — Husb, YrsMarry = 12
. . . . . . Husb, YrsMarry = 15
Wife, YrsMarry = 10
= =W ife, YrsMarry = 12
= = = = =Wife, YrsMarry = 15
c
.2 0.466
( / >
(/)
d >
l -
O )
O )
^ 0.311
m
o
'3 5
>.
Q .
0.155
2.00 1.50 1.00
YEAR
0.50
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7. Variance Decomposition in Three-level Growth Models for Physical and
Emotional Partner Aggression
Random Effect Variance Component
2 ^
p value
Physical Aggression
Level-1 variance
Temporal variation, e ^ 0.74
Level-2 (individuals within
couples)
Individual initial status, rotk 1.15 221.78 0 . 0 0 0
Individual rate of change, r!tk 0.17 123.07 0.038
Level-3 (between couples)
Couple mean initial status, uook 1.16 172.17 0 . 0 0 0
Couple mean rate o f change, uiok 0.13 87.77 >.500
Emotional Aggression
Level-1 variance
Temporal variation, e ^ 2.14
Level-2 (individuals within
couples)
Individual initial status, rotk 0.73 242.43 0 . 0 0 0
Individual rate of change, rnk 0.05 181.21 0 . 0 0 0
Level-3 (between couples)
Couple mean initial status, uook 1.19 259.87 0 . 0 0 0
Couple mean rate of change, u^k 0.14 162.99 0 . 0 0 0
Spouses ’ Emotional Aggression Over Time
For emotional aggression, spouses’ initial aggression values at time one were
not significantly different from each other. There was a nonsignficant trend (p =
0.057) towards years married having an effect on aggression intercepts, with more
years into marriage being associated with less reported aggression. Spouses’ rates of
change in emotional aggression over the three time points did not indicate a
significant increase or decrease when husbands and wives were considered together.
However, husbands’ and wives’ rates of change over time were significantly
different from one another. Wives’ emotional aggression remained relatively stable
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
over time, decreasing by only 2% between each time point. Husbands’ emotional
aggression, however, increased by 124% between each time point. There was no
significant effect for years married on slope. Figure 10 depicts husbands’ and wives’
trajectories of emotional aggression over the three time points. As shown in Table 7,
there is still significant variability around these average expected values for spouses’
initial rates of emotional aggression at both the individual and couple levels and
variability in change over time at the individual level.
Figure 10. Trajectory of Husbands’ and Wives’ Emotional Aggression Over Time:
Husband
YEAR
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Discussion
This study examined changes in husbands’ and wives’ use of physical and
emotional aggression over three years. This sample provides a new perspective on
partner aggression over the life course by examining couples at a variety of stages in
their marriages and assessing the impact of length of marriage on three year
aggression trajectories. As hypothesized, both husbands’ and wives’ rates of
physical aggression significantly decreased over the three years. Wives’ rates of
physical aggression decreased at a faster rate than husbands’ physical aggression did.
Significant changes in emotional aggression were not expected during this time
frame. While wives’ emotional aggression remained relatively stable with a
decrease o f about 2% per year, husbands’ rates of emotional aggression significantly
increased each year. Furthermore, as expected, there was significantly variability
around the average trajectories for husbands’ and wives’ aggression; thus, although
average aggression trajectories for husbands’ and wives’ were identified, not all
spouses’ aggression followed these patterns. Also, as hypothesized, number of years
married had a significant effect on physical aggression trajectories, such that
trajectories were shifted down to lower levels of aggression for couples who are later
in marriage. Physical aggression continued to change at the same rate regardless of
number of years married. The hypothesis that years married would have a
significant effect on emotional aggression trajectories was not supported. The p-
value for the effect of years married on initial values of emotional aggression was
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
.057; thus, with a larger sample size and higher power, this effect could become
significant.
These findings correspond with other studies that have examined changes in
physical aggression over time. Fritz and O’Leary (2004) found that physical
aggression perpetrated by both husbands and wives significantly decreased during
the first decade of marriage. The current study focused only on couples with three
complete years of data and still found significant decreases in physical aggression
over time, indicating that decreases in aggression are not solely due to the potentially
higher attrition rates of more aggressive couples in longitudinal studies. Although
returners did not significantly differ from nonretumers on time 1 aggression
variables in this study, it may be possible that some of the more aggressive couples
were not included in the current analyses because they did not complete all three
assessments. Other studies have reported notable rates of desistance for husbands’
physical aggression over two time points (e.g., Feld & Straus, 1990; Quigley &
Leonard, 1996) Our results fall in line with these figures, with over a third of
spouses desisting from aggression after a year of aggression. Also, as identified by
Aldarondo (1996), some husbands engage in intermittent aggression histories.
Results from O ’Leary et al. (1989), Aldarondo (1996), and the current study suggest
that if a male partner is aggressive one year and has desisted over a follow-up period,
it may be more cautious to term this pattern intermittent, rather than assuming
complete desistance. These studies found remarkably similar conditional
probabilities ranging from .28-.33 for aggression at a third time point after a year of
