J Fam Viol (2013) 28:109119

DOI 10.1007/s10896-012-9492-7

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Patterns of Psychological Aggression, Dominance,

and Jealousy within Marriage
Heidi L. Kar & K. Daniel OLeary
Published online: 17 January 2013
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Few empirical studies with representative samples

have focused on the gendered aspect of psychological aggression and its sub-constructs of dominance and jealousy. Those
that do report on gender differences, often fail to report on
important dyadic factors such as whether the aggression is
unilateral or bilateral in nature. Differences in psychological
aggression, dominance, and jealousy constructs were assessed
in a representative sample of 453 married parents. Overall,
women had significantly higher dominance, jealousy, and
psychological aggression scores. Both male and female
respondents in relationships where there was bi-directional
severe psychological aggression demonstrated higher mean
levels of severe psychological aggression, dominance, and
jealousy than did their counterparts who were unilaterally
severely aggressive. This is the first study to demonstrate that
bilateral psychological aggression is associated with higher
mean levels of psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy scores for both male and female partners than unilateral
aggression. Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no differential impact of severe psychological aggression by gender.
Keywords Emotional abuse . Intimate-partner violence .
Partner aggression . Control . Bilateral aggression

Prevalence of Psychological Aggression, Dominance,

and Jealousy within Marriage
Although significant attention has focused on the gender
differences in overall prevalence rates of physical aggression,
significantly less has focused on understanding gender
H. L. Kar (*)
Psychological Services (116B), San Francisco VA Medical Center,
4150 Clement St., San Francisco, CA 94121, USA
e-mail: Heidi.Kar@va.gov
K. D. OLeary
Psychology Department, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook,
NY 11794, USA

differences in psychological aggression, particularly within

representative community samples. Among those studies that
have investigated gender as an influential factor in perpetration of aggression, very few have investigated other
relationship-based variables that also may contribute to psychological aggression. By focusing so much attention solely
on gender differences, other key variables that may play an
even greater role in presence and/or escalation of domestic
violence in general, are often neglected. One such relationship
factor that has been shown to affect levels of physical aggression between partners is bi-directionality of the aggression
(Capaldi et al. 2007; Straus 2010). So far, no representative
studies have assessed for differences in unilateral vs. bilateral
psychological aggression, over and above reporting on gender
differences.

Psychological Aggression
Psychological aggression has received substantially less
attention than physical aggression in the literature. One
reason lies in the fact that it is more difficult to develop
consensus on an acceptable definition. In some cases, it has
been given a functional, behavior-based definition. An example of this is the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions definition:
A trauma to the victim caused by acts, threats of acts, or
coercive tactics (including pure verbal and emotional acts such
as humiliating, controlling the victim, getting annoyed if the
victim disagrees, and also physically threatening acts, such as,
smashing objects (Saltzman et al. 1999, pp. 1213).
Others have identified psychological aggression based on
the impact it has on the victim; an example of this type of
definition is such actions cause the partner to be fearful
of the other or lead the partner to have very low self-esteem,
and it is recommended that researchers in this area routinely
assess the impact of psychological abuse (OLeary 1999, p.
19). As such, arriving at a commonly accepted definition of
psychological aggressioneither functional or impact-

110

based in natureis important. Since we believe both of

these indices are valuable, both functional and impactbased definitions are used to describe the aggression
reported on in the current manuscript.
Increasing our understanding of the prevalence and overall phenomenon of psychological aggression is imperative,
as the impact of such aggression is considerable.
For many women, psychological aggression is perceived
as more harmful than physical aggression. In one study,
72 % of battered women reported that psychological aggression had a more negative impact on them than did the
physical aggression (Follingstad et al. 1990). Among the
different types of psychological aggression, 46 % of the
sample rated emotional ridicule as the worst type, 15 %
rated threats of abuse as the worst, and 14 % rated jealousy
as the worst type of abuse. Across the aggression literature,
it is evident that both psychological and physical aggression
often lead to harmful outcomes. A study by Sackett and
Saunders (1999) demonstrated that fear of partner was
uniquely predicted by psychological abuse within a battered
womens sample. Additionally, psychological abuse was a
stronger predictor of fear of partner than physical abuse.
Finally, there is strong evidence that psychological aggression is a good predictor of future physical aggression
(Murphy and OLeary 1989).
Psychological aggression is so common as to be normative in community samples. One of the few representative
studies in this area utilized a nationally representative sample of married men and women who were assessed with the
Conflict Tactics Scale as part of the 1985 National Family
Violence Resurvey (Straus and Gelles 1990). Utilizing this
dataset, Stets and Straus (1990) found that 75 % of men and
80 % of women reported that they engaged in at least some
acts of psychological aggression toward a partner. The most
commonly reported acts of psychological aggression were
Sulked or refused to talk about an issue, Insulted the
other, and Did or said something to spite the other.
Laboratory research suggests that women experience
higher levels of emotional arousal and engage in higher
levels of negativity/criticism of their partners than do men.
Though initial studies posited that men become more physiologically aroused during marital conflict (Gottman 1994),
more recent research have reported that wives actually become more physiologically aroused and are less able to
control their arousal (Kiecolt-Glaser and Newton 2001). In
addition, a recent meta-analysis demonstrated a small, but
significant difference in negativity where women displayed
more negativity during marital conflict than did men
(Woodin 2011). Finally, a commonly discussed issue within
the field of marital functioning is that of the demandwithdraw pattern of communication which is when the
demanding partner (usually the wife), criticizes, nags, and
demands for some type of change. In response, the

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:109119

withdrawing partner, (usually the husband), either actively

avoids the discussion or pulls away from the topic and
becomes silent (e.g. Heavey et al. 1993). A great deal of
literature on this gendered pattern of interaction has demonstrated this ubiquitous pattern of interaction is seen across a
broad range of samples (Eldridge and Christensen 2002).
Literature surrounding this interaction pattern lends support
to the idea that women are interacting more on a verbal
level, are verbalizing displeasure more often, and displaying
more negativity.
This womans role of the demander has been said to be
linked to the fact that women are the ones most often
seeking change in marriage (Kluwer et al. 2000; Margolin
et al. 1983). Woodins (2011) meta-analysis included 10
studies which attempted to control for the possibility that
this finding of higher negativity may be a reflection of
women initiating change discussions more often, but even
with such controls, the women displayed more negativity.
An important issue to consider is the fact that even
though a greater percentage of women may engage in psychological aggression, this fact does not, in and of itself,
attest to the impact of such aggression. In fact, previous
analysis on the impact of physical violence has demonstrated that women who receive the same level of physical
aggression from their partner are more fearful of their partner than are their male counterparts (i.e., Kar and OLeary
2010). Other research regarding the impact of aggression
has shown males intimate partner aggression is more likely
to lead to both injuries requiring medical attention or fatalities. (e.g., Rennison 2001; Stets and Straus 1990).
Though general psychological aggression has been consistently shown to engender fear and be self-reported as
worse to survivors than physical aggression in many
studies, it is vital to understand whether there are specific
types of psychological aggression driving these relationships. Two of the more well-studied types of psychological
aggression that have received a great deal of attention are
the constructs of dominance and jealousy.

