Overlap of relationship distress and intimate partner violence in community samples

Revisiting "ill will versus poor skill": Relationship dissatisfaction, intimate partner violence, and observed "communication skills deficits"

For decades, researchers, interventionists, and the lay public have subscribed to the notion that couples low in relationship satisfaction and/or experiencing psychological, physical, or sexual intimate partner violence (IPV) have communication skills deficits. In contrast, experimental studies of communication have concluded that differences were more likely due to partners' "ill will than poor skill." We revisited this debate by recruiting a fairly generalizable sample of couples (N = 291) via random-digit dialing and asking them to discuss two top conflict areas ("at your best" and "as you typically do"), thus measuring will-conscious inhibition of hostility and negative reciprocity and production of positivity (i.e., the "conflict triad"). The conflict triad was observed with the Rapid Marital Interaction Coding System, Second Generation. We found partial support for the hypotheses grounded in Finkel's I3 meta-model. Frequency of hostility was associated with a complicated satisfaction × IPV-extent × conversation type × gender interaction, indicating that couples' communication skills are multi-determined. Unhappier couples showed almost no change in positivity when at their best, whereas happier couples nearly doubled their positivity despite their considerably higher typical positivity mean. Negative reciprocity was associated with satisfaction and IPV-extent but not conversation type, implying that immediate instigation combined with risk factors overwhelms conscious inhibition. Intervention implications are discussed.

Intimate Partner Violence in Transgender and Nonbinary Relationships: Actor-Partner Associations with Relationship Satisfaction, Dyadic Coping, and Partner Support

Purpose: Transgender and nonbinary (TNB) adults experience disproportionate levels of intimate partner violence (IPV) compared with cisgender populations. Most research with TNB samples has focused on individual and demographic risk factors associated with IPV. Scarce research with TNB samples has evaluated how relational factors correlate with IPV victimization, which would be more consistent with dyadic models of IPV. The current study assessed associations between relational factors and psychological and physical victimization among TNB adults and their significant others. Methods: The sample included 112 dyads (total N = 224; mean [M] relationship length = 8.2 years; M age = 35) comprising a TNB adult and their significant other. Given our dyadic sample, we used actor-partner interdependence models to assess actor (i.e., intrapersonal) and partner (i.e., cross-partner) associations between relational factors (e.g., relationship satisfaction, dyadic coping, and partner social support) and IPV victimization among TNB individuals and their partners. Results: We identified numerous actor-partner effects across dyadic coping subscales and measures of partner support on TNB adult reports of IPV victimization. Actor effects were also significant for relationship satisfaction on both TNB and their partner's reports of IPV victimization. Conclusion: Results provide some of the first evidence of relational factors in association with IPV victimization among TNB adults and their intimate partners. These findings have clinical implications for identifying TNB individuals at risk for IPV in their relationships.