Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jul 23.
Published in final edited form as: Violence Vict. 2017 Jan 27;32(2):326–341. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-15-00106

Intimate Partner Violence Victimization and Romantic Relationship Distress Among Caucasian and Mexican Newlyweds

Julia F Hammett a, Emilio C Ulloa b, Donna M Castañeda b, Audrey Hokoda b
PMCID: PMC11265263  NIHMSID: NIHMS2007165  PMID: 28130897

Abstract

This study examined the association between intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization and romantic relationship distress in a sample of 100 heterosexual Caucasian and Mexican American couples. Data were collected during the first and during the third year of marriage. In the overall sample, wives’ own IPV victimization was associated with wives’ increased distress and husbands’ IPV victimization was associated with wives’ decreased distress. Among Mexican Americans, wives’ IPV victimization was related to husbands’ increased distress, whereas among Caucasian Americans, wives’ IPV victimization was related to husbands’ decreased distress. These results indicate that the association between IPV victimization and relationship distress may not only differ by gender but also by ethnicity.

Keywords: Close relationships, marital distress, partner violence, structural equation modeling

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), defined as the physical, psychological, and/or sexual abuse of an intimate partner (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2012), is a prevalent concern for couples in the United States (O’Leary et al., 1989). Even newlyweds experience IPV. Studies indicate that 16% to 36% of newlywed husbands and 24% to 44% of newlywed wives have perpetrated physical aggression against their partners; over 90% of newlywed couples report that psychological aggression has occurred in the past year; and the prevalence of sexually aggressive behaviors among married couples is estimated to be as high as 50% (Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010).

The negative consequences associated with IPV are numerous among both Mexican Americans (Fedovskiy, Higgins, & Paranjape, 2008; González-Guarda, Peragallo, Vasquez, Urrutia, & Mitrani, 2009) as well as Caucasian Americans, (Breiding et al., 2015), ranging from increased levels of stress (e.g., Testa & Leonard, 2001) to severe depression (e.g., Peltzer, Pengpid, McFarlane, & Banyini, 2013). Relationship distress has been found to be one of the strongest correlates of spousal aggression (O’Leary et al., 1989; Ulloa & Hammett, 2015). Previous research shows that higher levels of all types of IPV (physical, psychological, and sexual aggression) are associated with higher victim marital distress (Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010) and that aggression may help discriminate between separated or divorced couples and those who remain married (Rogge & Bradbury, 1999). The purpose of the present study was to identify associations between IPV victimization and relationship distress among newlywed Caucasian and Mexican American couples from their first to their third year of marriage using a dyadic data analysis approach.

Background

The positive association between IPV and relationship distress is strongly supported in the academic literature (e.g., Marcus, 2012; O’Leary et al., 1989; Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010; Slep, Foran, Heyman, Snarr, & Program, 2015; Tang & Lai, 2008; Testa & Leonard, 2001). However, findings are inconsistent with regard to the role that gender may play in this association. According to a meta-analysis of 32 articles by Stith, Green, Smith, and Ward (2008), the effect size for the relationship between IPV perpetration and distress was larger for men than for women, whereas the effect size for the relationship between IPV victimization and distress was smaller for men than for women. The authors propose that violent men might feel more shame than violent women and, as a result, might be less satisfied with their relationships (Stith et al., 2008). Due to cultural factors among Caucasian Americans and Mexican Americans that typically ascribe a higher status to men than to women and due to men’s overall greater size and strength, women might be more likely to encounter severe outcomes when victimized. As a result, women might become more fearful and more dissatisfied with their relationships after having experienced IPV victimization than men (Caldwell, Swan, & Woodbrown, 2012). On the other hand, Ackerman and Field (2011) state that aggression may be more harmful to the quality of women’s romantic relationships than to the quality of men’s relationships, regardless of whether the male or the female partner is the perpetrator of this aggression. The authors claim that women, both as perpetrators and as victims, are more dissatisfied with their relationships as a result of IPV, possibly due to differences in the ways men and women are socialized. Since women are commonly socialized to value social relationships more than men, whereas men are commonly socialized to be more physical and aggressive in play than women, women may suffer more when their relationships are not going well, while men may not perceive hitting or slapping as large a social norms violation as women (Ackerman & Field, 2011). Finally, Amanor-Boadu et al. (2011), in a study with 668 college students, found that physical violence victimization was not associated with relationship quality for either men or for women.

Although previous research has examined how patterns of the IPV-relationship distress association might differ across gender, research exploring these patterns across different cultural groups is sparse. Among Latinas/os, gender is an important predictor of IPV, with women reporting greater risk for victimization than men and men reporting greater risk for perpetration (see Cummings, Gonzalez-Guarda, & Sandoval 2013 for a review), but no studies have investigated how gender may influence the IPV-distress association within this group. Cho, Velez-Ortiz, and Parra-Cardona (2014), in their sample of married women in three Latina/o subgroups – Mexicans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans – found that low levels of marital satisfaction and marital partnership (a variable associated with trust and understanding) were associated with greater risk for IPV victimization and that the more satisfied Latinas were with their marriage, the less likely they were to be victimized. Nonetheless, this study did not focus on newlyweds, both partners in a heterosexual marriage, or the longitudinal nature of the marital satisfaction-IPV relationship.