Dominance
The constructs of control and dominance have been investigated in many studies. Dominance, by either partner, has
been shown to be associated with an increased rate of
physical violence (Hamby and Sugarman 1996; Straus
2008; Straus et al. 1980). In fact, a recent study by OLeary
et al. (2007) demonstrated that dominance is a strong and
independent predictor of partner aggression for men and
women.
Feminist theory posits that by virtue of living in a patriarchical society, men have internalized the belief that they
are superior to women, and, as a result, feel justified in using

110

based in natureis important. Since we believe both of

these indices are valuable, both functional and impactbased definitions are used to describe the aggression
reported on in the current manuscript.
Increasing our understanding of the prevalence and overall phenomenon of psychological aggression is imperative,
as the impact of such aggression is considerable.
For many women, psychological aggression is perceived
as more harmful than physical aggression. In one study,
72 % of battered women reported that psychological aggression had a more negative impact on them than did the
physical aggression (Follingstad et al. 1990). Among the
different types of psychological aggression, 46 % of the
sample rated emotional ridicule as the worst type, 15 %
rated threats of abuse as the worst, and 14 % rated jealousy
as the worst type of abuse. Across the aggression literature,
it is evident that both psychological and physical aggression
often lead to harmful outcomes. A study by Sackett and
Saunders (1999) demonstrated that fear of partner was
uniquely predicted by psychological abuse within a battered
womens sample. Additionally, psychological abuse was a
stronger predictor of fear of partner than physical abuse.
Finally, there is strong evidence that psychological aggression is a good predictor of future physical aggression
(Murphy and OLeary 1989).
Psychological aggression is so common as to be normative in community samples. One of the few representative
studies in this area utilized a nationally representative sample of married men and women who were assessed with the
Conflict Tactics Scale as part of the 1985 National Family
Violence Resurvey (Straus and Gelles 1990). Utilizing this
dataset, Stets and Straus (1990) found that 75 % of men and
80 % of women reported that they engaged in at least some
acts of psychological aggression toward a partner. The most
commonly reported acts of psychological aggression were
Sulked or refused to talk about an issue, Insulted the
other, and Did or said something to spite the other.
Laboratory research suggests that women experience
higher levels of emotional arousal and engage in higher
levels of negativity/criticism of their partners than do men.
Though initial studies posited that men become more physiologically aroused during marital conflict (Gottman 1994),
more recent research have reported that wives actually become more physiologically aroused and are less able to
control their arousal (Kiecolt-Glaser and Newton 2001). In
addition, a recent meta-analysis demonstrated a small, but
significant difference in negativity where women displayed
more negativity during marital conflict than did men
(Woodin 2011). Finally, a commonly discussed issue within
the field of marital functioning is that of the demandwithdraw pattern of communication which is when the
demanding partner (usually the wife), criticizes, nags, and
demands for some type of change. In response, the

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:109119

withdrawing partner, (usually the husband), either actively

avoids the discussion or pulls away from the topic and
becomes silent (e.g. Heavey et al. 1993). A great deal of
literature on this gendered pattern of interaction has demonstrated this ubiquitous pattern of interaction is seen across a
broad range of samples (Eldridge and Christensen 2002).
Literature surrounding this interaction pattern lends support
to the idea that women are interacting more on a verbal
level, are verbalizing displeasure more often, and displaying
more negativity.
This womans role of the demander has been said to be
linked to the fact that women are the ones most often
seeking change in marriage (Kluwer et al. 2000; Margolin
et al. 1983). Woodins (2011) meta-analysis included 10
studies which attempted to control for the possibility that
this finding of higher negativity may be a reflection of
women initiating change discussions more often, but even
with such controls, the women displayed more negativity.
An important issue to consider is the fact that even
though a greater percentage of women may engage in psychological aggression, this fact does not, in and of itself,
attest to the impact of such aggression. In fact, previous
analysis on the impact of physical violence has demonstrated that women who receive the same level of physical
aggression from their partner are more fearful of their partner than are their male counterparts (i.e., Kar and OLeary
2010). Other research regarding the impact of aggression
has shown males intimate partner aggression is more likely
to lead to both injuries requiring medical attention or fatalities. (e.g., Rennison 2001; Stets and Straus 1990).
Though general psychological aggression has been consistently shown to engender fear and be self-reported as
worse to survivors than physical aggression in many
studies, it is vital to understand whether there are specific
types of psychological aggression driving these relationships. Two of the more well-studied types of psychological
aggression that have received a great deal of attention are
the constructs of dominance and jealousy.

Dominance
The constructs of control and dominance have been investigated in many studies. Dominance, by either partner, has
been shown to be associated with an increased rate of
physical violence (Hamby and Sugarman 1996; Straus
2008; Straus et al. 1980). In fact, a recent study by OLeary
et al. (2007) demonstrated that dominance is a strong and
independent predictor of partner aggression for men and
women.
Feminist theory posits that by virtue of living in a patriarchical society, men have internalized the belief that they
are superior to women, and, as a result, feel justified in using

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:109119

violence to maintain or attain dominance/control over their

partner (Dobash and Dobash 1979; Yllo 1993. This literature led to the development of Pence and Paymars (1986)
model of power and control in intimate relationships. This
model conceptualizes control over a partner as taking place
within the systemic cultural beliefs of society and, specifically, as a male phenomenon. Others have echoed the theory
that violence is an extreme expression of power (Murphy
and Meyer 1991). According to Straus (2008), violence is
often used by a partner in order to maintain his or her
dominant position over the other partner, but it is also used
in cases where a subordinate partner is trying to achieve
something that is being blocked by the dominant partner or
attempting to change the existing power structure. When
one looks outside of the romantic relationship domain, there
are multiple examples in which men hold more power over
women in a societal sense. Such instances have been particularly well documented in mens higher salaries and mens
quicker and more likely advancement to certain positions
(e.g., Fields and Wolff 1991; Kemp and Beck 1986). It is
important to recognize that whether men or women appear
to be more dominant within in their romantic relationships
may or may not be related to gender aspects of dominance in
other areas of society.
Malik and Lindahl (1998) and Cummins (2005) discuss
an evolutionary perspective of dominance. This perspective
posits that dominance is used as a means of intimidating and
inducing fear in the victim. This fear results in the victim
adopting either a fight or flight response, which may explain
why some victims do aggress against their abusive partners
(Malik and Lindahl 1998). The question of which type of
men abuse their female partners has drawn a wide range of
research investigations. Though some evolutionary psychology theorists suggest that engaging in dominant and aggressive activities is somewhat normative across the human
species and across genders (Malik and Lindahl 1998), others
suggest boys and men are bound to be more dominant,
based on social roles that have been adaptive in an evolutionary sense (Cummins 2005). In addition, personality
research suggests that some type of men are more likely to
exact physical aggression over their partners than are others
and in essence, individual personality factors are what differentiate violent persons from non-violent persons (Dutton
2007).

