553111 research-article2014

JIVXXX10.1177/0886260514553111Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceCuenca Montesino et al.

Article

Reciprocal Psychological Aggression in Couples: A Multi-Level Analysis in a Community Sample

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2015, Vol. 30(14) 2488­–2505 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260514553111 jiv.sagepub.com

María Luisa Cuenca Montesino, PhD,1 José Luis Graña Gómez, PhD,1 and Rosario Martínez Arias, PhD1

Abstract The present study analyzes reciprocal psychological aggression assessed by the Conflict Tactics Scale–Revised (CTS-2) in a sample of 590 adult couples from the Region of Madrid. Psychological aggression is the most frequent form of partner aggression. Results showed high percentages of psychological aggression perpetrated and suffered in men and women and showed significant statistical differences in severe psychological aggression in the case of women. Partner agreement about acts of psychological aggression was significant, albeit at moderate levels. Generalized Hierarchical Linear Models with the HLM-6.0 program were proposed to examine reciprocal psychological aggression. The models confirmed the pattern of reciprocal psychological aggression and also that couples are more aggressive when they are younger. Duration of cohabitation was not a predictor of reciprocal psychological partner aggression. Keywords community violence, domestic violence, assessment, domestic violence

1Faculty

of Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Corresponding Author: José Luis Graña Gómez, Facultad de Psicologia, Universidad Complutense, Campus de Somosaguas, 28223 Madrid, Spain. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

Cuenca Montesino et al.

2489

Since the early 1980s, analysis of the presence of violent behavior in intimate adult partner relationships has been one of the main objectives of many researchers. Much research has been carried out on physical aggression, also emphasizing the importance of other forms of aggression (i.e., psychological aggression, sexual coercion), but currently, physical aggression remains the main focus of research in this field (Desmarais, Reeves, Nicholls, Telford, & Fiebert, 2012a, 2012b; Esquivel-Santoveña & Dixon, 2012). The study of psychological aggression is important, among other reasons, because it has been found to be not only associated with physical aggression, but, in fact, longitudinal research indicates that psychological aggression is the most important predictor of physical abuse in couple relationships (Murphy & O’Leary, 1989; O’Leary, 1999; Schumacher & Leonard, 2005), and it is even more stable over time than patterns of physical aggression (Timmons Fritz & O’Leary, 2004). Some results in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that low satisfaction in intimate relationships is a risk factor for psychological aggression that, in turn, is a risk factor for physical aggression (Salis, Salwen, & O’Leary, 2014; Schumacher & Leonard, 2005; Testa & Leonard, 2001). Other important aspects are the implications for physical and mental health (Coker et al., 2002), as well as for the personal well-being of the people involved (Umberson, Anderson, Glick, & Shapiro, 1998). The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979, Straus, Hamby, BoneyMcCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), in its diverse versions, is the most widely used measuring instrument in the field of intimate partner violence and one of the first instruments to assess psychological aggression. Data from diverse studies indicate that psychological aggression is a frequent and habitual strategy in couples. The high prevalence in adult couples reflects the habitualness of this type of acts (Caetano, Field, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Lipsky, 2009; O’Leary & Williams, 2006; Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010; Stets, 1990; Taft et al., 2006). In Spain, research on the prevalence of psychological aggression in couple relations of both sexes has shown high percentages of perpetrated and suffered psychological aggression (Graña, Rodríguez, & Peña, 2009). In addition to the high prevalence of psychological partner aggression, research in this area has systematically found biases leading to low to moderate partner agreement about acts of psychological aggression (Caetano et al., 2009; Caetano, Schafer, Field, & Nelson, 2002; Marshall, Panuzio, MakinByrd, Taft, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2011; O’Leary & Williams, 2006), reflecting the habitualness of this type of behavior. The reciprocity of psychological aggression has been researched less than the patterns of physical aggression (Follingstad & Edmundson, 2010). Several studies indicate that psychological aggression as a strategy to resolve conflicts within the couple is more frequent

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

2490

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(14)

than physical aggression (Frye & Karney, 2006; O’Leary & Williams, 2006; Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010; Salis et al., 2014; Taft et al., 2006). Moreover, psychological aggression has been associated with reduced marital satisfaction in cross-sectional studies among newlyweds (Schumacher & Leonard, 2005; Testa & Leonard, 2001), and in longitudinal studies of couples in which both partners perpetrated psychological aggression, husbands and wives reported less satisfaction (Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010). Diverse studies even indicate that psychological aggression correlates with the duration of cohabitation and with general satisfaction with the relationship (Hammock & O’Hearn, 2002; Stets, 1990). Concerning duration of the couple’s cohabitation, some results show that psychological aggression tends to stabilize over time (Frye & Karney, 2006; Timmons Fritz & O’Leary, 2004). As research on psychological aggression is currently scarce, the present study was designed to examine this important issue in a community sample of adult heterosexual couples. This study has various goals: (a) to estimate the prevalence of psychological aggression with the Conflict Tactics Scale–Revised (CTS-2), (b) to analyze partner agreement about acts of psychological aggression, and (c) to examine reciprocal psychological partner aggression as a function of age and duration of cohabitation in a multi-level context.

Method Participants The participants of the study consisted of 590 adult heterosexual couples, aged between 18 and 80 years, from the Region of Madrid. All participants provided the following sociodemographic data: age, sex, civil status, nationality, partner’s sex. As a function of the goals of the study, the inclusion criteria were being above 18 years of age and being in a heterosexual couple relationship either currently or in the past 12 months. Of the participants, 78.9% were married, 14.3% were single with a partner but not cohabitating, 4.9% were common-law couples, and 1.9% were widowed, separated, or divorced and living with a partner. Men’s mean age was 45.39 years (SD = 10.43) and women’s mean age was 42.63 (SD = 10.16). The average relationship duration was 18.45 years (SD = 11.96). Of the sample, 97% were Spaniards and 3% were of other nationalities. Concerning occupation, 43.2% were employees, 16.4% were civil servants, 11.4% were self-employed or autonomous workers, 8% were businessmen, 18.7% were unemployed, and 2.3% were students.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

Cuenca Montesino et al.

2491

Instruments and Variables Sociodemographic Questionnaire.  Diverse items were included to assess participants’ characteristics in the following sociodemographic and personal variables: age, sex, civil status, nationality, professional activity, and current partner’s sex and age. CTS-2.  We used the Spanish version of the CTS-2 (Straus et al., 1996) by Graña, Andreu, Peña, and Rodríguez (2013). It is a self-report questionnaire with 39 duplicate items, that is, 39 questions as the perpetrator and 39 questions as the victim (78 items in total), on which participants rate the degree to which each partner of the couple performs specific acts of physical, psychological, and sexual violence against the other partner, in addition to their use of justifications and negotiations to solve their conflicts. The person who completes the CTS-2 scale should indicate how often he or she has carried out the acts mentioned in each item and how often his or her partner has carried them out. The response format ranges from 1 (once in the past year) to 6 (more than 20 times in the past year); 7 means never in the past year but it used to occur before and 0 means it has never occurred. For each item, participants indicate how frequently the incident has occurred in the past year. The main scores of the scale are as follows: Prevalence.  These are dichotomic scores reflecting whether a participant reports the presence of a behavior defined in the scale in the past year. It is calculated by transforming responses 1 to 6 to 1, and responses 7 and 0 to 0. The item scores are not added, so the prevalence for each subscale will be 1 or 0 (Straus et al., 1996). Frequency. Straus et al. (1996) propose a system for converting raw responses (0-7) to frequency scores. Their system leaves responses 0, 1, and 2 unchanged. Mid-point values are imposed on the responses that fall under the frequency labels with the following ranges: Response 3 (3-5 times) is scored as 4, Response 4 (6-10 times) is scored as 8, Response 5 (11-20 times) is scored as 15, Response 6 (more than 20 times) is scored as 25, and Response 7 (not this year, but it happened in the past) is scored as 0. The method of substituting with the mid-points of each category suggested by Straus et al. (1996) was not used for the frequency scores because it exaggerates the bias inherent in the distribution of aggression variables, thereby violating the assumption of normality underlying the statistical significance tests. The CTS-2 scale shows good psychometric properties for the Spanish adult population (Graña et al., 2013). Cronbach’s alphas on the total scale were .84 and .83, for perpetration and victimization, respectively. Furthermore,

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

2492

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(14)

the alpha values for the remaining scales were: Negotiation (α = .76 and α = .75, for perpetration and victimization, respectively), Psychological Aggression (α = .72 and α = .73), Physical Aggression (α = .79 and α = .80), Sexual Aggression (α = .62 and α = .63), and Injuries (α = .75 and α = .69).

Procedure The study used a quota sampling method to recruit a community sample of married or cohabitating couples from the Region of Madrid. To obtain the most representative sample possible of the active population of the diverse urban areas, 100 research assistants were selected from 300 candidates from the Department of Clinical Psychology of the Complutense University of Madrid, who wished to obtain research credits. To achieve the aims of the study, the research assistants were assigned to different areas of the Region of Madrid, taking into account the population census and the following geographical areas to obtain the sample for the study: (a) Madrid capital 55% (58 research assistants), (b) Northern metropolitan area 5% (5 research assistants), (c) Eastern metropolitan area 9% (10 research assistants), (d) Southern metropolitan area 24% (20 research assistants), and (e) Western metropolitan area 7% (7 research assistants). The research assistants were informed of the general characteristics of the study and that the general goal was to analyze different aspects of daily cohabitation of intimate couple relationships regarding the way they negotiate and resolve conflicts. This information was provided to the couples who consented to participate in the study. The participants who agreed to participate in the study had to complete the questionnaire and send it anonymously and independently of their couple to a P.O. Box. The procedure was as follows: (a) Each research assistant had to collect a quota of 8 couples from the assigned census area, 1/3 of whom could be acquaintances and the rest unknown, who had to be approached mainly by calling and asking them whether they wanted to participate in this study; (b) the couples were selected taking into account the following age range: 18 to 29, 30 to 50, +50; (c) after obtaining the study quota, the research assistant had to give the code of each couple member to the director of the Project (e.g., 1-a and 1-b up to 8-a and 8-b), the name, age, and phone number or email address of each couple; and (d) to confirm the veracity of the data, a random control of 10% of the participants of the study was performed. Initially, 1,600 protocols were handed out, and the response rate was 77.7%, that is, a total of 1,243 protocols were returned, of which 63 were rejected because they had faulty data, had been completed randomly, or had low response consistency.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

Cuenca Montesino et al.

2493

The missing data were replaced through the Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm (SPSS 19.0). The prevalence statistics reported in the present study are based on valid cases (i.e., missing data were not replaced prior to computing this statistic, and, as no differences were obtained, were replaced with imputed values).

Data Analysis Analyses were performed with the SPSS, version 19.0, and the HLM-6.0 program (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004), a specific program to estimate multi-level models. First, we estimated the prevalence scores of the Psychological Aggression Scale of the CTS-2, in the categories of perpetration and victimization in the past year, reflected in percentages. Second, to determine the existence of significant differences between aggression perpetrated and suffered as a function of sex, we conducted a series of chi-square tests with the total sample of participants (N = 1,180). Third, we examined partner agreement about the occurrence/non-occurrence of the acts described in the Psychological Aggression Scale of the CTS-2, by means of two agreement indexes—Pearson correlation and kappa coefficients. Kappa coefficient was calculated from the prevalence responses of the past year. To interpret the Kappa coefficient, we used the norms proposed by Landis and Koch (1977), who suggest that they can be interpreted as follows: 0.0 = no agreement, 0.0 to 0.2 = insignificant, 0.2 to 0.4 = low, 0.4 to 0.6 = moderate, 0.6 to 0.8 = good, and 0.8 to 1.0 = very good. The correlations between the CTS-2 scales are based on untransformed raw score values (0-6). Last, to examine reciprocal psychological aggression as a function of age and duration of cohabitation, we used the statistical program HLM-6.0 (Raudenbush et al., 2004), a specific program to estimate multi-level models that allows importing data from SPSS version 19. Multi-level models are specifically aimed at analysis of data with a hierarchical or nested structure. In the present study, the couple (dyad) was considered the unit of analysis, an essential unit of interpersonal interaction. The main idea is based on the assumption of “non-independence” of the data (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Two-level hierarchical linear models (HLM-2) require a different data file for each level. With this aim, by means of the SPSS version 19.0, we created two dyad structures of data based on the standard design: the pairwise structure, frequently called the double-input structure, was used as the Level 1 data file, and the dyad structure was used as the Level 2 data file. As the outcome variable is a dichotomic variable with a Bernoulli distribution, we carried out a two-level hierarchical generalized linear analysis (HGLM). In the logistic regression model, a logarithmic equation is used and, therefore, the logistic model of mathematical equations corresponding to

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

2494

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(14)

each level of analysis is presented (Hox, 2010). Regarding the centering of the variables, the dichotomic variables were uncentered and as the Level 2 predictor variables (duration of cohabitation in years and age) were continuous, they were grand mean centered. The lowest level of residual variance eij was not specified in the logistic equation model because it is part of the specification of error distribution and, therefore, the Level 1 coefficients (slopes) are non-random at Level 2. In HGLM, parameter estimation (regression coefficients and components of variance) was carried out with the full maximum likelihood procedure. Last, two criteria to test the fit of the model are presented: first, the difference of deviances (D0 − D1), and second, for the proposed models, the pseudo R2 is presented (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Results Prevalence of Aggression The results obtained are presented in Table 1, which shows the prevalences of aggression based on individual reports of perpetration and victimization on the CTS-2 scales in the past year as a function of sex, reflected in percentages. Men and women both declared themselves to be perpetrators and victims of acts of physical, psychological, and sexual aggression, mainly minor acts. In all, psychological aggression was the most frequent form of partner aggression; men and women reported to engage in this kind of acts (68% vs. 72%), and 66% of men and 68% of women reported suffering them. Analysis of the prevalences obtained in the total sample of participants did not reveal significant differences in the use and victimization of psychological aggression as a function of sex, except for the severe level, obtaining significant differences in psychological perpetration in the case of females (24.7% vs. 19.2%; χ2 = .20, p < .05). The absence of significant differences in the scales, total and minor, reveals the bidirectional or reciprocal nature of partner psychological aggression.

Partner Agreement About Acts of Aggression in the Past Year We appraised diverse aspects of partner agreement about the acts of aggression described in the CTS-2. For this purpose, data were included on partner agreement about the occurrence, non-occurrence, and general agreement (occurrence and non-occurrence) as a function of the perpetrator’s sex. The results can be seen in Table 2, which describes the percentages obtained and the statistical values of the Kappa coefficients and the Pearson correlation, as well as their levels of significance.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

2495

Cuenca Montesino et al.

Table 1.  Prevalence of Perpetrators and Victims in the Aggression Scales of the CTS-2 in the Past Year. Perpetrators Prevalence (%)

Victims Prevalence (%)

Scales

Men

Women

Men

Women

Psychological Aggression  Minor  Severe Physical Aggression  Minor  Severe Sexual Aggression  Minor  Severe Injuries  Minor  Severe

68.1 67.1 19.2 12.4 11.9 1.7 18.6 18.3 0.8 2.2 1.4 1.0

72.2 70.7 24.7 10.3 9.6 3.1 10.8 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.8 0

65.9 64.4 21.4 11.9 9.7 4.4 9.5 8.5 1.5 3.4 2.7 0.8

68.0 66.6 21.9 9.7 8.3 2.5 17.1 16.1 1.7 2.9 2.5 0.5

Note. CTS-2= Conflict Tactics Scale–Revised; n = 590.

Table 2.  Statistical Agreement in the CTS-2 Scales as a Function of Perpetrator’s Sex. Scale and Aggressor

K

Agreement on Occurrence (%)

Psychological Aggression .42**  Man  Woman .43** Physical Aggression .41**  Man  Woman .34** Sexual Aggression  Man .39**  Woman .35** Injuries  Man .25**  Woman .23**

Agreement on NonTotal Occurrence (%) Agreement (%)

r

81.3 78.6

60.6 67.0

74.7 75.4

.46** .49**

42,5 44.3

95,0 91.9

88.5 86.9

.48** .24**

48.2 39.1

90.0 94.1

82.2 88.1

.40** .14**

30.8 60.0

97.7 97.1

96.3 96.8

.28** .18**

Note. CTS-2 = Conflict Tactics Scale–Revised; n = 590. *p < .05. **p < .001.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

2496

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(14)

From a statistical and methodological viewpoint, it is important to note that the Kappa coefficient provides a measure of the degree of inter-rater agreement (Cohen, 1960). Taking this into account, the statistical value of the Kappa coefficient and the Pearson correlation were significant, independently of perpetrator’s sex. According to the norms of Landis and Koch (1977), partner agreement on the Psychological and Physical Aggression Scales was moderate, and on the Sexual Coercion and Injury Scales, partner agreement was low. According to Cohen’s (1988) standard of significance levels, agreement by means of Pearson’s correlation was significant on all the CTS-2 scales. Nevertheless, on the Psychological Aggression Scale, partner agreement was moderate and on the Physical and Sexual Aggression Scales, agreement was lower in women than in men.

Reciprocal Psychological Aggression In the present study, the dyad was considered the unit of analysis. As the goal of the present study was to examine reciprocal psychological aggression, gender was not considered a relevant predictor and we therefore examined variables that predict the use and victimization of psychological aggression in one partner (Level 1 outcome variable) and, as predictors (independent variables), the interactions of the other partner’s psychological aggression with age and duration of cohabitation. The mathematical equation of Model 1 can be expressed as follows: Level 1: Prob (Y = 1 | B ) = PLog  P / (1 − P )  = β0 + β1 × ( AGE _ 1) +

β2 × ( AGE _ PAR ) + β3 × ( TPAEP _ PAR ) +

β4 × ( TPAEP _ PAR × AGE _ 1) + β5 × ( TPAEP _ PAR × AGE _ PAR ) + β6 × ( TPAEP _ PAR × TIME ) + β7 × ( TPAEP _ PAR × AGE _ 1× AGE _ PAR ) . Level 2: β0 = G00 + G01 × ( TIME ) + G02 × ( AGE _ 1 × AGE _ PAR ) + U 0 . Table 3 presents the summary of Model 1, which includes the null or baseline model and the model with predictors, which contains the regression coefficients

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

2497

Cuenca Montesino et al. Table 3.  Model 1: Predictors of the Use of Psychological Aggression in One Partner.

M0: Intercept Only M1: With Predictors Model Fixed effects  Intercept  TPAEP_PAR  AGE_1  AGE_PAR  TIME   TPAEP_PAR × TIME   TPAEP_PAR × AGE _ PAR   TPAEP_PAR × AGE_1   AGE _ PAR × AGE_1   TPAEP_PAR × AGE _ PAR × AGE_1 Random effects 2   σu0  Deviance

Coefficient (SE)

Coefficient (SE)

0.86 *** (0.000)

−5.95*** (2.29) 9.95 ** (3.28) 0.02 (0.05) 0.09* (0.05) 0.01 (0.01) −0.003 (0.001) −0.17* (0.07) −0.17* (0.07) −0.001 (0.001) 0.003* (0.001)

1.04*** (0.000) 1,438.23

0.07 (0.005) 1,221.27

Note. Level 1: Outcome variable: TPAEP_1 = Total psychological aggression exerted by one partner. Predictor variables: β1 × (AGE_1) = Partner’s age. β2 × (AGE_PAR) = Age of other partner. β3 × (TPAEP_PAR) = Total psychological aggression exerted by the other partner. Interactions: β4 × (TPAEP_PAR × AGE_1) = Total psychological aggression exerted by the other partner × Partner’s age. β5 × (TPAEP_PAR × AGE_PAR) = Total psychological aggression exerted by other partner × This partner’s age. β6 × (TPAEP_PAR × Time) = Total psychological aggression exerted by the other partner × Time; β7 × (TPAEP_PAR × AGE_1 × AGE_PAR) = Total psychological aggression exerted the other partner × This partner’s age × Partner’s age. Level 2: G01 × (TIME) = duration of cohabitation. G02 × (AGE_1 × AGE_PAR) = Partner’s Age × Age of other partner. Coeff. = regression coefficients; SE = standard error. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

of the main effects and the effects of the interaction of the variables. As there are no Level 1 predictors, there is only one estimator of fixed effects (G00:0.86), which is interpreted as the value of the mean dependent variable for all participants. Analyses show that psychological aggression exerted by one partner is predicted by the psychological aggression exerted by the other partner (b = 9.95, p = .003). With regard to age, younger couples exert more psychological aggression (b = .003, p = .028), as the slopes of the interaction of the other partner’s psychological aggression with the partner’s age (b = −.17, p = .020) and with his or her own age (b = −.17, p = .019) were negative. Therefore, in the couple, both partners use acts of psychological aggression if they are young.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

2498

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(14)

There was no interaction between psychological aggression of one partner against the other and duration of cohabitation. Therefore, the time a couple have cohabitated does not predict the use of reciprocal psychological aggression. The model with predictors improved the fit of the model because the statistical deviance was significantly lower than in the null or baseline model χ2(N = 9) = 216.96, p = 1, and the value of the pseudo R2 = .93 indicates the proportion of mean squared error reduction that would be committed if every subject were assigned the mean value when assigning the value predicted by the model to them. The mathematical equation of Model 2 can be expressed as follows: Level 1: Prob (Y = 1 | B ) = PLog  P / (1 − P )  = β0 + β1 × ( AGE _ 1) +

β2 × ( AGE _ PAR ) + β3 × ( TPASI _ PAR ) + β4 × ( TPASI _ PAR × AGE _ 1) + β5 × ( TPASI _ PAR × AGE _ PAR ) + β6 × ( TPASI _ PAR × TIME ) + β7 × ( TPASI _ PAR x AGE _ 1× AGE _ PAR ) .

Level 2: β0 = G00 + G01 × ( TIME ) + G02 × ( AGE _ 1× AGE _ PAR ) + U 0 . Table 4 presents the summary of Model 2, which includes the null or baseline model and the model with predictors, which contains the regression coefficients and main effects and effects of the interaction of the variables. As there are no Level 1 predictors, there is only one estimator of the fixed effects (G00:0.86), which is interpreted as the value of the mean dependent variable for all participants. Analyses show that being the victim of psychological aggression by one’s partner is predicted by the other partner’s reporting being the victim of psychological aggression (b = 9.83, p = .007). With regard to age, younger couples suffered more psychological aggression (b = .003, p = .040), as the slopes of the interaction of the other partner’s psychological aggression with the partner’s age (b = −.17, p = .03) and with his or her own age (b = −.17, p = .33) were negative. Therefore, in the couple, if they are young, both of them report being the victim of acts of psychological aggression.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

2499

Cuenca Montesino et al.

Table 4.  Model 2: Predictors of Victimization of Psychological Aggression in one Partner. M0: Intercept Only M1: With Predictors Model Fixed effects  Intercept  TPASI_PAR  AGE_1  AGE_PAR  TIME   TPASI_PAR × TIME   TPAEP_PAR × AGE _ PAR   TPASI_PAR × AGE_1   AGE _ PAR × AGE_1   TPAEP_PAR × AGE _ PAR × AGE_1 Random effects 2   σu0  Deviance

Coefficient (SE)

Coefficient (SE)

0.86 *** (0.000)

−5.73*** (2.38) 9.83 ** (3.58) 0.04 (0.05) 0.08 (0.05) 0.003 (0.01) −0.007 (0.009) −0.17* (0.07) −0.17* (0.07) −0.001 (0.001) 0.003* (0.001)

1.11*** (1.05) 1,497.51

0.005 (0.07) 1,273.94

Note. Level 1: Outcome variable: (TPASI_1) = Total psychological aggression suffered by one partner. Predictor variables: β1 × (AGE_1) = Partner’s Age. β2 × (AGE_PAR) = Age of other partner. β3 × (TPASI_PAR) = Total psychological aggression suffered by the other partner. Interactions: β4 × (TPASI_PAR × AGE_1) = Total psychological aggression suffered by the other partner × Partner’s age. β5 × (TPASI_PAR × AGE_PAR) = Total psychological aggression suffered by the other partner × This partner’s Age. β6 × (TPASI_PAR × Time) = Total psychological aggression suffered by the other partner × Time; β7 × (TPASI_PAR × AGE_1 × AGE_PAR) = Total psychological aggression suffered by the other partner × This partner’s age × Partner’s age. Level 2: G01 × (TIME) = Duration of cohabitation. G02 × (AGE_1 × AGE_PAR) = Partner’s Age × Age of other partner. Coeff. = regression coefficients; SE = standard error. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Concerning duration of cohabitation, there was no interaction between one partner’s reporting being the victim of psychological aggression and duration of cohabitation; that is, duration of cohabitation does not predict being the victim of reciprocal psychological aggression. The model with predictors improved the fit of the model because the statistical deviance was significantly lower than in the null or baseline model χ2(N = 9) = 223.57, p = 1, and the pseudo R2 = .99 indicates the proportion of mean squared error reduction that would be committed if every subject were assigned the mean value when assigning to them the value predicted by the model.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

2500

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(14)

Discussion and Conclusion The present study analyzed the relationship of psychological aggression with other forms of aggression in heterosexual couples, with the analysis of reciprocal psychological aggression in a multi-level context being one of the main contributions. Results of this study confirmed the findings of previous studies showing a high prevalence of psychological aggression in couples. These results are consistent with research finding high prevalences in perpetration and victimization of psychological aggression in adults of both sexes in intimate partner relationships (Follingstad & Edmundson, 2010; Stets, 1990), and in married couples who cohabitate (Caetano et al., 2009; Frye & Karney, 2006; O’Leary & Williams, 2006; Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010; Salis et al., 2014; Taft et al., 2006). These results have been confirmed in Spain in community samples of adults of both sexes (Graña et al., 2009), but not in a multi-level context. Analysis of the prevalences obtained in this study has revealed significant differences in the use of severe psychological aggression. Some results indicate that there may be differences between men and women in the strategies used to resolve conflicts, and they also differ in their reasons for its use; that is, the perception of threat or the characteristics of the relationship can play a significant role in the use of psychological aggression (Hammock & O’Hearn, 2002). Men reported perpetrating less psychological aggression than their partners, and partner agreement was moderate. Diverse studies have identified a series of factors that can potentially affect levels of partner agreement, such as social desirability, the perception that acts of psychological aggression have fewer consequences in the partner than in oneself, or the possibility that one’s general schema of what is satisfying or dissatisfying may also influence the partner’s reporting of their own behavior (Caetano et al., 2009; Follingstad & Edmundson, 2010; Marshall et al., 2011; O’Leary & Williams, 2006). Reciprocal aggression is a complex phenomenon that can be operationalized in diverse ways. In the present study, the dyad was considered the unit of analysis, and the predictive models proposed confirmed that reciprocal psychological aggression, specifically, psychological aggression exerted and/or suffered by one member of the couple is predicted by the other member’s exerting and/or suffering acts of psychological aggression (reciprocal aggression). The results suggest that age is a predictor of psychological aggression, and these results are consistent with the fact that young couples are more aggressive at the beginning of the marriage or cohabitation. These results are also consistent with research showing a decrease of the prevalence of physical and psychological aggression in couples as they grow older (O’Leary, 1999; Timmons Fritz & O’Leary, 2004).

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

Cuenca Montesino et al.

2501

Concerning duration of cohabitation, psychological aggression is relatively frequent and tends to stabilize, as, over time, the couple may have learned how to prevent verbal aggression from escalating to forms of physical aggression. Diverse studies report that young couples do not perceive its use as problematic and, therefore, they feel no need to change it, as it is a habitual way of communication when they are angry or wish to punish their partner (Hamby & Sugarman, 1999; Stets, 1990; Timmons Fritz & O’Leary, 2004). Even the continuous use of minor and severe psychological aggression can harm people’s relationships, but the effects are not immediately observed and, therefore, they can engage in these acts more rapidly (Caetano et al., 2009). Finally, it is unknown whether similar findings would be significant in other racial groups in which the cultural dynamics might be different, but we think that these data may be similar to those of other cultures in industrialized countries, where a similar prevalence of partner aggression has been found. A possible explanation of the implication of these results considering the significance of the variable age of the couple, can be interpreted as follows: Young couples when they start to live together, they have certain expectations about how a relationship should be and, they have to learn to settle their differences in daily life; in situations in which discrepancies emerge between their expectations (cognitive aspects) and the daily reality of the relationship (behavioral aspects), they often resort to the use of psychological aggression—at first, minor and later on, severe. Once a relationship has been established, a process of tolerance to aggression could take place and both members of a couple might not have perceived the use of those strategies to be problematic over time and hence, they might not see the need to change it. Instead, they might simply have perceived it as a way in which to communicate that they were angry or upset with their partner (Timmons Fritz & O’Leary, 2004). However, bidirectional aggression can occur on different days or situations and can involve different types of acts by perpetrators, and the initiation of aggression may vary between partners. These results are very relevant for Spanish professionals who work in the Justice Administration and also for counselors and clinicians, as they contradict the general tendency of the mass media, which consider that partner aggression is predominantly male. Studies such as these contribute to providing objective data to determine the current situation of psychological aggression in intimate partner relationships and they are an important reference point to counteract erroneous beliefs about the bidirectional nature of psychological aggression in a situational context. However, these results cannot be generalized to other situations such as those that take place in a coercive context, which are more prevalent in forensic samples.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

2502

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(14)

Clinical implications of these findings suggest that when psychological aggression is situational, professionals should assess both members of a couple at the same level. The explanation that one member gives cannot explain the other’s without being assessed. This situation applies to cases of custody or psychological problems in which psychological aggression plays an explanatory role (e.g., couple, depression, personality disorders, alcohol problems). It also is important for professionals to pay attention to their own bias about considering psychological aggression more characteristic of one gender. This study has some limitations that should be considered. First, the sample represents the greater Madrid area, and as such, it cannot be considered a sample that is representative of the country of Spain. It is unknown how similar a sample obtained via students who approached individuals to complete a survey would be to a sample obtained via random digit dialing, such as the sample used by O’Leary and Williams (2006) in New York, or newspaper advertisements or posting flyers, such as the samples used by Marshall et al. (2011). Second, given the nature of this study, it is difficult to analyze the dynamic nature of psychological partner aggression, as other relevant factors should be considered to achieve an appropriate understanding (e.g., child maltreatment, relationship status, depressive symptomatology, substance use). Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) declared receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Plan Nacional I+D+I; Nº Referencia: PSI2008-02215).

References Caetano, R., Field, C., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Lipsky, S. (2009). Agreement on reporting of physical, psychological, and sexual violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the U.S. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1318-1337. Caetano, R., Schafer, J., Field, C., & Nelson, S. M. (2002). Agreements on reports of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1308-1322. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

Cuenca Montesino et al.

2503

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 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 of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260-268. Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R. P., & Fiebert, M. S. (2012a). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships: Part 1. Rates of male and female victimization. Partner Abuse, 3, 140-169. Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R. P., & Fiebert, M. S. (2012b). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships: Part 2. Rates of male and female perpetration. Partner Abuse, 3, 170-198. Esquivel-Santoveña, E. E., & Dixon, L. (2012). Investigating the true rate of physical intimate partner violence: A review of nationally representative surveys. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 208-219. Follingstad, D. R., & Edmundson, M. (2010). Is psychological abuse reciprocal in intimate relationships? Data from a national sample of American adults. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 495-508. Frye, N. E., & Karney, B. R. (2006). The context of aggressive behavior in marriage: A longitudinal study of newlyweds. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 12-20. Graña, J. L., Andreu, J. M., Peña, M. E., & Rodríguez, M. J. (2013). Validez factorial y fiabilidad de la “Escala de tácticas para el conflicto revisada” (Revised Conflict Tactics Scale, CTS2) en población adulta española. [Factor validity and reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) in Spanish adult population]. Behavioral Psychology, 21, 525-543. Graña, J. L., Rodríguez, M. J., & Peña, M. E. (2009). Agresión hacia la pareja en una muestra de la comunidad de Madrid: análisis por género [Intimate partner agression in a sample from the community of Madrid: Gender análisis]. Psicopatología Clínica, Legal y Forense, 9, 7-28. Hamby, S. L., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). Acts of psychological aggression against a partner and their relation to physical assault and gender. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 959-970. Hammock, G., & O’Hearn, R. (2002). Psychological aggression in dating relationships: Predictive models for males and females. Violence and Victims, 17, 525-540. Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kenny, D., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. Marshall, A. D., Panuzio, J., Makin-Byrd, K. N., Taft, C. T., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2011). A multilevel examination of interpartner intimate partner violence and psychological aggression reporting concordance. Behavior Therapy, 42, 364-377.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

2504

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(14)

Murphy, C. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 579-582. O’Leary, K. D. (1999). Psychological abuse: A variable deserving critical attention in domestic violence. Violence and Victims, 14, 3-23. O’Leary, K. D., & Williams, M. C. (2006). Agreement about acts of physical aggression in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 656-662. Panuzio, J., & DiLillo, D. (2010). Physical, psychological, and sexual intimate partner aggression among newlywed couples: Longitudinal prediction of marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 689-699. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6 for Windows [Computer software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International. Salis, K. L., Salwen, J., & O’Leary, K. D. (2014). The predictive utility of psychological aggression for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 5, 83-97. 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 of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 28-37. Stets, J. E. (1990). Verbal and physical aggression in marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 501-514. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and aggression: The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 75-88. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Pearson. Taft, C. T., Torres, S. E., Panuzio, J., Murphy, M., O’Farrell, T. J., Monson, C. M., & Murphy, C. M. (2006). Examining the correlates of psychological aggression among a community sample of couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 581-588. Testa, M., & Leonard, K. E. (2001). The impact of marital aggression on women’s psychological and marital functioning in a newlywed sample. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 115-130. Timmons Fritz, P. A., & O’Leary, K. D. (2004). Physical and psychological partner aggression across a decade: A growth curve analysis. Violence and Victims, 19, 3-16. Umberson, D., Anderson, K., Glick, J., & Shapiro, A. (1998). Domestic violence, personal control, and gender. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 442-452.

Author Biographies María Luisa Cuenca Montesino, PhD, is a postdoctoral student in forensic psychology at the Faculty of Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

Cuenca Montesino et al.

2505

José Luis Graña Gómez, PhD, is a professor of clinical psychology and director of the master’s degree in Forensic and Clinical Psychology at the Faculty of Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid. Main research areas are as follows: drug addiction, intimate partner aggression, psychological treatment of batterers, and psychological intervention with delinquents. Rosario Martínez Arias, PhD, is a professor of methodology at the Faculty of Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid. Main research areas are as follows: Development of scales and questionnaires in the field of education and in clinical psychology.

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 15, 2015

Reciprocal Psychological Aggression in Couples: A Multi-Level Analysis in a Community Sample.

The present study analyzes reciprocal psychological aggression assessed by the Conflict Tactics Scale-Revised (CTS-2) in a sample of 590 adult couples...
420KB Sizes 0 Downloads 6 Views