As can be seen, findings about the direction of gender influences in the IPV-relationship distress association remain inconclusive. This inconclusiveness might be due to the fact that previous studies do not take into account the influence of partners’ behaviors on one another. By looking at gender as a moderator of the aggression-distress association, researchers are unable to tease apart the influences that husbands’ and wives’ behaviors might have on themselves from the influences that their behaviors might have on their partners. Thus, it remains unclear whether the strength and direction of this association will be the same or different when looking at the association between husbands’ and wives’ IPV and their own or their partner’s levels of relationship distress.

The Present Study

To overcome the limitations of previous research it is important to examine the association between IPV and relationship distress in a context that takes into account individual as well as relationship influences. In order to statistically account for the influences that a partner has on an individual’s outcome, Kenny, Kashy, and Cook (2006) have proposed dyadic approaches using the couple as the unit of analysis, rather than the individual. The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny et al. 2006) estimates both, actor and partner effects, which allows the investigation of issues of mutual influence on an outcome variable through dyadic analysis (Martinez-Arango, 2013). Using the APIM, it is possible to assess the influence of an individual’s IPV on their own relationship distress (actor effect), as well as the influence of the individual’s IPV on their partner’s relationship distress (partner effect). This dyadic approach to the examination of gender influences in the aggression-distress association tells us more than past research that simply examined gender as a moderator in the aggression-distress association, in that it allows us to tease apart the inter-relatedness of partners’ behaviors.

In addition, it is important to examine the association between IPV and distress not only among majority-group Caucasian American couples, but also among groups that may differ, possibly due to cultural values, in terms of their perceptions of IPV and relationship distress. Mexican Americans are projected to make up 30% of the U.S. population by the year 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008) and will continue to constitutes the largest Latina/o subgroups in the U.S. Despite their demographic importance, little research is available that investigates the role of gender in the relationship between IPV and relationship distress among married couples in this ethnic/cultural group, nor how these patterns may differ from other ethnic/cultural groups. Individuals from collectivistic cultures have been found to generally be conflict-avoidant (e.g., Bermudez & Stinson, 2012) and to identify with a familistic orientation (Flores, Tschann, Vanoss Marin, & Pantoja, 2004). Among Mexican Americans, a familistic orientation includes an emphasis on familial obligations, the family as a source of emotional support, and that one’s behavior should meet with family expectations (Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, & Marín, 1987). Latinas/os, compared to other cultural groups, such as Caucasian Americans and Asian Americans, tend to report higher levels of familism (Campos, Ullman, Aguilera, & Dunkel-Schetter, 2014). Because the presence of IPV clearly contradicts the interpersonal values of harmony, respect for others, and an emphasis on the family that a collectivist orientation includes, it is useful to examine whether the relationship between IPV and distress differs between Mexican Americans, who traditionally tend to adhere to collectivistic values, and Caucasian Americans, who traditionally tend to adhere to individualistic values. Violent relationships may be perceived as especially troubling by Mexican American couples and may result in even higher relationship distress as compared to Caucasian American couples. Finally, in order to clarify the temporal nature of IPV and its association with relationship distress, collecting data at different time points is advantageous. A longitudinal design allows examination of whether an increase in distress follows from the experience of IPV or whether IPV follows from an increase in relationship distress.

Newlyweds are an appropriate sample for examining issues of relationship change as they are in a particularly formative period of their partnership. In the first years of their marriage, couples are more likely to experience dramatic changes in relationship quality (e.g., Neff & Karney, 2005). In addition, according to Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, and George (2001), newlyweds’ behaviors and changes in their union at the onset of marriage foreshadow long-term marital fate. Since previous research indicates that IPV tends to begin early in a relationship and to persist over time (e.g., Lawrence & Bradbury, 2001; Schumacher & Leonard, 2005), studying newlyweds might be particularly informative when examining intimate partner aggression.