Jealousy
Some of the theoretical literature describing jealousy between intimate partners has strong ties to the conception of
dominance/control. Jealousy has been defined as a real or
perceived threat of loss of a valued relationship and when
that relationship is a sexual one, the construct is termed

111

sexual jealousy (Clanton and Smith 1977). OLeary et

al. (2007) found that jealousy was a strong predictor for
partner aggression for both men and women. There is a
range of research on sexual jealousy that supports the full
range of gendered possibilities: men are more jealous than
women (Daly and Wilson 1988; Mathes and Severa 1981),
women report more jealous feelings than men (Buunk
1981), and finally that there are no gender differences in
jealous feelings (Hansen 1982; McIntosh 1989).
A feminist perspective of jealousy put forth by Lips
(1991) centers on the platform that socially supported values
of male dominance have led to mens desire for sexual
exclusivity and control over females sexuality. Similarly,
an evolutionary psychology perspective is that males respond with violence to any perceived acts of infidelity of
their partners in order to ensure paternity of offspring (Buss
et al. 1992; Daly and Wilson 1988; De Weerth and Kalma
1993), again suggesting that jealousy is more of a male
phenomenon. According to the sociobiologists, male abuse
of their partners represents coercive control; this control
refers to exclusive access to a womans reproductive process
(Buss 1994). As such, verbal jibes in which males accuse
female partners of being unattractive represent direct
attempts to gain power over the woman by decreasing the
womans self-esteem, and hence, keeping her from looking
for other sexual relationships.
An alternative perspective is that of the social interactionist, which is more gender-neutral. This perspective posits
that both men and women can feel jealousy and act accordingly if they perceive any rivalry for their partners affections (Felson and Outlaw 2007). Though both partners will
respond in ways to influence their partners, men may tend to
use violence and women may tend to use other methods. De
Weerth and Kalma (1993) suggest that sexual jealousy is
natural for both females and males, though specific types of
fears differ in each case. De Weerth and Kalma posit that
whereas men are most concerned about paternity of offspring (which is similar to the evolutionary perspective),
women are most concerned with loss of the relationship,
since that translates into a loss of attention and resources
necessary to raise an offspring. This proposes that it may be
natural for women as well as men to be aggressive in cases
of suspected sexual infidelity of their partner. This research
also suggests that the incongruent findings of jealousy studies may be a reflection of different types of triggers for men
and women as opposed to differences in the presence of
jealous thoughts and behaviors.

Bilateral versus Unilateral Aggression

A few studies have investigated prevalence and differential
impact of bilateral physical aggression versus unilateral

112

physical aggression among couples (e.g., Capaldi and Owen

2001 Gray and Foshee 1997). In a sample of young, at-risk
couples, the proportion of couples who were frequently
mutually aggressive was 6 times that of what one would
expect by chance (Capaldi and Owen 2001). Several studies
have also demonstrated that in situations where women are
aggressive, whether the aggression is in response to male
aggression or not, the probability of violence for that couple
persisting and even escalating over a 1-year period was
higher (Feld and Straus 1989). The same pattern held if
the men were aggressive.
Both male and female adolescents in mutually physically
aggressive relationships sustain more frequent, more types,
and more severe injuries than those in unilaterally aggressive relationships (Gray and Foshee 1997). Among a sample
of young couples, when a young woman reported frequently
aggressing against her partner, she was at a 3 times greater
likelihood of sustain an injury and was at greater risk for
frequent and severe injury (Capaldi and Owen 2001). This
finding of a female aggression and female injury link was
supported by both women and mens self-reports. Later
work by Capaldi et al. (2003) suggests womens aggression
is associated with future instances of mens aggression. This
may indicate that if a woman is aggressive, her chance of
being aggressed against later is higher.
In response to the criticisms that have been made of
conclusion-drawing from self-report data of aggressive behavior, a recent study specifically used observation techniques of
couple interaction to investigate the process of bilateral aggression over time from mid-adolescent through mid-20s
(Capaldi et al. 2007). Findings demonstrated that young women initiated physical aggression more often than men. This
study also demonstrated that reciprocity of physical aggression was similar for men and women and, again, that mutual
aggression was associated with the highest level of injuries.

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:109119

demonstrated this to be true within battered womens shelters, a great deal of feminist literature posits that the same
trends would hold true in community populations (e.g.,
Bograd 1988). Bograd writes about this notion of men
throughout society ascribing to patriarchical influences
when she says, Feminists seek to understand why men in
general use physical force against their partners and what
functions this serves for a society in a given historical
context (p. 13). Third, based on the fact that two out of
three literature bases (feminist and evolutionary psychology) would support the notion that men are more likely to be
jealous of their partners than are women, higher mean levels
of jealousy were predicted for men than women.
Johnsons (1995) conception of common couple violence as
the typical characterization of mutual aggression between
spouses in representative samples, describes bilateral aggression, both physical and psychological, that is neither associated
with escalation or serious consequences. More recent work by
Johnson (2006) has suggested that indeed, in some cases there is
control involved, even in situations of mutual aggression and his
term for these types of couples is mutual violent control. Unfortunately, no studies have investigated the possible differential
impact of bilateral psychological aggression as opposed to
unilateral psychological aggression in couples. This study is
an initial step at filling this gap. Based on the literature that
suggests the presence of mutual physical aggression in intimate
relationships is characterized by greater injury and severity of
aggressive behaviors compared to unilateral physical aggression, severity of psychological aggression was predicted to be
greater in those relationships characterized by mutual psychological aggression. Since the presence of any psychological
aggression is normative in the general population, the focus here
was on severe psychological aggression. Men and women in
relationships characterized by bilateral severe psychological
aggression were predicted to have higher rates of severe psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy than those in
unilaterally aggressive relationships.

Goals and Hypotheses

Women were predicted to have higher mean rates of psychological aggression, based on the previous literature that
has shown women to be more negative in interactions with
their partners (Woodin 2011) and more likely to demand
change in a relationship (Heavey et al. 1993). However, it
was hypothesized that an investigation of the impact of
severe psychological aggression on men and women would
suggest that women suffer a greater impact. The indicators
of impact in the present study were self-reported depression and fear scores. Second, we hypothesized that the mean
levels of dominance reported by men would be greater than
that of women. This hypothesis emanates from the feminist
literature illuminating the power and control tactics that
exist on a societal level. Though empirical data has

Method
Participants
The current study was part of a larger research project
designed to examine conflict patterns in parents of young
children on Long Island. Four hundred fifty-three couples
participated in the study. Participants were recruited from
1999 to 2002 through a random digit dialing procedure
modeled after those used in the 1985 National Family Violence Survey (Louis Harris and Associated 1986). Respondents who picked up the phone were told that the caller was
from a local university and was looking for families who
might qualify for a study of how families cope with conflict.

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:109119

A brief demographic interview was administered to all willing respondents to determine study eligibility. Inclusion
criteria included that the respondents had been living as a
couple for a least a year, be parenting a 3 to 7-year-old child
who was the biological offspring of at least one of the
parents, and be able to complete questionnaires in English.
The random digit dialing procedure resulted in phone
respondents who were fairly representative of the countrys
population, as determined by comparisons to the 2000 U.S.
Census (2003), and in study participants (N = 453) who were
quite similar to those who qualified for the study, but chose
not to participate (n = 1,362; see Slep et al. 2006; Smith Slep
and OLeary 2005, for an extensive report on random digit
dialing, representativeness evaluations, and sample demographics). The procedure for the overall study has been described in a previous manuscript (OLeary et al. 2007).
Measures
Data cleaning methods utilized mean substitution for missing data. Data transformations were considered for variables
where the skew and/or kurtosis exceeded 4 times the standard error (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001).
Psychological Aggression The Revised Conflict Tactics
Scales (CTS2; Straus et al. 1996 is a 78-item inventory that
assesses the frequency (on scales ranging from 0 = never to 6
= more than 20 times) of perpetration and victimization
behaviors in the past 12 months. It contains a psychological
aggression scale which includes verbal and nonverbal acts
which symbolically hurt the other in addition to items which
represent threats to hurt the other. Aggression frequencies on
the eight psychological aggression items (i.e., insulted or
swore, called partner fat or ugly, destroyed something of
partners, shouted or yelled, stomped out, accused
partner of being a lousy lover, did something to spite partner, and threatened to hit or throw something) were used to
determine a participants psychological violence victimization
score, which was based on both self-report of perpetration and
partner report of victimization (e.g., how many times the
husband said he shouted or yelled at his wife and how many
times the wife said her husband shouted or yelled at her). If the
husband and wife differed in their ratings on a particular item,
then the higher rating prevailed. We averaged the maximum
scores across all eight aggression items using the 7-point
scales to yield an extent of any aggression score. Minor and
severe aggression scores were calculated by summing the
scores across associated severity items.

113

One pair of items was dropped from the jealousy scale because participants clearly misread them. Of the remaining item
pairs, 11 tap dominance and 6 tap jealousy. Items were rated
from 1 (never) to 5 (almost always). Items in the dominance
scale include I tried to keep my partner from seeing or talking
to his/her family, I tried to turn my partners family and
friends against them, I threatened to have an affair with
someone else, I tried to make my wife feel like she was
crazy, and I blamed my wife when upset even if she had
nothing to do with it. The jealousy scale contains items such
as I was jealous and suspicious of my partners friends, I
monitored my partners time and made him/her account for
his/her whereabouts, I did not want my partner to socialize
with his/her same sex friends, I brought up things from the
past to hurt my partner, and I accused my partner of seeing
another man/woman. We computed mean dominance and
jealousy scores by averaging across self and partner reports
of the same activity with the same perpetrator.
Depressive Symptomatology Depressive symptoms were
assessed with the 21-item Beck Depression InventoryRevised (BDI-II; Beck et al. 1996). The scale ranges from 0
to 3 with increasing numbers representing higher levels of
depressive symptomatology. All individual item scores are
summed to compute an overall total score. Clinical categories
for distinguishing between different levels of depressive symptomatology have been established as follows: 09: minimal
depression; 1018: mild depression; 1929: moderate depression; 3063: severe depression. This measure has demonstrated good factorial and convergent validity as well as high
internal consistency (Beck et al. 1996; Steer and Clark 1997).
Fear of Partner Scale This scale was designed specifically
for this study in order to measure overall fear of partner. The
current analyses only utilized results from the initial fear
question (e.g., What is the most afraid you have been of your
partner in the last 12 months) where the scale ranges from 1
(never afraid) to 7 (terrified most of the time) to assess for
overall fear of partner over the previous 12 months. The full
scale consists of 15 items designed to assess the degree of fear
the participant would anticipate feeling should the partner do
specific things (i.e., How afraid of your partner would you be
if he/she slapped you?). For the purposes of this study, one
general index for overall fear was utilized. For a more detailed
explanation of this scale, please see Kar and OLeary 2010.

Results
Dominance/Jealousy A scale based on Kasian and Painters
(1992) factor analysis of the Psychological Maltreatment of
Women Scale (Tolman 1989) assesses controlling and jealous
behaviors perpetrated by, and experienced by, each partner.

Prior to conducting analyses, all data were examined for

normality and completeness. Mean substitution was used to
replace any missing values as long as more than half of the

114

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:109119

items for a variable were available. After performing transformations, we examined variables for the presence of outliers
(i.e., score more than four standard deviations above the
mean). Clearly aberrant scores were deleted. Including these
deletions, and at the variable level less than 0.1 % of the data
were missing. All data analyses that included comparisons of
husbands and wives were carried out to account for the fact
that the data was paired and non-independent. As such, paired
data were analyzed via paired t-tests, McNemars test, and
repeated-measures ANOVA. Non-paired data were analyzed
via independent t-tests and Chi-Square analyses.
Psychological Aggression Perpetration: Prevalence & Severity
Men and women reported similar rates of psychological aggression perpetration in the last 12 months. While 91.8 % of
men and 95.8 % of women self-reported any psychological
aggression, maximum prevalence rates taken from both partners reached almost 97 % for men and 98.4 % for women (see
Table 1). Prevalence rates indicated that 96.5 % of men and
98 % of women engaged in minor psychological aggression.
Overall, 40 % of men and 42.6 % of women were demonstrated to have engaged in severe psychological aggression in
the past year as evidenced through items such as accused
partner of being a lousy lover, and threatened to hit or throw
something. Based on a McNemar analysis, there was no
gender difference in prevalence of severe psychological aggression between men and women. When mean levels of any,
minor, and severe psychological aggression were compared
for men and women, both any and minor levels were significantly different, with women self-reporting higher mean levels (Any: t(439) = 3.97, p < .001, d = .096; Minor: t(437) = 4.89,
p < ,001, d = .11) while no gender difference was demonstrated in severe psychological aggression.
It was hypothesized that the consequences of psychological aggression would be worse for women, both with regard
to severity of depression scores and reports of fear of partner. The mean BDI-II scores for unilaterally victimized men
and women were 6.78 and 10.65, respectively; this difference was significant (t(84) = 2.98, p < .005, d = .63). When
fear of partner levels on a 05 scale were compared among
this group of men and women, mean fear levels were found
Table 1 Prevalence of psychological aggression perpetration
among men and women

Max report refers to maximum

report of perpetration across
both partners. Self-report refers
to the participants own report of
perpetration

Any psychological
aggression
Mild psychological
aggression
Severe psychological
aggression

to be 1.77 and 2.35 for men and women respectively; this

difference was also significant (t(84) = 2.51, p < .025,
d = .56). In order to control for partners victimization, a
follow-up analysis was performed.
The first follow-up analysis was a multiple regression analysis in which BDI-II was the criterion variable and respondents
victimization and partner victimization were the predictor variables. The impact of respondent victimization on BDI-II was
investigated while controlling for partner victimization. The
analysis was conducted separately for men and women. For
men, the overall R2 was .09, F(2,447) = 20.93, p < .001. The
standardized regression coefficients were .26 for respondent
victimization and .051 for partner victimization. Only the coefficient for respondent victimization was significant, t(447) = 5.09,
p < .001, after controlling for partner victimization. For women,
the overall R2 was .07, F(2,449) = 15.88, p < .001. The standardized regression coefficients were .26 for respondent victimization and -.01 for partner victimization. As was true for the
men, only the coefficient for respondent victimization was
significant, t(449) = 4.97, p < .001, after controlling for partner
victimization. The partial correlations of BDI-II and respondent
victimization, controlling for partner victimization for men and
women were equivalent: r = .234 for men and r = .228 for
women; this difference was not significant.
The second follow-up analysis was a multiple regression
analysis in which fear of partner was the criterion variable
and respondents victimization and partner victimization
were the predictor variables. The impact of respondent
victimization on fear of partner was investigated while controlling for partner victimization. This analysis was conducted separately for men and women. For men, the
overall R2 was .026, F(2,450) = 5.19, p < .005. The standardized regression coefficients were .16 for respondent
victimization and .00 for partner victimization. Only the
coefficient for respondent victimization was significant,
t(450) = 2.98, p < .005 after controlling for partner victimization. For women, the overall R2 was .025, F(2,450) =
5.81, p < .005. The standardized regression coefficients
were .16 for respondent victimization and .00 for partner
victimization. As was true for the men, only the coefficient
for respondent victimization was significant, t(450) = 2.91,
p < .005 after controlling for partner victimization. The

Prevalence Rates (max report)

Prevalence Rates (self-report)

Men

Women

Men

Women

96.9 % (n = 439)

98.4 % (n = 446)

91.8 % (n = 416)

95.8 % (n = 433)

96.5 % (n = 437)

98.0 % (n = 444)

91.6 % (n = 415)

95.1 % (n = 431)

40.0 % (n = 181)

42.6 % (n = 193)

26.9 % (n = 122)

30.0 % (n = 136)

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:109119

115

partial correlations of fear of partner and respondent victimization, controlling for partner victimization for men and
women were r = .139 for men and r = .136 for women; this
difference was not significant.
Dominance and Jealousy: Prevalence & Severity
With regards to prevalence of dominant behaviors, 83.4 %
of men and 85 % of women self-reported engaging in some
type of dominance in the previous 12 months (see Table 2).
A McNemar analysis demonstrated no significant gender
difference in dominance reports between the genders. However, paired t-tests demonstrated a difference in mean levels
of dominant behaviors between genders with women selfreporting higher mean levels of dominance (t(906) = 3.48, p <
.005, d = .11). Four of the eleven dominance questions were
found to have significantly different mean levels between
men and women. Womens mean levels of perpetration were
higher than mens levels on three questions: I blamed my
partner when upset even if he/she had nothing to do with it,
I blamed my partner for my problems, and I threatened to
leave the relationship. Mens mean level of perpetration
was significantly higher than womens on one question: I
tried to make my partner feel like she was crazy.
Prevalence of self-reported jealous behaviors for men and
women demonstrated that 78.6 % of men and 83 % of
women reported being jealous of their partner in the past
year. This difference in prevalence was demonstrated to be
significant (2 = 7.52, p < .01, w = .18). Additionally, the
difference in mean levels of overall jealous scale scores
were shown to be significant, t(906) = 5.43, p < .001,
d = .21, indicating that women engage in jealous behaviors
and at higher mean levels than those of men.
Three of the six jealousy questions were found to have
significantly different mean levels between men and women. Womens mean levels of perpetration were higher than
mens levels on all of the three questions: I monitored my
husbands time and made him account for her whereabouts,
I accused my husband of seeing another woman, and I
brought up things from the past to hurt my husband.
Unilateral and Bi-directional Comparisons
Amongst the sample, there were 36 unilaterally severely psychologically aggressive husbands and 48 unilaterally severely
aggressive wives (see Table 3). There were 145 husbands and
Table 2 Prevalence of psychological aggression, dominance,
and jealousy perpetration
Any dominance
Any jealousy
Severe psych aggression

wives who were in severely bilaterally-psychologically aggressive relationships (see Table 3). Paired t-tests were utilized
for bilateral analyses whereas McNemar analysis was utilized
for unilateral analyses. While there was no gender difference
in mean levels of severe psychological aggression amongst
the unilaterally-aggressive sample, women had significantly
higher mean scores in both dominance (0.16 vs. 0.23 for males
and females, respectively, t(84) = 2.41, p < .025) and jealousy
(0.22 vs. 0.29 for males and females, respectively, t(84) = 2.12,
p < .05). However, amongst the bilaterally aggressive subsample, the only gender difference was demonstrated with
jealousy mean scores; aggressive wives, had significantly
higher mean levels than their aggressive husbands 0.33 vs.
0.36 for males and females, respectively, t(290) = 2.26, p < .05.
When unilateral and bilateral subjects were compared
with subjects of the same gender, self-reported mean levels
of severe psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy were higher for bilateral subjects. As depicted in Table 4,
in all cases when bilaterally aggressive women and men
were compared to unilaterally aggressive subjects of the
same gender, the bilateral group had significantly higher
mean levels of each construct. For men, the effect sizes
regarding severe psychological aggression and dominance
fell into the large effect size range.

Discussion
Psychological Aggression
The analyses from this randomly recruited community sample
of husbands and wives support previous literature findings
that the percentages of men and women engaging in at least
some psychological aggression is so high as to be normative.
Further, the levels of any and minor psychological aggression
were higher for women than men. These findings on psychological aggression are in accord with the results of Lawrence
et al. (2009) who found that newly married women had higher
mean levels of psychological aggression than men. The results
are also in accord with the findings of Woodins (2011) metaanalysis on observations of marital interactions, in which
women were found to be more negative, overall, when discussing conflict topics. Further, the higher level of psychological aggression seems to be consistent with the research that
shows that women are more verbally expressive of their
emotions then are men (Bronstein et al. 1996; Goldschmidt

Men

Women

McNemar result

Odds ratio

83.4 % (n = 378)
78.6 % (n = 356)
40.4 % (n = 181)

85 % (n = 385)
83.0 %* (n = 376)
42.6 % (n = 193)

2=0.74; NS
2=7.52; p < .01
2=1.44; NS

1.12 (0.79, 1.60)

1.33 (0.95, 1.86)
1.12 (0.86, 1.45)

116
Table 3 Mean levels of psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy among subsamples

***p < .001. ** p < .01. *p < .05

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:109119

Unilateral aggression
Severe psychological aggression
Dominance
Jealousy
Bilateral aggression
Severe psychological aggression
Dominance
Jealousy

and Weller 2000) and are more able to understand emotions

than are men, even starting from very early ages (Bosacki and
Moore 2004; Saarni 1984). It may follow that if women are
better able to recognize their own, and their partners emotions, they may be more inclined to express their emotions to
their partners. This expression may take the form of psychological aggression, or as discussed, relational aggression.
In addition, across many studies women report more marital dissatisfaction than men; this finding holds true across all
age groups (Field and Weishaus 1984; Skolnick 1986). Since
women are more often seeking change in their marriages than
are men (Kluwer et al. 2000; Margolin et al. 1983), women
may be more frustrated than their male partners. If it is true
that women are, on average, more frustrated than men coupled
with womens higher proficiency in expressing emotions verbally, higher mean levels of psychological aggression may be
the final impact of these realities.
Additionally, as has been posited in the physical aggression
literature, though a higher percentage of women may perpetrate certain types of aggression, and even perpetrate more
severe types of aggressive behaviors in some cases, neither of
these findings necessarily translates into our understanding of
the impact of such aggression. The regression analyses demonstrated that though there was a significant impact of
respondents own victimization on their BDI-II score and their
overall fear of partner rating, this impact was not differential
by gender. In other words, for both men and women, severe
psychological victimization was linked to greater depressive
Table 4 Comparison of unilateral and bi-laterally severely
psychologically aggressive
subjects

***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05

Males

Females

t-value

p-value

0.35 (n = 36)
0.16 (n = 36)
0.22 (n = 36)

0.39 (n = 48)
0.23* (n = 48)
0.29* (n = 48)

0.57
2.41
2.12

NS
p < .025
p < .05

0.13
0.53
0.47

0.73 (n = 145)
0.28 (n = 145)
0.33 (n = 145)

0.73 (n = 145)
0.29 (n = 145)
0.36* (n = 145)

0.11
0.90
2.26

NS
NS
p < .05

0.02
0.15
0.38

symptomatology and greater fear levels, but there was no

differential impact of this type of victimization by gender.
Dominance
The prediction that men would report higher overall prevalence and mean levels of dominance was not upheld by the
overall results as women reported engaging in higher mean
levels of dominance than did their male partners. For only one
item on the dominance scale were mens mean levels of
perpetration higher than womens mean levels. These findings
suggest that traditional feminist theory, which posits that men
are invariably more dominant in an effort to maintain patriarchical values which encourage using power and control,
while applicable to battered women samples (Pagelow 1981
Pence and Paymar 1993; Walker 1979), may not be a literature
base that applies to patterns within the general population, at
least as far as the types of questions included on this particular
dominance scale. As such, Bograds (1988) reference to men,
in general, using physical force (and one would assume dominant and controlling behaviors accompany this force) to serve
a function seems to be an incorrect reflection of the actual
gender dynamic. Though patriarchical values may very well
exist and dictate a great deal of gendered interaction, it is
erroneous to continue to assume that women do not exert their
own control and dominance over their partners.
It is important to consider the fact that of the three items in
which women had significantly higher scores, two items

Unilateral

Bi-lateral

t-value

p-value

Women
Severe psychological aggression
Dominance
Jealousy

0.39 (n = 48)
0.23 (n = 48)
0.29 (n = 48)

0.73*** (n = 145)
0.29* (n = 145)
0.36* (n = 145)

4.58
2.17
2.03

p < .001
p < .05
p < .05

0.66
0.31
0.29

Men
Severe psychological aggression
Dominance
Jealousy

0.35 (n = 36)
0.16 (n = 36)
0.22 (n = 36)

0.73* (n = 145)
0.28* (n = 145)
0.33* (n = 145)

5.27
5.12
3.06

p < .001
p < .001
p < .005

0.79
0.77
0.46

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:109119

centered on blaming and one centered on threatening to leave

the relationship. The research literature which indicates women are often more negative and more critical within their
relationships lends support to the fact that they may blame
their husbands more often. The concept of dominance as
being an effort to control someone supports the idea that
women, who are biologically weaker, and therefore, perhaps
not as physically threatening, and who are often not the main
bread-winners of the family, so do not hold the major financial
power, may feel their main source of control within the
relationship is whether or not to continue in the relationship.
Feminist theory which suggests that men hold the positions of
power across many aspects of society supports this possibility.
As described above with psychological aggression, higher
levels of dominant behaviors by women may represent the
culmination of their increased frustrations and ability to communicate that frustration in a verbal fashion. Straus (2008)
conception of the utility of violence seems especially fitting to
the use of dominance and control for women. Straus explains
that violence is often used to achieve something that has been
blocked by the dominant partner. This seems applicable to the
current discussion as it suggests that dominance, as one form
of psychological aggression, may be used in order to try to
attain something that the female partner desires in the
relationship, but is not receiving. The theoretical justification
put forth by feminists is that since men are still considered
superior they act in more dominant fashions to maintain that
superiority. However, we suggest that alternatively, since men
are considered superior at the societal level, women respond to
this by engaging in higher levels of dominant behaviors within
their intimate relationships. As suggested by evolutionary
psychologists, it may be that women exert more dominance
because they have more being withheld in their intimate relationships or, in other words, more to fight for. In addition,
though results from this dominance scale suggest women may
be more dominant than men, it is important to keep in mind that
men are still in positions of power in many aspects of society.
Jealousy
In contrast to predictions based on feminists and evolutionary
perspectives that predict that men would exhibit more jealousy
of their partners than would women, the current results suggest otherwise. Similar to the findings for both any and minor
psychological aggression and dominance, womens mean levels of self-reported jealousy were higher than those of men.
Previous research has demonstrated both similar levels of
jealousy for men and women (Buunk 1981; Hansen 1982)
but other research has suggested that at extreme levels, consequences of severe male sexual jealousy of husbands are
much worse. More specifically, jealousy is one of the most
frequent reasons that men kill women (Daly and Wilson
1988), and 3 times more women are killed per year than

117

men in the U.S. in intimate partner relations (Rennison

2003). In addition to the theoretical justifications previously
described for higher overall psychological aggression levels,
there may be some additional reasons for the higher mean
levels of sexual jealousy among women in this sample. Since
men are more likely to be involved in extra-marital relations
(Davis et al. 2005; Lauman et al. 1994), the monitoring
behaviors of females that are captured within the overall
jealousy concept may be, at least in part, reality-based. Additionally, in concert with the evolutionary view of jealousy,
men should theoretically become less jealous as their wives
age out of child-bearing years since the issue of preserving
their status over progeny becomes mute. Unfortunately, the
ages of the current sample do not allow for this type of
analysis, but future studies should take this into consideration.
Unilateral versus Bilateral Aggression
When mean levels of psychological aggression amongst a
sub-sample of unilaterally severely aggressive men and
women were compared, the results from the full sample
were upheld. That is, womens mean levels of dominance
and jealousy were significantly higher than those of men.
When one turns to bilateral psychological aggression, the
main differences that are very apparent are the higher levels
of psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy in the
bilateral as compared to the unilaterally aggressive sample.
This finding is in accord with the finding that in couples
who are characterized by bilateral aggression, there is a
greater severity of aggression and larger impacts of that
aggression than those characterized by unilateral aggression
(e.g. Capaldi and Owen 2001; Gray and Foshee 1997).
Limitations and Further Work
This sample consisted of parents of young children, and the
prevalence of victimization and the dynamics in relationships of young couples may be different from couples
without children and from older couples with children.
These results should also not be generalized to same-sex
couples or couples without telephones. Finally, as is true
with all cross-sectional data, no inferences as to causality
can be drawn from these results.
Intervention/Treatment Implications
In terms of interventions and treatment, these data suggest that
both men and women in the community engage in substantial
amounts of psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy toward their partners. Furthermore, relationships characterized by bilateral severe psychological aggression entail much
greater levels of psychologically aggressive, dominant, and
jealous behaviors. Since psychological aggression is one of

118

the best predictors of physical aggression (Murphy and

OLeary 1989), prevention and intervention programs should
consider the need to address high levels of psychological
aggression by both males and females. Finally, the issue of
whether there is differential impact of certain aggressive
behaviors on men and women is extremely important in aiding
focal areas for intervention. This research study found no
demonstrated difference when the entire sample was utilized,
but did in a sub-sample of unilaterally victimized persons.
More work in this area is needed to clarify whether or not a
differential impact on what exists. Knowledge of differential
impact on the genders will allow for development of tailored,
empirically-derived gender-specific intervention program, if in
fact, there are differences.
Finally, additional analyses of this data, which are beyond
the scope of the current manuscript, indicate that women
report statistically higher levels of severe psychological
childhood victimization from their parents than do men.
Future research which investigates the temporal and
potentially gender-specific relationships between specific
types of victimization and later perpetration will expand our
knowledge of how to prevent such patterns from forming.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant R01MH57985. We thank Susan OLeary
for her editorial and data analyses assistance and Daniel Foti for his
data analyses consultation.

References
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck
Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse: An introduction. In M. Bograd & K. Yllo (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on
wife abuse (pp. 1126). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Bosacki, S. L., & Moore, C. (2004). Preschoolers Understanding of
simple and complex emotions: links with gender and language. Sex
Roles, 50, 659675. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000027568.26966.27.
Bronstein, P., Briones, M., Brooks, T., & Cowan, B. (1996). Gender
and family factors as predictors of late adolescent emotional
expressiveness and adjustment: a longitudinal study. Sex Roles,
34, 739765. doi:10.1007/BF01544314.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992).
Sex differences in jealousy: evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251255. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x.
Buunk, B. (1981). Jealousy in sexually open marriages. Alternative
Lifestyles, 4, 357372. doi:10.1007/BF01257944.
Capaldi, D. M., & Owen, L. D. (2001). Physical aggression in a
community sample of at-risk, young couples: gender comparisons
for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 425440. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.82.
Capaldi, D. M., Shortt, J. W., & Crosby, L. (2003). Physical and
psychological aggression in at-risk young couples: stability and
change in young adulthood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(1), 1
27. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9067-1.

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:109119

Capaldi, D., Kim, H., & Shortt, J. (2007). Observed initiation and
reciprocity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 101111. doi:10.1007/s10896-0079067-1.
Clanton, G., & Smith, L. G. (1977). Jealousy. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Cummins, D. (2005). Dominance, status, and social hierarchies. In D.
Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 676
697). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W., & Marsden, P. V. (2005). General social
surveys: 1972-2004 cumulative codebook. Chicago: University of
Chicago, National Opinion Research Center.
De Weerth, C., & Kalma, A. P. (1993). Female aggression as a response to sexual jealousy: a sex role reversal? Aggressive Behavior, 19, 265279. doi:10.1002/1098-2337.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: A case
against patriarchy. New York: Free Press.
Dutton, D. G. (2007). The abusive personality: Violence and control in
intimate relationships. New York: Guilford Press.
Eldridge, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2002). Demand-withdraw communication during couple conflict: A review and analysis. In P.
Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 289322). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feld, S. L., & Straus, M. A. (1989). Escalation and desistance of wife
assault in marriage. Criminology, 27(1), 141161. doi:10.1111/
j.1745-9125.1989.tb00866.x.
Felson, R. B., & Outlaw, M. C. (2007). The control motive and marital
violence. Violence and Victims, 22, 387407. doi:10.1891/
088667007781553964.
Field, D., & Weishaus, S. (1984). Marriages over half a century a
longitudinal study. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse.
Fields, J., & Wolff, E. N. (1991). The decline of sex segregation and
the wage gap: 197080. The Journal of Human Resources, 26,
608622. doi:10.2307/145977.
Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Huase, E. S., & Polek,
D. S. (1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive
relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 107120.
doi:10.1007/BF00978514.
Goldschmidt, O. T., & Weller, L. (2000). Talking emotions: gender
differences in a variety of conversational contexts. Symbolic Interaction, 23, 117134. doi:10.1525/si.2000.23.2.117.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Gray, H. M., & Foshee, V. (1997). Adolescent dating violence: differences between one-sided and mutually violent profiles. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 12, 126142. doi:10.1177/08862609701
2001008.
Hamby, S. L., & Sugarman, S. B. (1996). Power and partner violence:
A meta-analytic review. In S. L. Hamby (Chair), Theorizing about
gender socialization and power in family violence. Symposium
conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario.
Hansen, G. L. (1982). Reactions to hypothetical, jealousy producing
events. Family Relations, 31, 513518. doi:10.2307/583926.
Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and
conflict structure in marital interaction: a replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 16
27. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.16.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple
violence: two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283294. doi:10.2307/353683.
Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: gender symmetry and
asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12,
10031018. doi:10.1177/1077801206293328.

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:109119

Kar, H. L., & OLeary, K. D. (2010). Gender symmetry or asymmetry
in intimate partner victimization? Not an either/or answer. Partner
Abuse, 1(2), 152168. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.1.2.152.
Kasian, M., & Painter, S. L. (1992). Frequency and severity of psychological abuse in a dating population. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 7, 350364. doi:10.1177/088626092007003005.
Kemp, A. A., & Beck, E. M. (1986). Equal work, unequal pay: gender
discrimination within work-similar occupations. Work and Occupations, 13, 324347. doi:10.1177/0730888486013003002.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: his
and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472503. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.127.4.472.
Kluwer, E. S., Heesink, J. A., & Van de Vliert, E. (2000). The division
of labor in close relationships: an asymmetrical conflict issue.
Personal Relationships, 7, 263282. doi:10.1111/j.14756811.2000.tb00016.
Lauman, E. O., Gagnon, G. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994).
The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the
United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lawrence, E., Yoon, J., Langer, A., & Ro, E. (2009). Is psychological
aggression as detrimental as physical aggression? The independent effects of psychological aggression on depression and anxiety symptoms. Violence and Victims, 24, 2035. doi:10.1891/
0886-6708.24.1.20.
Lips, H. M. (1991). Women, men, and power. Mountain View:
Mayfield.
Louis Harris & Associated. (1986). Second national family violence
survey: Survey methodology. Unpublished technical report.
Family Violence Laboratory, University of New Hampshire,
Durham, NH.
Malik, N. M., & Lindahl, K. M. (1998). Aggression and dominance:
the roles of power and culture in domestic violence. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 409423. doi:10.1111/
j.1468-2850.1998.tb00164.
Margolin, G., Talovic, S., & Weinstein, C. D. (1983). Areas of change
questionnaire: a practical approach to marital assessment. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 920931. doi:10.1037/
0022-006X.51.6.920.
Mathes, E. W., & Severa, N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and
liking: theoretical considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychological Reports, 49(1), 2331. doi:10.2466/
pr0.1981.49.1.23.
McIntosh, E. G. (1989). An investigation of romantic jealousy among
black undergraduates. Social Behavior and Personality, 17(2),
135141. doi:10.2224/sbp.1989.17.2.135.
Murphy, C. M., & Meyer, S. (1991). Gender, power, and violence in
marriage. Behavior Therapist, 14, 95100.
Murphy, C., & OLeary, K. D. (1989). Psychological aggression predicts
physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 57, 579582. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.57.5.579.
OLeary, K. D. (1999). Psychological abuse: a variable deserving critical
attention in domestic violence. Violence and Victims, 14, 323.
O'Leary, K. D., Smith Slep, A. M., & O'Leary, S. G. (2007). Multivariate models of mens and womens partner aggression. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 752764. doi:10.1037/
0022-006X.75.5.752.
Pagelow, M. D. (1981). Woman-battering: Victims and their experiences. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1986). Power and control: Tactics of men
who batter: An educational curriculum. Duluth: Minnesota Program Development.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who
batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer.
Rennison, C. M. (2001). Bureau of Justice Special Report: Intimate
partner violence and age of victim, 1993-1999 (Report No. NCJ
187635). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

119
Rennison, C. M. (2003). Intimate partner violence, 19932001 (Report
No. NCJ 197838). Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1001.
Saarni, C. (1984). An observational study of childrens attempts to
monitor their expressive behavior. Child Development, 55, 1504
1513. doi:10.2307/1130020.
Sackett, L. A., & Saunders, D. G. (1999). The impact of different forms
of psychological abuse on battered women. Violence and Victims,
14, 113. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.08.010.
Saltzman, L. E., Fanslow, J. L., McMahon, P. M., & Shelley, G. A.
(1999). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta: National
Century for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
Skolnick, A. (1986). The psychology of human development. San
Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Slep, A. M. S., Heyman, R. E., Williams, M. C., Van Dyke, C. E., &
OLeary, S. G. (2006). Using random telephone sampling to recruit
generalizable samples for family violence studies. Journal of Family
Psychology, 20, 680689. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.680.
Smith Slep, A., & OLeary, S. (2005). Parent and partner violence in
families with young children: rates, patterns, and connections.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 435444.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.435.
Steer, R. A., & Clark, D. A. (1997). Psychometric characteristics of the
Beck Depression InventoryII with college students. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30(3), 128136.
Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical
violence in American families (pp. 151165). New Brunswick:
Transaction.
Straus, M. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male
and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth
Services Review, 30, 252275. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.004.
Straus, M. A. (2010, May). Mental health and violence between
marital and dating partners across the life span and in 32 nations.
Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association of
Mental Health Services Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Societal change and change in
family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national
surveys. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence
in American families: Risk factors and adaptation to violence in
8,145 families (pp. 113131). New Brunswick: Transaction.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind
closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City:
Doubleday.
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,
283316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics
(4th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological
maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and
Victims, 4, 159177.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). Census 2000. Summary Files 1 and 3
[Data File]. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/
nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml
Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row.
Woodin, E. (2011). A Two-dimensional approach to relationship conflict: meta-analytic findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 25,
325335. doi:10.1037/a0023791.
Yllo, K. A. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power and
violence. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 4762). Newbury Park: Sage.