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
desistance, despite very different sample selection techniques. Few studies have
examined changes in wives’ physical aggression over more than two time points. As
noted earlier, results in the current study regarding wives’ decreasing physical
aggression coincide with those reported by Fritz & O ’Leary (2004). Interestingly,
with wives’ aggression values decreasing at a faster rate but having a higher initial
expected value, by the third year of the study, husbands’ and wives’ expected
physical aggression values are nearly equal.
This paper is one of few that have examined emotional aggression over
multiple time points. It was found that wives’ emotional aggression remained
relatively stable over the three time points, while husbands’ aggression significantly
increased over time. The findings of the current study regarding wife to husband
emotional aggression correspond with the findings of Fritz and O ’Leary (2004), who
also did not find significant changes in emotional aggression in their sample of
spouses in the first decade of marriage. Similarly, Jacobson et al. (1996) found no
significant differences in husbands’ emotional aggression over time, even though the
husbands, who were selected for severe physical aggression at time one, significantly
decreased their physical aggression by the follow-up assessment. However, in this
sample, husband to wife emotional aggression significantly increased from year one
to year three. In light of these variable findings, further research is needed to
determine when emotional aggression tends to increase over time and to pinpoint
what may be driving increases in husbands’ emotional aggression.
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interestingly, the number of years that couples have been married had a
significant effect on husbands’ and wives’ initial physical aggression frequencies,
but not on rates o f change. Thus, spouses at different points in their marriages had
similar percent decrease in physical aggression, but those who are later in marriage
had lower initial aggression intercepts. These findings intuitively make sense if one
images a single physical aggression trajectory for couples over the course of their
relationship, with higher levels at the beginning of marriage, which then decrease
over time. Couples who were sampled later in their marriage coincide with a point
further along this aggression trajectory, and thus have lower starting levels of
aggression, but continue to decrease in aggression at the same rate. Several
researchers have proposed such a trajectory, with rates of partner physical aggression
peaking in the early to mid-twenties and then declining over the life span (O’Leary,
1999; Suitor, Pillemer, & Straus, 1990.) Fritz & O ’Leary (2004) provided important
longitudinal support for this theory by examining couples over the first 10 years of
marriage. This study provides a mix of longitudinal and cross-sectional data by
sampling couples who are at different points in their marriage and also finds some
support for these hypothesized lifetime physical aggression trajectories for
community couples. Interestingly, most studies have focused on male to female
aggression, but the current study and the Fritz and O’Leary (2004) study indicate that
female’s use of aggression in intimate relationships may follow a similar pattern.
It is notable that significant variability in spouse aggression trajectories
remained in these models. This suggests that future research examining moderators
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and mediators of varying aggression trajectories will be important in order to further
understand escalation and de-escalation of aggression in intimate relationships. Most
importantly, pinpointing time-varying covariates of changes in aggression may
provide key information which will aid in intervention or prevention efforts. One
important component of this could be disentangling how emotional and physical
aggression interact over time. Schumacher and Leonard (2005) found that both
verbal and physical aggression at a previous time point predicted physical aggression
at a later time point. However, potential effects in the opposite direction were not
examined (i.e., physical aggression influencing later verbal aggression.) In this
study, the authors discussed verbal aggression in relation to literature on emotional
or psychological aggression, even though the variable was operationalized somewhat
differently. However, because emotional aggression has a fairly nebulous definition
and the literature provides no clear consensus on the best way to measure emotional
aggression, it is somewhat unclear how or to what degree verbal aggression in
Schumacher and Leonard’s study relates to the construct of emotional aggression.
Another important future step will be to examine the interrelatedness of
husbands’ and wives’ use of aggression over time. Schumacher and Leonard (2005)
found that both premarital verbal aggression and physical aggression were important
predictors of later physical aggression during the first two years of marriage and that
perpetration of aggression by each spouse was predictive of both later perpetration
and victimization for that spouse. Similarly, although wives’ time 2 aggression was
not evaluated, another study suggested that wives’ aggression at time 1 significantly
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
increased the probability o f husbands perpetrating severe aggression at time 2 (Feld
& Straus, 1990), indicating that one spouse’s aggression may relate to changes in the
partner’s aggression. These data speak to the potential reciprocal or interactional
nature of aggression for some couples. Still, Schumacher and Leonard (2005) found
that relationships between aggression at a prior time point and aggression at the next
time point were stronger within spouse than across spouses; one spouse’s use of
aggression was a more consistent and stronger predictor of that spouse’s future
physical aggression. Due to the interrelatedness of husbands’ and wives’ use of
aggression and spouses’ use of emotional and physical aggression, teasing out the
impact or potential causal influence of one of these variables on another is a difficult,
yet important direction of research.
These analyses coincided with other findings in the literature regarding
gender differences in partner aggression in some ways but not in others. As found in
Archer’s (2000) meta-analysis, wives’ initial rates of aggression were significantly
greater than husbands’ initial rates of physical aggression. However, expected
values for husbands’ and wives’ physical aggression at time 3 were very similar.
Similarly, initially wives’ emotional aggression scores were higher, albeit not
significantly, however, at time 3 husbands’ emotional aggression expected levels had
surpassed wives’ levels. As noted earlier, these comparable rates of aggression
perpetrated by husbands and wives, notable proportions of bidirectional aggression,
and the sampling o f community couples suggests that much of the partner aggression
in this sample is likely ‘situational couple violence’ according to Johnson’s (1995,
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2000) typology. However, it may be difficult to distinguish situational couple
violence and intimate terrorism based on measures like the one used in the current
study or the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Silverman,
1996) that examine the frequency of aggressive acts, but don’t pinpoint the context
of the aggression (e.g., Who is the primary aggressor? Is aggression in self-
defense?). Still, situational couple violence has been found to have more deleterious
consequences for men and women than marital dissatisfaction alone (Vivian &
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994). It is also important to note that similar frequencies
of aggression between men and women does not mean similar or comparable effects
of aggression, because an act of aggression perpetrated by a male may have a higher
potential to physically harm and engender fear in the partner than a similar act of
physical aggression perpetrated by a female against her male partner.
There are several notable limitations in the current investigation. This
sample was recruited from the community with the inclusion criteria requiring that
the couple have a 9 or 10 year old child. With this uniting factor in the sample,
questions arise about whether these findings will generalize to childless couples or
couples with children at different ages. Future research is needed to examine these
questions. Still, this sample allows for a unique combination of examining couples’
aggression over three time points, examining couples later in life than samples that
have focused on adolescent dating or newlywed couples, and examining couples who
are at various lengths of time into their relationship. Another limitation in this study
was the way in which aggression was measured. Researchers have noted the
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
shortcomings of operationalizing aggression as the number of acts o f aggression over
a certain time frame, because the meaning and impact of aggression is not
comparable for all reported behaviors. Examining quantitative changes in aggression
over time makes focusing on frequency of acts reasonable, still future studies could
look to develop a more nuanced examination of changes in aggression, possibly
drawing on interview information. Finally, although attrition rates in this study were
relatively low, differences between attriters and non-attriters could affect the
generalizability of the findings.
This study also has several notable strengths. Both spouses report on their
own and their spouses’ use of aggression, which may provide a more complete
picture of partner aggression than is obtained in many other studies, which rely
solely on wives’ reports of aggression. Also, this sample provides information about
partner aggression in middle adulthood; this developmental stage has rarely been the
focus in longitudinal studies of partner aggression. Most studies examining changes
in intimate aggression over time have examined newlywed couples or couples
selected due to levels of marital discord or presentation for therapy. Examining
aggression over time in the current sample provides another piece of information
about changes in intimate aggression over the lifespan and over the course of
relationships.
This study supports a growing body of literature indicating that physical
aggression in community samples often decreases over time, but there is also
variability in aggression trajectories. Identifying couples with more severe
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
trajectories (i.e., escalating aggression or high rates of aggression that remain high
over time), who could potentially fall under the rubric of intimate terrorism, or
variables that may help differentiate couples who have a more serious aggression
trajectory will be an important step towards improving interventions for the most at
risk individuals. Also, with an increased understanding of changes in aggression
over time, future research should work towards identifying predictors of escalation
and de-escalation in aggression, as well as potential mediators o f more severe
aggression trajectories. Finally, future studies need to examine how different
trajectories o f aggression over the life course differentially affect victim’s physical
and mental health. For example, does past aggression have an important and
separate impact on couples, even if aggression has decreased? Gordis, Margolin, &
Vickerman (2005) found that once husbands had perpetrated severe physical
aggression in an intimate relationship, wives may continue to report fear regardless
of whether the aggression maintained, decreased, or desisted. As our understanding
of changes in aggression over time increases we will be better equipped to examine
the effects of past versus current aggression or intermittent versus persistent
aggression on individuals in aggressive relationships. Finally, more research is
needed to examine trajectories of husbands’ and wives’ emotional aggression and
physical aggression to understand how different forms of aggression interact with
each other over time.
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
References
Aldarondo, E. (1996). Cessation and persistence of wife assault: A longitudinal
analysis. American Journal o f Orthopsychiatry, 66, 141-151.
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners:
A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.
Arias, I., & Pape, K. T. (1999). Psychological abuse: Implications for
adjustment and commitment to leave violent partners. Article for miniseries on
Psychological Abuse. Violence and Victims, 14, 55-67.
Burman, B., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1991). Test-retest reliability of the
Domestic Conflict Index (DCI). Unpublished manuscript. University o f Southern
California.
Cantos, A. L., Neidig, P. H., & O’Leary, K. D. (1994). Injuries of women and
men in a treatment program for domestic violence. Journal o f 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, 184-206.
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 o f Family Psychology, 15, 425-440.
Capaldi, D. M., Shortt, J. W., & Crosby, L. (2003). Physical and psychological
aggression in at-risk young couples: Stability and change in young adulthood.
Merril-Paimer Quarterly, 49, 1-27.
Carlson, B. E., McNutt, L., Choi, D. Y., & Rose, I. M. (2002). Intimate partner
abuse and mental health: The role of social support and other protective factors.
Violence Against Women, 8, 720-745.
Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital aggression:
Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives. Archives o f Internal
Medicine, 152, 1178-1184.
Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., &
Smith, P. H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence
for men and women. American Journal o f Preventive Medicine, 23, 260-268.
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Feld, S. L., & Straus, M. (1990). Escalation and desistance from wife assault in
marriage. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American
families: Risk factors and adaptation to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S., and Polek, D. S.
(1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal o f
Family Violence, 5(2), 107-120.
Foo, L. H. Y. (1996). Physical and psychological aggression in marriage: An
analysis of risk factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles.
Foshee, V. A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence,
types, and injuries. Health Education Research, 11, 275-286.
Fritz, P. A. T., & O’Leary, K. D. (2004). Physical and psychological partner
aggression across a decade: A growth curve analysis. Violence and Victims, 19, 3-
16.
Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1990). The medical and psychological costs of
family violence. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.) Physical violence in
American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families, (pp.
425-430.) New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Gordis, E. B., Margolin, G., & Vickerman, K. (2005). Communication and
Frightening behavior among Couples with Past and Recent Histories of Physical
Marital Aggression. American Journal o f Community Psychology, 36, 177-191.
Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003). Physical aggression and control in
heterosexual relationships: The effect of sampling. Violence and victims, 18, 181-
196.
Hamby, S. L., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). Acts of psychological aggression
against a partner and their relation to physical assault and gender. Journal o f
Marriage and the Family, 61, 959-970.
Henning, K., & Klesges, L. M. (2003). Prevalence and characteristics of
psychological abuse reported by court-involved battered women. Journal o f
Interpersonal Violence, 18, 857-871.
Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological,
physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised conflict
tactics scale. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 197-217.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Gortner, E., Bems, S., & Shortt, J. W. (1996).
Psychological factors in the longitudinal course of battering: When do couples split
up? When does the abuse decrease? Violence and Victims, 11, 371-392.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two
forms of violence against women. Journal o f Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.
Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the
1990s: Making distinctions. Journal o f Marriage and the Family, 68, 948-963.
Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate
terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence
Against Women Survey. Journal o f Family Issues, 26, 322-349.
Kasian, M., & Painter, S. L. (1992). Frequency and severity of psychological
abuse in a dating population. Journal o f Interpersonal Violence, 7, 350-364.
Laffaye, C., Kennedy, C., & Stein, M. B. (2003). Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
and health-related quality o f life in female victims of intimate partner violence.
Violence and victims, 18 (2), 227-238.
Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., Cohan, C. L., Lloyd, S.C. (2004). Consequences
of male partner violence for low-income minority women. Journal o f Marriage and
the Family, 66, 472-490.
Lorber, M. F., & O’Leary, K. D. (2004). Predictors o f persistence of male
aggression in early marriage. Journal o f Family Violence, 19, 329-338.
Margolin, G. (1987). The multiple forms of aggressiveness between marital
partners: How do we identify them? Journal o f Marital and Family Therapy, 13(1),
77-84.
Margolin, G., Burman, B., John, R. S., & O’Brien, M. (2000). The Domestic
Conflict Inventory. Unpublished measure, University of Southern California.
Margolin, G., John, R. S., Foo, L. (1998). Interactive and unique risk factors for
husbands' emotional and physical abuse of their wives. Journal o f Family Violence,
13, 315-344.
Margolin, G., John, R. S., Ghosh, C. M., & Gordis, E. B. (1996). Family
interaction process: An essential tool for exploring abusive relations. In D. D. Cahn
& S. A. Lloyd (Eds 7),Family violence from a communication perspective (pp. 37-
58). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Marshal, L. L. (1996). Psychological abuse of women: Six distinct clusters.
Journal o f Family Violence, 11, 379-409.
Murphy, C. M., & O ’Leary, K. D. (1989). Psychological aggression predicts
physical aggression in early marriage. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 57, 579-582.
O’Heam, R. E., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Women's experience of giving and
receiving emotional abuse. Journal o f Interpersonal Violence, 12, 375-391.
O’Leary, K. D. (1999). Developmental and affective issues in assessing and
treating partner aggression. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice, 6, 400-414.
O’Leary, K. D. (2000). Are women really more aggressive than men in intimate
relationships? Comment on Archer (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126, 685-689.
O’Leary, K. D., & Arias, I. (1988). Assessing agreement of reports of spouse
abuse. In G.T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Straus (Eds.)
Family violence and its consequences: New directions in research, (pp. 218-229).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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 o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263-268.
Quigley, B. M., & Leonard, K. W. (1996). Desistance of husband aggression in
the early years o f marriage. Violence and Victims 11, 355-370.
Pico-Alfonso, M. A. (2005). Psychological intimate partner violence: The major
predictor of posttraumatic stress disorder in abuse women. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 181-193.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Byrk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models:
Applications and Data Analysis Methods (2n d ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Sackett, L. A., & Saunders, D. G. (1999). The impact of different forms of
psychological abuse on battered women. Special Miniseries on Psychological
Abuse. Violence and Victims, 14, 105-117.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Schumacher, J. A., & Leonard, K. E. (2005). Husbands’ and wives’ marital
adjustment, verbal aggression, and physical aggression as longitudinal predictors of
physical aggression in early marriage. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 73, 28-37.
Simonelli, C. J., & Ingram, K. M. (1998) Psychological distress among men
experiencing physical and emotional abuse in heterosexual dating relationships.
Journal o f Interpersonal Violence, 13(6), 667-681.
Stets, J. E, & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital
violence and its medical and psychological consequenes. In M. A. Straus & R. J.
Gelles (Eds.) Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations
to violence in 8,145 families, (pp. 151-165.) New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). How violent are American families?
Estimates from the National Family Violence resurvey and other studies. In M. A.
Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.) Physical violence in American families: Risk factors
and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families, (pp. 151-165.) New Bmnswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family
violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal o f
Marriage and the Family, 48, 465-479.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors:
Violence in the American family. New York: Doubleday/Anchor.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Silverman, D. B. (1996).
The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary
psychometric data. Journal o f Family Issues, 17, 283-316.
Street, A. E., & Arias, I. (2001). Psychological abuse and Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder in battered women: Examining the roles of shame and guilt. Violence and
Victims, 16(1), 65-78.
Suitor, J. J., Pillemer, K. & Straus, M. A. (1990). Marital violence in a life
course perspective. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.) Physical violence in
American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families, (pp.
305-317.) New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Swan, S. C., & Snow, D. L. (2002). A typology o f women’s use of violence in
intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 8(3), 286-319.
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Temple, J. R., Weston, R., & Marshall, L. L. (2005). Physical and mental health
outcomes of women in nonviolent, unilaterally violent, and mutually violent
relationships. Violence and Victims, 20, 335-359.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of
violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women
Survey. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Justice and Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1994). Are bi-directionally violent
couples mutually victimized? A gender-sensitive comparison. Violence & Victims,
9, 107-124.
Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row.
Walker, L. E. (1984). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Spring
Publishing Company.
Wilson, J. Q., & Hemstein, R. J. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A
Domestic Conflict Index
Margolin, G., Burman, B., John, R. S., & O’ Brien, M. (1990)
University of Southern California
No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree on major decisions, get annoyed about something the other
person does, or just have spats or fights because they’re in a bad mood, or tired, or for some other reason. People have many different ways
of expressing frustration, annoyance, or hostility with one another. Attached you will find a list of some things that you and your partner may
have done. You will find that some of these items apply, while others do not. Please be sure to consider all items, even if they seem extreme.
First, decide if this behavior has ever occurred (Section A). If the behavior has never occurred in the history of your relationship, circle “No”
under “Ever” and go on to the next question.
If the behavior has occured, indicate whether or not it happened in front of your child (Section B). Next, indicate how frequently this behavior
occurred within the last year (regardless of child’s presence) (Section C).
Section Section Section
A B C
From one year ago until today...
Have you: Ever? In front of your 0 per 1 per 2-5 per 6-12 per 2-4 per >1 per
child? year year year year month week
1. screamed or yelled at your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
2. insulted or swore at your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
From one year ago until today...
Have you: Ever? In front of your
child?
0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
3. damaged a household item, or some part of your
home, out of anqer towards your spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
4. withheld affection from your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
5. deliberately disposed of or hid an important item of
your spouse’s
No Yes No Maybe Yes
6. sulked or refused to talk about an issue No Yes No Maybe Yes
7. monitored your spouse’s time and made him or her
account for where he/she was
No Yes No Maybe Yes
8. made plans that left your spouse feeling excluded No Yes No Maybe Yes
9. left your spouse and were unsure whether you were
going to return
No Yes No Maybe Yes
10. been angry if your spouse told you that you were
using too much alcohol or drugs
No Yes No Maybe Yes
11. been very upset if dinner, housework, or home
repair work was not done when you thought it
should be
No Yes No Maybe Yes
12. done or said something to spite your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
13. been jealous and suspicious of your spouse’s
friends
No Yes No Maybe Yes
14. purposely hurt your spouse’s pet No Yes No Maybe Yes
15. purposely damaged or destroyed your spouse’s
clothes, car, and/or other personal possessions
No Yes No Maybe Yes
16. insulted or shamed your spouse in front of others No Yes No Maybe Yes
L /i
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Section Section Section
A B C
From one year ago until today...
Have you: Ever? In front of your
child?
0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
17. locked your spouse out of the house No Yes No Maybe Yes
18. told your spouse that he/she could not work, go to
school, or go to other self-improvement activities
No Yes No Maybe Yes
19. tried to prevent your spouse from seeing/talking to
family or friends
No Yes No Maybe Yes
20. had an extramarital affair No Yes No Maybe Yes
21. restricted your spouse’s use of the car or telephone No Yes No Maybe Yes
22. made threats to leave the relationship No Yes No Maybe Yes
23. blamed your spouse for your problems No Yes No Maybe Yes
24. tried to turn family, friends, or children against your
spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
25. ordered your spouse around No Yes No Maybe Yes
26. been insensitive to your spouse’s feelings No Yes No Maybe Yes
27. frightened your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
28. treated your spouse like he/she was stupid No Yes No Maybe Yes
29. given your spouse the silent treatment/cold
shoulder
No Yes No Maybe Yes
30. criticized your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
31. called your spouse names No Yes No Maybe Yes
32. stomped out of the room, house, or yard No Yes No Maybe Yes
33, stayed away from the house No Yes No Maybe Yes
34. ridiculed your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
O n
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Section Section Section
A B C
From one year ago until today...
Have you: Ever? In front of your
child?
0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
35. physically twisted your spouse’s arm No Yes No Maybe Yes
36. threatened to hit your spouse or throw something at
him/her in anger
No Yes No Maybe Yes
37. pushed, grabbed, or shoved your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
38. slapped your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
39. physically forced sex on your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
40. burned your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
41. shaken your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
42. thrown, smashed, hit, or kicked something No Yes No Maybe Yes
43. prevented your spouse from getting medical care
that he/she needed
No Yes No Maybe Yes
44. thrown or tried to throw your spouse bodily No Yes No Maybe Yes
45. thrown an object at your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
46. choked or strangled your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
47. kicked, bit or hit your spouse with a fist No Yes No Maybe Yes
48. hit your spouse, or tried to hit your spouse, with
something
No Yes No Maybe Yes
49. beat up your spouse (multiple blows) No Yes No Maybe Yes
50. threatened your spouse with a knife or gun No Yes No Maybe Yes
51. used a knife or a gun on your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
52. used humiliation to make your spouse have sex No Yes No Maybe Yes
53. used threats to make your spouse have sex No Yes No Maybe Yes
KJ\
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
From one year ago until today...
Have you: Ever? In front of your
child?
0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
54. coerced your spouse to engage in sexual practices
he/she did not want
No Yes No Maybe Yes
55. slammed your spouse aqainst the wall No Yes No Maybe Yes
56. physically prevented your spouse from leaving an
argument or blocked his/her exit
No Yes No Maybe Yes
57. showed your spouse that you cared even though
the two of you disagreed
No Yes No Maybe Yes
58. showed respect for your partner’s feelings about an
issue
No Yes No Maybe Yes
59. suggested a compromise to a disagreement No Yes No Maybe Yes
60. agreed to a solution your partner suggested No Yes No Maybe Yes
61 . took responsibility for your part in a problem No Yes No Maybe Yes
00
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In this section, you will answer the same types of questions about your spouse. Again, you will find that some of these items apply,
while others do not. Please be sure to consider all items, even if they seem extreme.
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
From one year ago until today...
Has your spouse: Ever? In front of your
child?
0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
1. screamed or yelled at you No Yes No Maybe Yes
2. insulted or swore at you No Yes No Maybe Yes
3. damaged a household item, or some part of your
home, out of anger towards you
No Yes No Maybe Yes
4. withheld affection from you No Yes No Maybe Yes
5. deliberately disposed of or hid an important item of
yours
No Yes No Maybe Yes
6. sulked or refused to talk about an issue No Yes No Maybe Yes
7. monitored your time and made you account for
where you were
No Yes No Maybe Yes
8. made plans that left you feeling excluded No Yes No Maybe Yes
9. left you and (you) were unsure whether he/she was
going to return
No Yes No Maybe Yes
10. been angry when you told him/her that he/she was
using too much alcohol or drugs
No Yes No Maybe Yes
11. been very upset if dinner, housework, or home
repair work was not done when he/she thought it
should be
No Yes No Maybe Yes
12. done or said something to you No Yes No Maybe Yes
13. been jealous and suspicious of your friends No Yes No Maybe Yes
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
From one year ago until today...
Has your spouse: Ever? In front of your
child?
0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
14. purposely hurt your pet No Yes No Maybe Yes
15. purposely damaged or destroyed your clothes, car,
and/or other personal possessions
No Yes No Maybe Yes
16. insulted or shamed you in front of others No Yes No Maybe Yes
17. locked you out of the house No Yes No Maybe Yes
18. told you that you could not work, go to school, or go
to other self-improvement activities
No Yes No Maybe Yes
19. tried to prevent you from seeing/talking to family or
friends
No Yes No Maybe Yes
20. had an extramarital affair No Yes No Maybe Yes
21. restricted your use of the car or telephone No Yes No Maybe Yes
22. made threats to leave the relationship No Yes No Maybe Yes
23. blamed you for his/her problems No Yes No Maybe Yes
24. tried to turn family, friends, or children against you No Yes No Maybe Yes
25. ordered you around No Yes No Maybe Yes
26. been insensitive to your feelings No Yes No Maybe Yes
27. frightened you No Yes No Maybe Yes
28. treated you like you were stupid No Yes No Maybe Yes
29. given you the silent treatment/cold shoulder No Yes No Maybe Yes
30. criticized you No Yes No Maybe Yes
31. called you names No Yes No Maybe Yes
32. stomped out of the room, house, or yard No Yes No Maybe Yes
CT\
O
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
From one year ago until today...
Has your spouse: Ever? In front of your
child?
0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
33. stayed away from the house No Yes No Maybe Yes
34. ridiculed you No Yes No Maybe Yes
35. physically twisted your arm No Yes No Maybe Yes
36. threatened to hit you, or throw something at you, in
anger
No Yes No Maybe Yes
37. pushed, grabbed, or shoved you No Yes No Maybe Yes
38. slapped you No Yes No Maybe Yes
39. physically forced sex on you No Yes No Maybe Yes
40. burned you No Yes No Maybe Yes
41. shaken you No Yes No Maybe Yes
42. thrown, smashed, hit, or kicked something No Yes No Maybe Yes
43. prevented you from getting medical care that you
needed
No Yes No Maybe Yes
44. thrown, or tried to throw you, bodily No Yes No Maybe Yes
45. thrown an object at you No Yes No Maybe Yes
46. choked or strangled you No Yes No Maybe Yes
47. kicked, bit or hit you with a fist No Yes No Maybe Yes
48. hit you, or tried to hit you, with something No Yes No Maybe Yes
49. beat you up (multiple blows) No Yes No Maybe Yes
50. threatened you with a knife or gun No Yes No Maybe Yes
51. used a knife or a gun on you No Yes No Maybe Yes
52. used humiliation to make you have sex No Yes No Maybe Yes
C T \
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
From one year ago until today...
Has your spouse: Ever? In front of your
child?
0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
53. used threats to make you have sex No Yes No Maybe Yes
54. coerced you to engage in sexual practices you did
not want
No Yes No Maybe Yes
55. slammed you against the wall No Yes No Maybe Yes
56. physically prevented you from leaving an argument
or blocked your exit
No Yes No Maybe Yes
57. showed you that he/she cared even though the two
of you disagreed
No Yes No Maybe Yes
58. showed respect for your feelings about an issue No Yes No Maybe Yes
59. suggested a compromise to a disagreement No Yes No Maybe Yes
60. agreed to a solution you suggested No Yes No Maybe Yes
61. took responsibility for his/her part in a problem No Yes No Maybe Yes
4.19.00
C \
to

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Identifying aggressive victims in Chinese children's peer groups

PDF

Assessing individual differences in affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions of displaced aggression

PDF

Sexual intimacy and fear of recurrence from the perspective of partners of breast cancer patients

PDF

Explicit and implicit alcohol expectancies predict aggression

PDF

Social-cognitive and behavioral attributes of subtypes of aggressors and victims in children's peer groups

PDF

Need for cognition and psychological adjustment in patients and partners of prostate cancer

PDF

The relationship between work stress and family interaction in dual-earner couples

PDF

The moderating effect of trivial triggering provocation on displaced aggression

PDF

Psychophysiology, aggression, and hyperactivity

PDF

Stress and coping among gay older adults

PDF

Genetic cross-relationships between criminal behavior and severe alcohol-related problems

PDF

Utilizing the articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm to understand the mechanisms of action for motivational interviewing

PDF

Sensation seeking and low arousal in antisocial subjects and normal controls

PDF

Values and their relationships to HIV-related behavior, attitudes, and social norms

PDF

The relation between interpersonal sensitivity and depression

PDF

Victimization in Hong Kong children's peer groups

PDF

What makes mentoring effective? Behavior analytic strategies as key components of successful mentor-mentee relationships: A pilot study

PDF

Violence exposure, friendship, and social adjustment among Head Start preschoolers

PDF

Affection and conflict in family relationships

PDF

Depression in offspring following severe prenatal stress

Asset Metadata

Creator Vickerman, Katrina Amity (author)

Core Title Trajectories of physical and emotional partner aggression in marriage

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Psychology, clinical,psychology, social

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-54178

Unique identifier UC11328828

Identifier 1437844.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-54178 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1437844.pdf

Dmrecord 54178

Document Type Thesis

Rights Vickerman, Katrina Amity

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 au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA