1. Actor-Partner Effects: Attachment and Psychological Aggression in Romantic Relationships Elizabeth A. Goncy & Manfred H. M. van Dulmen Kent State University Department of Psychology

2. Acknowledgement This project was partially funded by the Center of the Treatment and Study of Traumatic Stress (Summa Health Systems/Kent State University).

3. Psychological Aggression  High frequency  Definition: Relational acts Causing emotional or psychological harm  Consequences

4. Attachment Theory  Framework for understanding interpersonal relationship (Bowlby, 1977) Internal working models Attachment styles

5. Limitations of Previous Work  Primary focus on physical aggression  Categorized attachment scores  Examination at individual level

6. Aims of the Current Study  To investigate the association between attachment behavior and psychological aggression Test using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model  To determine if effects are different for males or females

7. Sample  Transitions Into Adulthood and Romantic Relationship study  18 – 25 year olds in a self-defined romantic relationship of 4 months or longer  This study is limited to Wave 1 questionnaires.

8. Sample Demographics  115 Heterosexual couples  Age (M=19.78, SD=1.65)  89% Caucasian  50% in relationship longer than 12 months

9. Measures  Experiences in Close Relationships Scale - Revised (Fraley et al., 2000) Anxiety scale  Females M = 1.62  Males M = 1.16 Avoidant scale  Females M = 1.65  Males M = 1.22 Correlations  Females r = 0.54, p < 0.01  Males r = 0.52, p < 0.01

10. Measures  Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationship Inventory (Wolfe et al., 2001) Emotional/verbal abuse subscale  Females M = 1.94  Males M = 1.77  r = 0.513, p < 0.01

11. Actor Partner Interdependence Model (APIM, Kashy & Kenny, 2000)  Independence assumption violated  What can the APIM tell us? Actor effect Partner effect Couple effect

12. APIM Female Emotional/ Verbal Abuse Female Attachment Male Attachment Male Emotional/ Verbal Abuse Actor Partner Actor Effects – If Actor > 0 Partner Effects – If Partner > 0 Couple Effects – If Actor not significantly different from Partner

13. Results  Conducted in Mplus 5.1  Followed procedures laid out by Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006

14. Avoidance  Emotional/Verbal Abuse Female Emotional/ Verbal Abuse Female Avoidance Male Avoidance Male Emotional/ Verbal Abuse β = 0.14, SE = 0.10, ns β = 0.17, SE = 0.10 + β = -0.05, SE = 0.20, ns β = 0.21, SE = 0.10 * * p < 0.05+ trend ns = non-significant Actor

15. Avoidance  Emotional/Verbal Abuse Female Emotional/ Verbal Abuse Female Avoidance Male Avoidance Male Emotional/ Verbal Abuse β = 0.14, SE = 0.10, ns β = 0.17, SE = 0.10 + β = -0.05, SE = 0.20, ns β = 0.21, SE = 0.10 * * p < 0.05+ trend ns = non-significant Partner

16. Avoidance  Emotional/Verbal Abuse  Are there differences in actor effects for males and females? Χ 2 (1) = 0.04, ns No

17. Avoidance  Emotional/Verbal Abuse  Are there differences in actor effects for males and females? Χ 2 (1) = 0.04, ns No  Are there differences in partner effects for males and females? Χ 2 (1) = 2.955, p = 0.08 Trend

18. Anxiety  Emotional/Verbal Abuse Female Emotional/ Verbal Abuse Female Anxiety Male Anxiety Male Emotional/ Verbal Abuse β = -0.38, SE = 0.08* β = -0.36, SE = 0.08* β = 0.12, SE = 0.09, ns β = -0.26, SE = 0.08* * p < 0.05 ns = non-significant Actor

19. Anxiety  Emotional/Verbal Abuse Female Emotional/ Verbal Abuse Female Anxiety Male Anxiety Male Emotional/ Verbal Abuse β = -0.38, SE = 0.08* β = -0.36, SE = 0.08* β = 0.12, SE = 0.09, ns β = -0.26, SE = 0.08* * p < 0.05 ns = non-significant Partner

20. Anxiety  Emotional/Verbal Abuse Female Emotional/ Verbal Abuse Female Anxiety Male Anxiety Male Emotional/ Verbal Abuse β = -0.38, SE = 0.08* β = -0.36, SE = 0.08* β = 0.12, SE = 0.09, ns β = -0.26, SE = 0.08* * p < 0.05 ns = non-significant COUPLE

21. Anxiety  Emotional/Verbal Abuse  Are there differences in actor effects for males and females? Χ 2 (1) = 0.41, ns No

22. Anxiety  Emotional/Verbal Abuse  Are there differences in actor effects for males and females? Χ 2 (1) = 0.41, ns No!  Are there differences in partner effects for males and females? Χ 2 (1) = 8.39, p < 0.05 Yes!

23. Conclusion  Avoidance: Partner Effect for Females Males avoidance predicts lower female use of emotional and verbal abuse Somewhat inconclusive  Anxiety: Actor Effect for Males Couple Effect for Females

24. Future Directions  Integrate findings from observational data  Integrate multi-informant Partner-rated Emotional and Verbal Abuse

25. Contact Information  Elizabeth Goncy, MA Kent State University Department of Psychology Kent OH 44242 email: egoncy@kent.eduegoncy@kent.edu http://dept.kent.edu/psychology/ADPlab/Index.html