The present study aimed to assess actor and partner effects of IPV victimization and romantic relationship distress among 100 heterosexual newlywed couples who provided data during the first and during the third year of marriage. Based on the results of previous research, it was hypothesized that for both men and women, higher levels of IPV victimization at the first year of marriage would predict higher levels in their own relationship distress (actor effects) and their partner’s levels of relationship distress (partner effects) at the third year of marriage. It was also predicted that the association between IPV and relationship distress would be stronger for female victimization due to the fact that the consequences that follow from male perpetration are more severe than those that follow from female perpetration. Finally, we aimed to explore the pattern of associations between IPV and distress among both Caucasian American and Mexican American husbands and wives. It was suspected that the pattern of associations (higher IPV related to higher distress) would be even stronger among Mexican Americans who are assumed to adhere to collectivist and familistic values.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The present study was reviewed and approved by the authors’ Institutional Review Board (IRB). Recruitment flyers were distributed in the community (posted to bulletin boards, cable community announcement TV station, ads in community papers, and through media advertisements, flyers, and in-person solicitation in Southern California). This material directed the participants to contact the study office for more information. After an initial screening to determine eligibility for the study, an appointment was made to conduct the interview. In order to be eligible for the present study, participants had to be 18 years of age or older, within the first 12 months of their first marriage, and both partners were required to identify themselves as being of the same ethnicity, either both Caucasian American or both Mexican American. Of those participants who were eligible, none refused participation or withdrew from the study once they began the study. Each partner was interviewed separately by trained research assistants during the first year and during the third year of marriage, either in face-to-face, telephone, or self-administered interviews. To be eligible for the third year interview couples had to be at least one day past their second wedding anniversary, thus, within their third 12 months of marriage. The average interview time in Year 1 was 40.92 minutes (SD=1.96) and 33.74 minutes (SD=12.32) in Year 3. As incentives, participants received $25 for the first interview and $45 for the second interview (for a total of $140/couple). All study materials were available in English and Spanish and in Year 1, 37 (28.46%) of Mexican American participants chose to complete the study in Spanish; in Year 3, 36 (27.69%) Mexican American participants chose to complete the study in Spanish.

During the first year, data from 139 heterosexual couples were collected and during third year, data from 101 heterosexual couples (plus three individuals whose partners did not participate in the study) were collected. While some couples provided information on the reasons for their separation, others simply could not be found. Analyses were conducted using data from those couples who participated in both rounds of data collection. Data from individuals whose partner did not participate in the study at Year 3 were excluded from the analyses. Descriptive statistics of those couples who only participated at Year 1 versus those who participated at Years 1 and 3 showed no significant differences. The final sample for analysis included 100 heterosexual couples (N = 200; one additional couple was found to never have been married and was thus excluded from the final sample for analysis.) At Year 1, husbands ranged in age from 19 to 58 years (M = 28.92, SD = 7.97) and wives ranged in age from 19 to 57 years (M = 27.56, SD = 8.08). Thirty-five percent of participants identified as Caucasian American and 65% of participants identified as Mexican American.

Materials

Intimate partner violence victimization (IPVV).

Intimate Partner Violence Victimization (IPVV) at the first year of marriage was assessed using the Aggression (AGG) subscale of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised (MSI-R; Snyder, 1997),which measures level of intimidation and physical aggression experienced by respondents from their current marital partners. It contains ten items (α = .74), covering two aspects of related content, namely, physical aggression and non-physical aggression or intimidation. Examples include, “My partner sometimes screams or yells at me when he or she is angry,” “My partner has left bruises or welts on my body,” and, “My partner has slammed things around or thrown things in anger.” For each item, participants indicated whether the statement was true (1) or false (0) of their current relationship. After reverse-scoring half of the items on the AGG scale, raw scores were summed, so that higher summed raw scores indicated higher levels of victimization. Afterwards, raw scores were converted to normalized T-scores, calculated separately for husbands and wives. The use of T-scores is customary for subscales of the MSI-R (please see Snyder, 1997). Husbands’ and wives’ IPVV normalized T-scores at the first year of marriage were used as the antecedents in the present study. IPV perpetration was not assessed in the current study. The correlation between husbands’ and wives’ IPV victimization was .18 (p = .08). Thirty-four couples (5 Caucasian American 29 Mexican American) indicated that both partners in the relationship experienced IPV victimization (as defined as one or more acts of IPV) and 15 couples (8 Caucasian Americans, 7 Mexican American) indicated that neither one of the two partners experienced IPV victimization (as defined as zero acts of IPV).

Relationship distress.

Relationship distress at the third year of marriage was assessed using the Global Distress (GDS) subscale of the MSI-R, which measures individuals’ overall distress or unhappiness in the relationship. It contains 22 items (α = .91), covering three aspects of related content, namely, pessimism regarding future of the relationship, general relationship distress, and unfavorable comparison to other relationships. Examples include, “I get pretty discouraged about our relationship sometimes,” “There are many things in our relationship that please me,” and, ”Our relationship is as successful as any that I know of.” For each item, participants indicated whether the statement was true (1) or false (0) of their current relationship. After reverse-scoring half of the items on the GDS scale, raw scores were summed, so that higher summed raw scores indicated higher relationship distress. Afterwards, raw scores were converted to normalized T-scores (see Snyder, 1997). Husbands’ and wives’ relationship distress normalized T-scores at the third year of marriage were used as the outcomes in the present study. The correlation between husbands’ and wives’ relationship distress was .40 (p < .001).

Previous research has shown the MSI-R to have adequate structural equivalence and good internal consistency over the 12 subscales for Caucasian Americans and Mexican Americans (Negy & Snyder, 2000). The internal consistency coefficients for the GDS and AGG scales are .90 and .89 for the English- and Spanish-language measures (GDS), and .88 and .79 for the English- and Spanish-language measures (AGG), respectively (Negy & Snyder, 2000).

Covariates.

Husbands’ and wives’ relationship distress normalized T-scores at the first year of marriage (calculated in the same way as relationship distress normalized T-scores at the third year of marriage) were included as covariates in all analyses. In addition, husbands’ and wives’ age and cohabitation status before marriage at Year 1 and education, income, and presence of children at Year 3 were included as covariates, as these variables could possibly confound the results (e.g., Dakin & Wampler, 2008; Luckey & Bain, 1970; Rollins & Feldman, 1970).

Because acculturation, defined as the extent to which individuals identify with their traditional values, norms, and behavioral patterns versus the values, norms, and behavioral patterns of the mainstream culture, has been found to be related to IPV and intimate relationship processes among Mexican Americans (e.g., Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano Vaeth, & Harris, 2007; Flores et al., 2004; Garcia, Hurwitz, & Kraus, 2005), this variable was included as a covariate in the analyses examining Mexican American couples. Acculturation was assessed with the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (ARMSA-II; Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995). Examples include, “I speak Spanish,” “I speak English,” and, “I enjoy speaking Spanish.” Participants indicated the degree to which 48 statements applied to them on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely often or almost always). Descriptive statistics for all study variables can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables for Caucasian and Mexican American Husbands and Wives

Caucasian Americans Mexican Americans
Husbands (n=35) Wives (n=35) Husbands (n=65) Wives (n=65)
Variable M SD Range M SD Range M SD Range M SD Range
AGG (Y1) 48.80a 8.09 40–67 42.74ab 5.11 40–56 49.89 8.56 40–73 48.20b 7.14 40–66
AGG (Y3) 48.49a 9.76 40–70 43.83ab 5.76 40–58 49.98 8.17 40–73 47.41b 7.37 40–66
GDS (Y1) 47.57 6.20 39–59 46.34b 6.23 39–59 49.49 5.96 39–63 50.18b 6.64 39–70
GDS (Y3) 48.09a 8.04 39–62 44.80ab 6.39 39–60 50.66 8.33 39–78 50.57b 8.57 39–79
Age 31.43b 7.57 21–52 29.57 8.92 20–54 27.57ab 7.91 19–58 26.48a 7.43 19–57
Acculturation -- -- -- -- -- -- −0.36 1.33 −3.19–2.05 −0.36 1.15 −2.71–1.86
Cohabitation % Yes 57.1 60.0 35.4 35.4
Children % Yes 42.9 45.7 52.3 52.3
Income Mode (%) $25,001 - $35,000 (25.7) $10,001 - $25,000 (25.7) $10,001 - $25,000 (32.3) $10,001 - $25,000 (30.8)
Education Mode (%) Some university (51.4) University graduate (65.7) Some university (49.2) Some university (44.6)
Open in a new tab

AGG = Aggression subscale of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised; GDS = Global Distress subscale of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised; Y1 = Year 1 of Marriage; Y3 = Year 3 of Marriage.

a

Significant gender differences;

b

Significant ethnic differences

Analytical Approach

A path-analytic approach was used to assess the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny et al., 2006). In Model 1, husbands’ IPVV at the first year of marriage and wives’ IPVV at the first year of marriage were added as antecedents and husbands’ relationship distress at the third year of marriage and wives’ relationship distress at the third year of marriage were added as outcome variables (see Figure 1). In addition, the control variables (see above) were entered into the models. To test whether actor and partner effects were significantly different for husbands and wives, we generated nested models by constraining paths to be equal and compared the constrained models with the baseline (unconstrained) models.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1.

Open in a new tab

IPV VICTIMIZATIONAND RELATIONSHIP DISTRESS.

Note * p =< .05, ** p< .01

In order to examine patterns across Caucasian American and Mexican American couples, two additional models were analyzed, examining these two ethnic groups separately. Model 2 was consistent with Model 1 except for the inclusion of only Caucasian American participants and Model 3 was consistent with Model 1 except for the inclusion of only Mexican American participants as well as the additional covariate of acculturation.

Because the basic APIM is a saturated model with zero degrees of freedom, statistic and descriptive goodness of fit indices for the three models described above are not reported in the results section to avoid redundancy. For basic APIM models, such as Models 1, 2, and 3, chi-square, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990), and Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR; Hu & Bentler, 1999) will always be zero and Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR; Hu & Bentler, 1999) will always be one (Cook & Kenny, 2005).

Results

Descriptive Analyses

As can be seen in Table 1, for Caucasian Americans, rates of IPV victimization remained relatively stable from Year 1 to Year 3 for husbands and increased slightly for wives. Relationship distress increased for husbands and decreased for wives. For Mexican Americans, rates of IPV victimization remained relatively stable for husbands and decreased slightly for wives. Relationship distress increased very slightly for husbands and for wives. Caucasian American husbands experienced more IPV victimization and were more dissatisfied with their relationships than Caucasian American wives. Similar findings did not emerge among Mexican American couples. In addition, Caucasian American wives experienced lower levels of IPV victimization and distress than Mexican American wives. These descriptive analyses may reveal that IPV and partners’ resulting relationship distress may be more gender asymmetric among Caucasian Americans than among Mexican Americans for whom rates tended to be rather gender-symmetric.

Linear regression analyses provide support for the examination of the direction of the IPV-distress association chosen in this study. When regressing distress at Year 3 on IPV victimization at Year 1, while controlling for initial levels of distress (as is the proposed direction for analyses in the present study), we found a significant positive association (β = .18, p = .14). However, when regressing IPV victimization at Year 3 on distress at Year 1, while controlling for initial levels of IPV victimization, we did not find a significant association (β = .12, p = .07). Thus, we decided to move forward with the proposed analyses.

For correlations between all main study variables, please refer to Table 2.

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix

AGG (Y1) AGG (Y3) GDS (Y1) GDS (Y3)
AGG (Y1) _ 0.57** 0.41** 0.30**
AGG (Y3) _ _ 0.33** 0.52**
GDS (Y1) _ _ _ 0.36**
GDS (Y3) _ _ _ _
Open in a new tab
**

p < .001; AGG = Aggression subscale of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised; GDS = Global Distress subscale of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised; Y1 = Year 1 of Marriage; Y3 = Year 3 of Marriage

Model 1: IPVV and Relationship Distress in the Overall Sample

Results of Model 1 partially support the hypothesis that higher levels of IPV victimization at the first year of marriage would predict increased levels of relationship distress at the third year of marriage. As can be seen in Figure 1, greater wife IPV victimization at the first year of marriage was associated with greater wife distress at the third year of marriage (β = .190, p = .050) and greater husband IPV victimization at the first year of marriage was associated with lower wife distress at the third year of marriage (β = −.224, p = .021). All other actor and partner effects were found to be non-significant. Comparing the constrained model with the baseline model revealed that the actor effects of IPV victimization and relationship satisfaction were not significantly different for husbands and wives (Δχ2 (12) = 20.04, p = .07). However, the partner effects of IPV victimization and relationship satisfaction were significantly different for husbands and wives (Δχ2 (12) = 28.62, p < .01).

Model 2: IPVV and Relationship Distress in the Caucasian American Sample

Results of Model 2 are not consistent with the results of Model 1, indicating that the associations between husbands’ and wives’ IPV victimization at the first year of marriage and husbands’ and wives relationship distress at the third year of marriage do not generalize across a solely Caucasian American sample (see Figure 1). More specifically, greater wife IPV victimization at the first year of marriage was associated with lower husband relationship distress at the third year of marriage (β = −.486, p = .008). All other actor and partner effects were found to be non-significant. Comparing the constrained model with the baseline model revealed that the actor effects of IPV victimization and relationship satisfaction were not significantly different for Caucasian American husbands and wives (Δχ2 (12) = 19.50, p = .08). However, the partner effects of IPV victimization and relationship satisfaction were significantly different for Caucasian American husbands and wives (Δχ2 (12) = 24.78, p = .02).

Model 3: IPVV and Relationship Distress in the Mexican American Sample

Results of Model 3 are also not consistent with the results of Model 1, indicating that the associations between husbands’ and wives’ IPV victimization at the first year of marriage and husbands’ and wives relationship distress at the third year of marriage do not generalize across a solely Mexican American sample (see Figure 1). We found a significant partner effect for wives to husbands, indicating that greater wife IPV victimization at the first year of marriage was associated with greater husband relationship distress at the third year of marriage (β = .219, p = .041). Comparing the constrained model with the baseline model revealed that both actor effects and partner effects of IPV victimization and relationship satisfaction were significantly different for Mexican American husbands and wives (Δχ2 (14) = 31.27, p < .01 and Δχ2 (14) = 24.51, p = .04, respectively).

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine the association between newlyweds’ IPV victimization and their romantic relationship and how this association might differ among wives versus husbands and among couples of two ethnic/cultural groups. Findings of our overall analyses, the APIM, partially support the hypotheses that there would be a positive association between IPV victimization and distress. In the overall sample, a significant actor effect in the expected direction emerged for wives, indicating that wives’ higher levels of victimization were associated with higher distress among wives. In addition, a significant partner effect in the opposite direction of what was expected emerged for husbands to wives, indicating that husbands’ higher levels of IPV victimization were associated with lower distress among wives. Thus, according to the current analyses, women who experience IPV victimization are more dissatisfied with their relationships; however, if their husbands experience IPV victimization, women are less dissatisfied. It is important to keep in mind that husbands’ and wives’ actor effects were not found to significantly differ from one another. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Caldwell et al., 2012), it is possible that wives who are physically or emotionally abused by their partners will see their partners in a less positive light and will, as a result, be less happy with their overall relationship.

When examining the patterns of associations within each group after the current sample was split by ethnicity (Caucasian Americans versus Mexican Americans), the same actor and partner effects detected in the overall sample did not emerge. In the solely Caucasian American sample, only one significant partner effect emerged for wives to husbands, indicating that wives’ greater IPV victimization was associated with lower relationship distress among husbands. Among Mexican Americans, the finding was opposite — wives’ greater IPV victimization was associated with husbands’ greater distress in the solely Mexican American sample.

The opposition in the direction of associations and the larger sample size of the Mexican American sample (in which the predicted positive association emerged) may account for the positive association between IPV victimization and distress observed in the overall sample. Caucasian men who perpetrate IPV (which is a behavior that is likely to go along with their wives’ levels of IPV victimization) were found to be less dissatisfied with their relationships.

Finally, a marginally significant actor effect for Mexican American wives was detected, indicating that higher wife victimization was associated with higher wife distress. This finding supports our predictions as well as previous research and also mirrors the effect detected in the overall sample. Thus, it is likely that general findings indicating that women’s IPV victimization is associated with their levels of relationship distress (e.g., Caldwell et al., 2012) is similar among both Mexican Americans and Caucasian Americans.

Possible Interpretations and Directions for Future Research

Future research may benefit from examining the mechanisms that may help explain the association between IPV victimization and relationship distress. It is possible that the counter-intuitive, negative associations between husbands’ higher victimization and wives’ lower distress in the overall sample as well as between wives’ higher victimization and husbands’ lower distress in the Caucasian American sample could be accounted for by perpetrators’ increased perceptions of power. Previous studies have found that partners’ higher perceptions of interpersonal power were associated with higher relationship satisfaction (Bentley, Galliher, & Ferguson, 2007). In addition, an association between women’s higher levels of IPV perpetration and lower distress with their relationships has been detected in at least one previous study (Ulloa & Hammett, 2015). However, future research is warranted to examine this mechanism and to clearly test the direction of the association between perceptions of power and IPV perpetration (i.e., do higher perceptions of power lead individuals to behave violently towards their partners or does partner violence increase perceptions of power or could these influences be bidirectional in nature?)

If future research finds support for the potential interpretation of power dynamics as a moderator in the IPV-distress association for men as well as for women, the present findings also hint at the possibility that women’s violence, just as men’s, may be influenced by such dynamics. If this is the case, the current findings provide support that the phenomenon of IPV among community couples may be rather gender-symmetric (compare “common couple violence;” Johnson, 2011). It is possible that this gender symmetry can be explained by an increase in contextual gender specialization as observed in increased gender equality in terms of employment and household obligations (see Mikucka, 2016). As men and women become more equal in society and other areas of their partnership, their perceptions of power and their use of violent behavior towards their partners may also become more equal.

Although male power and control are certainly also a component of Mexican American heterosexual relationships, the cultural collectivist and familistic orientations that characterize this group may help explain why parallel negative associations did not emerge in the Mexican American sample. Previous cross-cultural research has found that individuals from collectivistic cultures generally tend to be conflict-avoidant (e.g., Bermudez & Stinson, 2012). In addition, traditional Mexican American couples are likely to identify with a familistic orientation and adhere to the cultural values personalismo (a warm and personal way of relating to others), simpatico (emphasis on harmonious social relationships), and respeto (dignity and respect towards others; Flores et al., 2004). The perpetration of IPV neither adheres to this orientation nor to these values and thus, Mexican American husbands who perpetrate IPV may feel especially uncomfortable and may become more dissatisfied with their relationships as a result of IPV. Again, future research should test these possible cultural mechanisms.

Qualitative research with Caucasian and Mexican American couples in conflict may be useful. The rich exploration that focus groups or interviews could engender would be a good way to find out how much of the proposed explanations may hold true.

Limitations

Some factors may limit interpretation of the current findings. First, the overall sample of the current study was small, and when split by ethnicity, the sizes of the Caucasian and Mexican American sub-samples were even smaller. This small sample size could have led to Type II errors, particularly with regards to those findings that did not support the hypotheses. The small sample size also prevented us from comparing different kinds of violent couples (those in which only one partner was victimized versus those in which both or neither one of the two partners were victimized). In addition, data were collected at only two points in time, during the first and during the third year of marriage. Using a two-wave data collection design without the assessment of prior IPV (as done in the present study) only allows to assess the temporal nature of the IPV-relationship distress association if a couple has never experienced IPV in the past. If a couple has experienced IPV prior to the study period, exploration of the temporal nature of the IPV and relationship distress still remains limited. Furthermore, it might be particularly useful to collect data at earlier time points during a couple’s partnership, such as during the engagement period or even before then, to be able to assess potential risk factors of IPV. Likewise, it might be useful to collect data later in marriage. Partners’ life cycle might be related to the association between victimization and relationship distress in that it has generally been found that couples’ relationship satisfaction decreases as their marriages progress (at least until children leave the home; e.g., Lupri & Frideres, 1981), thus raising question about the influence of such decreases on levels of IPV.

Another limitation is the loss of subjects from Year 1 to Year 3. Those subjects who did not re-participate may have been more likely to be separated or may have had more chaos, etc. in their marriages and lives. Furthermore, the lack of assessment of IPV prior to when the study began limits the exploration of the temporal nature of the IPV-relationship distress association. If a couple has experienced IPV prior to the study period, it is not possible to know which came first, the IPV or the relationship distress. The measures of IPV and distress used in the present study provide some limitations in regards to the validity of their assessment. The current study relied solely on self-report measures, which might bias the findings detected here. In addition, the present study assessed IPV victimization but did not assess IPV perpetration. Although the measure clearly asked participants to report acts of violence received by their current marital partner (i.e., the partner who participated in the study with them), previous studies (e.g., Hamby, 2009; Marshall, Panuzio, Makin-Byrd, Taft, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2011) have found low to moderate rates of concordance between partners’ reports of IPV. It is also possible that other potentially confounding variables not assessed in the present study may influence the association between IPV and distress. Finally, it is unfortunate that variables such as gender roles, family orientation, and cultural values were not assessed in the present study, which prevents us from testing these variables as possible mechanisms underlying the IPV-distress association.

Practical Implications

The present findings may be useful to those working with intimate partners. Knowing about the mutual influence that violent partners have on one another and taking into account these influences when developing treatment plans might help practitioners to come up with the most effective interventions possible. Since the present findings show that the association between IPV and relationship distress was different for husbands and wives, it is important to take gender into account when treating male and female victims and perpetrators of IPV. Gender differences in the IPV-distress association may be due to men’s and women’s differential perceptions and interpretations of IPV. When treating violent partners, clinicians should address mediating factors of the IPV-distress association that may differ by gender, such as women’s fear resulting from the experience of IPV and men’s potential desire to exert control over their partner as well as their feelings of shame and guilt (Caldwell et al., 2012). However, as mentioned above, the phenomenon of IPV may be rather symmetrical, at least for some groups of couples. Thus, for clinicians, it appears particularly useful to assess the type of IPV a couple experiences and whether IPV is gender-symmetric versus asymmetric or unidirectional versus bidirectional. By doing so, clinicians can avoid unvalidated assumptions (e.g., assuming that the male partner would always be the perpetrator of IPV and the female partner would be the victim) and can design their treatments as efficiently as possible.

Furthermore, different patterns of associations emerged when looking at Caucasian and Mexican American couples separately. These findings support that culture and ethnicity may influence individuals’ relationships with others, including the relationships they have with their romantic partner. As outlined in the DSM-5 section on Cultural Formulation (APA, 2013), understanding the cultural context an individual is in is essential for effective clinical work. Thus, practitioners in the field of marriage and family therapy should consider adapting interventions based on couples’ specific cultural group. For example, Soto-Culp and DelCampo (1994) suggest guidelines for working with families from Mexican-American family systems. These guidelines could be applied to therapy with Mexican-American husbands and wives who experience relationship violence in their marriages. Similarly, Welland and Ribner (2010) describe culturally specific topics (e.g., changing gender roles, spirituality) that could enhance IPV interventions for Latino men.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Minority Research Infrastructure Support Program subcontract grant to Donna Castañeda-National Institute of Mental Health, Grant # 5R24 MH55515.

References

  1. Ackerman J & Field L (2011). The gender asymmetric effect of intimate partner violence on relationship satisfaction. Violence and Victims, 26(6), 703–724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amanor-Boadu Y, Stith SM, Miller M, Cook J, Allen L, & Gorzek M (2011). Impact of dating violence on male and female college students. Partner Abuse, 2(3), 323–343. [Google Scholar]
  3. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition), Cultural Formulation, pp. 749–759. Arlington, VA; American Psychiatric Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bentley CG, Galliher RV, & Ferguson TJ (2007). Associations among aspects of interpersonal power and relationship functioning in adolescent romantic couples. Sex Roles, 57(7–8), 483–495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bermudez JM, & Stinson MA (2012). Redefining conflict resolution styles for Latino couples: Examining the role of gender and culture. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 23(2), 71–87. [Google Scholar]
  6. Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Basile KC, Walters ML, Chen J, & Merrick MT (2015). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. American Journal of Public Health, 105(4), E11. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Caetano R, Ramisetty-Mikler S, Caetano Vaeth PA, & Harris TR (2007). Acculturation stress, drinking, and intimate partner violence among Hispanic couples in the U.S. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(11), 1431–1447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Caldwell JE, Swan SC, & Woodbrown V (2012). Gender differences in intimate partner violence outcomes. Psychology of Violence, 2(1), 42–57. [Google Scholar]
  9. Campos B, Ullman JB, Aguilera A, & Dunkel Schetter C (2014). Familism and psychological health: The intervening role of closeness and social support. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(2), 191–201. doi: 10.1037/a0034094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2012). Understanding teen dating violence. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/TeenDatingViolence2012-a.pdf
  11. Cho H, Velez-Ortiz D, & Parra-Cardona JR (2014). Prevalence of intimate partner violence and associated risk factors among Latinos/as: An exploratory study with three Latino subpopulations. Violence Against Women, 20(9), 1041–1058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cook WL, & Kenny DA (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cuellar I, Arnold B, and Maldonado R (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17(3), 275–304. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cummings AM, Gonzalez-Guarda RM, & Sandoval MF (2013). Intimate partner violence among Hispanics: A review of the literature. Journal of Family Violence, 28(2), 153–171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dakin J, & Wampler R (2008). Money doesn’t buy happiness, but it helps: Marital satisfaction, psychological distress, and demographic differences between low- and middle-income clinic couples. American Journal of Family Therapy, 36(4), 300–311. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fedovskiy K, Higgins S, & Paranjape A (2008). Intimate Partner Violence: How does it impact major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder among immigrant Latinas?. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 10(1), 45–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Flores E, Tschann JM, Vanoss Marin B, & Pantoja p. (2004). Marital conflict and acculturation among Mexican American husbands and wives. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10(1), 39–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Garcia L, Hurwitz EL, & Kraus JF (2005). Acculturation and reported intimate partner violence among Latinas in Los Angeles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(5), 569–590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. González-Guarda RM, Peragallo N, Vasquez EP, Urrutia MT, & Mitrani VB (2009). Intimate partner violence, depression, and resource availability among a community sample of Hispanic women. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 30(4), 227–236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hamby S (2009). The gender debate about intimate partner violence: Solutions and dead ends. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 1(1), 24. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hu L-T, & Bentler PM. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  22. Huston TL, Caughlin JP, Houts RM, Smith SE, & George LJ (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 237–252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson MP (2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 289–296. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Analyzing mixed independent variables: The actor-partner interdependence model. In Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (Eds.), Dyadic data analysis (pp. 144–184). New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lawrence E, & Bradbury TN (2001). Physical aggression and marital dysfunction: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 135–154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Luckey EB, & Bain JK (1970). Children: A factor in marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32(1), 43–44. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lupri E, & Frideres J (1981). The quality of marriage and the passage of time: Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 283–305. [Google Scholar]
  28. Marcus R (2012). Patterns of intimate partner violence in young adult couples: Nonviolent, unilaterally violent, and mutually violent couples. Violence and Victims, 27(3), 299–314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Marshall AD, Panuzio J, Makin-Byrd KN, Taft CT, & Holtzworth-Munroe A (2011). A multilevel examination of interpartner intimate partner violence and psychological aggression reporting concordance. Behavior Therapy, 42(3), 364–377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Martinez-Arango N (2013). Dating violence and condom use consistency: A dyadic approach. Unpublished master’s thesis for master’s degree, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mikucka M (2016). The Life Satisfaction Advantage of Being Married and Gender Specialization. Journal of Marriage and Family, online first publication, doi: 10.1111/jomf.12290 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Neff LA, & Karney BR (2005). To know you is to love you: The implications of global adoration and specific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 480–497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Negy C, & Snyder DK. (2000). Reliability and equivalence of the Spanish translation of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised. Psychological Assessment, 12, 425–430. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. O’Leary K, Barling J, Arias I, Rosenbaum A, Malone J, & Tyree A (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(2), 263–268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. 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(7), 689–699. [Google Scholar]
  36. Peltzer K, Pengpid S, McFarlane J, & Banyini M (2013). Mental health consequences of intimate partner violence in Vhembe district, South Africa. General Hospital Psychiatry, 35(5), 545–550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rogge RD, & Bradbury TN (1999). Till violence does us part: The differing roles of communication and aggression in predicting adverse marital outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67. 340–351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rollins BC, & Feldman H (1970). Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32(1), 20–28. [Google Scholar]
  39. Schumacher JA, & Leonard KE (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(1), 28–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Slep AMS, Foran HM, Heyman RE, Snarr JD, & Program UFAR (2015). Identifying unique and shared risk factors for physical intimate partner violence and clinically-significant physical intimate partner violence. Aggressive Behavior, 41(3), 227–241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Snyder D (1997). Manual for the Marital Satisfaction Inventory - Revised. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. [Google Scholar]
  42. Soto-Fulp S, & DelCampo RL (1994). Structural family therapy with Mexican-American family systems. Contemporary Family Therapy, 16(5), 349–362. [Google Scholar]
  43. Steiger JS (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Stith SM, Green NM, Smith DB, & Ward DB (2008). Marital satisfaction and marital discord as risk markers for intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 23(3), 149–160. [Google Scholar]
  45. Tang C, & Lai B (2008). A review of empirical literature on the prevalence and risk markers of male-on-female intimate partner violence in contemporary China, 1987–2006. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(1), 10–28. [Google Scholar]
  46. Testa M, & Leonard KE (2001). The impact of marital aggression on women’s psychological and marital functioning in a newlywed sample. Journal of Family Violence, 16(2), 115–130. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ulloa EC, & Hammett JF (2015). Temporal changes in intimate partner violence and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Welland C, & Ribner N (2010). Culturally specific treatment for partner-abusive Latino men: A qualitative study to identify and implement program components. Violence and Victims, 25(6), 799–813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES