Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2025 Feb 6;39(3):371–377. doi: 10.1037/fam0001318

Did the COVID-19 Pandemic Increase Intimate Partner Aggression Among Married Couples?

Julia F Hammett 1, Benjamin B Haggerty 2, Cynthia A Stappenbeck 3, Benjamin R Karney 2, Thomas N Bradbury 2
PMCID: PMC11961313  NIHMSID: NIHMS2057439  PMID: 39913441

Abstract

Discrepant theoretical perspectives assert that challenges brought on by COVID-19 could either increase or decrease intimate partner aggression (IPA) between spouses. As reliance on retrospective or post-COVID-19 data cannot resolve these competing views, we turn to a sample of established mixed-sex married couples (N = 223) who provided six waves of pre-COVID-19 data and three waves of post-COVID-19 data. We examined whether the onset of COVID-19 affected IPA and whether any such changes were more pronounced for some couples than for others. Replicating prior research, dyadic piecewise regression showed that IPA declined significantly over time prior to COVID-19; these declines continued following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Post-COVID-19 IPA intercepts were reliably lower than pre-COVID-19 intercepts, and the proportion of couples reporting any IPA dropped by 20% after the pandemic onset. Lastly, post-COVID-19 IPA intercepts tended to be higher when, prior to the onset of COVID-19, spouses reported more IPA, less relationship satisfaction, and more stress, suggesting continuity rather than disruption in predictors of IPA. Thus, on average, among established mixed-sex married couples, (a) IPA declined over time, including from before to after COVID-19 onset, and (b) post-COVID-19 levels of IPA were predictable from pre-COVID-19 couple functioning.

Keywords: Couples, COVID-19 pandemic, dyadic data, intimate partner aggression, marriage

The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated shutdowns and shortages resulted in unprecedented stress around the world (Evans et al., 2020). Quarantines and social distancing measures aimed at slowing the rate of infection placed unique demands on families and couples (Pietromonaco & Overall, 2020), who were forced to spend more time together within the constraints of their dwellings. Although media reports and early studies highlighted dramatic pandemic-related increases in rates of intimate partner aggression (IPA) (e.g., Parrott et al., 2022), subsequent reviews (e.g., Bhuptani et al., 2023) cast doubt on this conclusion, even arguing that IPA may have declined over the course of the pandemic.

These discrepant findings beg the question: In the face of an unprecedented disruption like COVID-19, are partners more likely to engage in aggression towards one another, or do they find constructive ways to respond to one another despite increased stress? On one hand, we can deduce from family stress models (e.g., Conger & Elder, 2020) that COVID-19 would lead to increased IPA insofar as the chronic stress and uncertainty associated with the pandemic affected couples’ internal capacities (e.g., conflict resolution skills; emotion regulation abilities) and external (e.g., social/communal support; financial means) resources. A robust body of literature supports connections between stress and psychological (e.g., Shortt et al., 2013) as well as physical IPA (e.g., Schwab-Reese et al., 2016) (for an overview, see Eckhardt & Parrott, 2017), with some evidence specifically highlighting the detrimental effects of COVID-specific stressors (Parrott et al., 2022). On the other hand, principles of social exchange (e.g., Blau, 1964) and basic premises of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1979) argue that partners might value their interdependence and the secure base that they mutually provide one another, with shelter-in-place restrictions providing new opportunities for solidarity, support, and dyadic coping (e.g., Bodenmann, 2005). Indeed, some families reported greater closeness and stronger bonds during the pandemic (Evans et al., 2020). This closeness, in turn, might promote increased relationship satisfaction, which has been found to correlate with lower risk for IPA (Hammett et al., 2021).

The present study aims to shed light on these discrepant findings and the divergent conceptual perspectives that support them. Although the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the experiences of diverse couples and families were variable, several features of the present work allow us to make reasonably robust inferences about any such effects. First, our sample is drawn from a parent project (for more information, please see Jackson et al., 2017) that aimed to examine marital trajectories among young couples in Los Angeles, and is composed of a fairly uniform group of couples living in low-income communities recruited as first-time newlyweds in 2009 and subsequently followed over time. Second, despite this uniformity, the sample represents a population typically underrepresented in research, with 82% identifying as Hispanic. Third, our sample includes both members of the couple, allowing us to draw on dyadic data that account for the interdependence of partners’ behaviors. Fourth, and most critically, unlike virtually all prior studies linking COVID-19 to IPA, we draw from a prospective multi-wave longitudinal study comprised of six waves of data collected prior to the onset of the pandemic and three waves of data collected following the onset of the pandemic. Multiple waves of pre-COVID-19 data allow us to account for the fact that, even prior to the onset of the pandemic, relationship dynamics (e.g., relationship satisfaction, romantic competence; Young et al., 2011) change over time, allowing us to examine how ongoing changes in these dynamics may have been altered early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Situating our study among a sample of socioeconomically vulnerable and racially and ethnically diverse couples is particularly advantageous, as IPA and its many correlates tend to be overrepresented in these couples (Garcia et al., 2021), who also experienced negative outcomes associated with COVID-19 at disproportionate rates (Magesh et al., 2021).

Building on evidence that IPA tends to decrease during the early years of marriage (e.g., Lawrence & Bradbury, 2007), our first aim was to determine whether IPA would continue to decline, or whether those declines would slow (see Chiaramonte et al., 2023) or even reverse (see Piquero et al., 2021) following COVID-19 onset. Our second aim was to test whether partners reporting higher pre-COVID-19 levels of IPA, lower satisfaction, and higher stress would show higher levels of post-COVID-19 IPA intercepts and slower declines in post-COVID-19 IPA. Null results here would indicate that COVID-19 exerted a unique and qualitatively distinct effect on IPA, overriding potent pre-COVID-19 influences of pre-existing IPA, satisfaction, and stress.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study. The sampling procedure was designed to yield first-married newlywed couples in which both partners were of the same ethnicity (i.e., Hispanic, African American, or White)1, living in neighborhoods with a high proportion of low-income residents in Los Angeles County. Recently married couples were identified through names and addresses on marriage license applications. Addresses were matched with census data to identify applicants living in lower-income communities, defined as census block groups wherein the median household income was no more than 160% of the 1999 federal poverty level for a 4-person family. Couples were telephoned and screened to ensure that they were married, that neither partner had been previously married, and that both spouses identified as Hispanic, African American, or White. A total of 3,793 couples were contacted through addresses listed on their marriage licenses; of those, 2,049 could not be reached and 1,522 (40%) responded to the mailing and agreed to be screened for eligibility. Of those who responded and agreed to be screened for eligibility, 824 couples were screened as eligible, and 658 of those couples agreed to participate in the study, with 431 couples actually completing the baseline assessment within the data collection window. This sample size was determined to address the hypotheses of the larger project from which the current data were drawn.

To examine whether the onset of COVID-19 affected trajectories of IPA, couples who did not have post-COVID-19 data were excluded from the current analyses, resulting in a final analytic sample of N = 223 couples (446 individuals). Among this analytic sample, at baseline, marriages averaged 4.6 months in duration (SD = 2.4) and 34% of couples had children. Husbands’ mean age was 28.3 years (SD = 5.7) and wives’ mean age was 26.6 years (SD = 4.8). Couples had a median household income of $52,000 (M = $62,166, SD = $44,267). Most husbands (75%) and wives (67%) did not have a college degree. One-hundred and eighty-two couples (82%) were Hispanic, 16 couples (7%) were African American, and twenty-five couples (11%) were White.

The current study uses 9 timepoints, with data collection beginning in 2009 and ending in 2022. Couples were no longer interviewed if they reported that they had separated or divorced (N = 145 couples by T9). Times 1 through 4 were collected during the newlywed years: Time 1 (T1/baseline) was collected at the beginning of marriage (N = 431); Time 2 (T2) was collected 9 months post-baseline (N = 400); Time 3 (T3) was collected 18 months post-baseline (N = 384); Time 4 (T4) was collected 27 months post-baseline (N = 366). Times 5 through 9 involved longer-term follow-ups with Times 7, 8, and 9 occurring after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. (T5: 105 months post-baseline, N = 270; T6: 119 months post-baseline, N = 246; T7: 129 months post-baseline, N = 237; T8: 137 months post-baseline, N = 237; T9: 144 months post-baseline, N = 223). At T1-T6, couples were visited in their homes by two interviewers who took spouses to separate areas to obtain informed consent and orally administer self-report measures. T7-T9 data were collected over the phone. Couples were debriefed and paid $75 for T1, $100 for T2, $125 for T3, $150 for T4, $150 for T5, $180 for T6, $120 for T7, $150 for T8, and $200 for T9. The RAND Corporation Institutional Review Board approved all procedures.

Measures

Intimate partner aggression.

Husband and wife IPA were assessed with 14 items (7 items assessing perpetration and 7 items assessing victimization) drawn from the revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996) that included the following acts: swearing at partner; stomping out of the room after an argument; threatening to hit partner; throwing something at partner; pushing, grabbing, or shoving partner; slapping, kicking, biting, or punching partner; and beating partner. For each item, participants were asked if they had engaged in the act described (i.e., perpetration) and if their spouse had engaged in the act described (i.e., victimization). If they indicated that an act had happened, participants were asked to indicate the number of times it had occurred, with the response options being 1 (Once or twice), 2 (Several times), and 3 (Often).

Before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (T1-T6), couples were asked to report the frequency of IPA during the last 9 months. At T7, couples were asked about the frequency of IPA “since the lockdown began on March 19” which, depending on when couples completed their interview, ranged from about 4 to 10 months (M = 6.37, SD = 1.51 for husbands; M = 6.42, SD = 1.54 for wives). At T8 and T9, couples were asked about the frequency of IPA since the last assessment (M = 8.23, SD = 0.66 and M = 7.21, SD = 0.84 for husbands at T8 and T9; M = 8.22, SD = 0.61 and M = 7.21, SD = 0.78 for wives at T8 and T9). Thus, to bring all IPA assessments onto the same time interval, T7-T9 IPA scores were rescaled onto 9-month intervals. To control for underreporting, maximum reported perpetration scores (created by comparing individual reports of perpetration and partner reports of victimization and using the higher of the two) were used for all analyses.

In many prior studies, psychological and physical aggression are examined separately. However, in the present sample, we concluded that there was no empirical basis for this separation based on the following: There was low endorsement of the items assessing physical aggression, particularly beating one’s partner. Moreover, results of exploratory factor analyses indicated no distinct factors for psychological vs physical aggression. Thus, scores on all individual male-to-female and female-to-male aggression items were summed to yield total cumulative indices of husband-perpetrated and wife-perpetrated IPA, respectively. Data from all 9 timepoints were included in the current study.

Relationship satisfaction.

Relationship satisfaction was assessed by averaging responses on an 8-item questionnaire. Five items asked how satisfied individuals were with certain areas of their relationship (e.g., “satisfaction with the amount of time spent together”) and were scored on 5-point scales (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied). Three items asked the degree to which individuals agreed with a statement about their relationship (e.g., “how much do you trust your partner”) and were scored on 4-point scales (1 = not at all, 2 = not that much, 3 = somewhat, 4 = completely). Items on 5-point scales were divided by 5 and items on 4-point scales were divided by 4, so the final 8-item measure had a maximum score of 1.0. The data point collected immediately pre-COVID-19 (i.e., T6) was included in the current study. Coefficient alpha was .81 for husbands and .77 for wives.

Chronic stress.

Chronic stress was assessed via a 10-item questionnaire adapted from Hammen et al. (1987). Items asked about participants’ perceptions of the stressfulness of a number of life domains (e.g., participants’ living situation, financial status) since the last assessment. Items were scored on a scale from 0 (Not at all stressful) to 2 (Extremely stressful), and then summed to create cumulative husband and wife stress indices.2 The data point collected immediately pre-COVID-19 (i.e., T6) was included in the current study.

Data Analytic Plan

Path analyses were conducted in Mplus Version 8.8 (Muthén, & Muthén, 2017). Missing data were handled by using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR). To examine how trajectories of IPA changed from before to after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we tested a piecewise Latent Growth Curve Model (LGCM). IPA scores at T1-T6 were used to estimate pre-COVID-19 husband and wife IPA intercept and slope variables (centered at T1) and IPA scores at T7-T9 were used to estimate post-COVID-19 husband and wife IPA intercept and slope variables (centered at T7). Intercept and slope variables were allowed to correlate. Additionally, to account for the non-independence of partners’ data, husband and wife variables and residuals were allowed to correlate in all models (see Kenny et al., 2006). Finally, residual variances for the post-COVID-19 slope indicators had to be constrained to be equal because without doing so the post-COVID-19 slope variances were negative.

To address Aim 1, examining changes in IPA trajectories from pre- to post-COVID-19 onset, we ran a base model without any predictors (Model 1). We then compared the husband and wife pre-COVID-19 intercept and slope means and variances to the husband and wife post-COVID-19 intercept and slope means and variances using Wald tests. To address Aim 2, examining vulnerability and stress predictors of post-COVID-19 IPA trajectories, we ran Actor-Partner-Interdependence Models (APIM) (Kenny et al., 2006) regressing the husband and wife post-COVID-19 IPA slopes on husband and wife T6 IPA (Model 2a), husband and wife T6 relationship satisfaction (Model 2b), and husband and wife T6 chronic stress (Model 2c). To determine overall model fit, we assessed the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990) and the Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR; Hu & Bentler, 1999). All data, materials, and analysis code for this study are available by emailing the corresponding author. Some of the current analyses were preregistered at https://osf.io/nvu58.

Results and Discussion

Descriptive Statistics

Within-person correlations between IPA scores from T1 to T9 were statistically significant for husbands’ (median r = .52) and for wives’ (median r = .55) IPA, as were correlations between husbands’ and wives’ IPA scores at each timepoint (median r = .68), lending validity to these reports. As shown in Table 1, husbands’ IPA scores were reliably higher when husbands (T2 to T9) and wives (T2 to T9) reported less satisfaction and when husbands (T3, T4, T6 to T9) and wives (T1 to T7, T9) reported more stress. Similarly, wives’ IPA scores were reliably higher when husbands (T2, T4 to T9) and wives (T6 to T9) reported less satisfaction and when husbands (T4 to T9) and wives (T3 to T9) reported more stress. Satisfaction and stress were negatively correlated for husbands (r = −.30, p < .01) and wives (r = −.38, p < .01), replicating prior findings (e.g., Karney et al., 2005).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Descriptive Statistics Correlations with
Variables N M SD % Yes T6 Satisfaction T6 Stress
Husbands Wives Husbands Wives
Husband IPA
 T1 223 1.62 1.57 75.8 −.08 −.05 .09 .14*
 T2 215 1.32 1.47 64.2 −.24** −.18** .10 .19**
 T3 213 1.18 1.45 58.2 −.21** −.21** .22** .18**
 T4 209 1.11 1.37 53.1 −.29** −.28** .18* .22**
 T5 207 1.30 1.44 61.4 −.22** −.23** .14 .17*
 T6 208 1.24 1.35 63.0 −.29** −.36** .20** .25**
 T7 199 1.27 1.90 44.2 −.27** −.33** .23** .17*
 T8 205 0.87 1.28 43.4 −.29** −.27** .26** .10
 T9 204 0.94 1.49 39.7 −.15* −.17* .24** .24**
Wife IPA
 T1 223 2.27 2.38 80.7 −.10 −.07 .13 .13
 T2 215 1.73 2.12 70.2 −.15* −.07 .11 .13
 T3 213 1.67 2.02 65.3 −.13 −.09 .15 .14*
 T4 209 1.55 1.92 61.2 −.22** −.13 .19** .14*
 T5 207 1.71 1.82 71.5 −.18** −.13 .18** .18**
 T6 208 1.59 1.85 65.4 −.33** −.32** .22** .29**
 T7 199 1.70 2.35 49.7 −.26** −.23** .18* .20**
 T8 204 1.15 1.64 47.5 −.31** −.29** .30** .23**
 T9 203 1.15 1.70 44.8 −.18* −.19** .29** .29**
Open in a new tab

Note. IPA = Intimate partner aggression, T = Time. T1 through T6 data were collected prior to the onset of COVID-19; T7 through T9 data were collected following the onset of COVID-19. % Yes = Percentage of participants who endorsed one or more aggressive acts.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01

Aim 1: Changes in IPA Trajectories from Pre- to Post-COVID-19

As shown in Table 2, husbands’ IPA slopes declined in the period prior to COVID-19 (T1 to T6; slope = −.05) and again in the period following the onset of COVID-19 (T7 to T9; slope = −.13); these slope values did not differ (p(Wald) = .19, ns). Wives’ IPA slopes also declined prior to COVID-19 (slope = −.10) and following the onset of COVID-19 (slope = −.23); the latter was slightly steeper (with the difference approaching statistical significance; p(Wald) = .07), hinting at the possibility that COVID-19 may have accelerated declines in wives’ IPA. Table 2 also shows that IPA intercept values declined reliably from pre- to post-COVID-19 onset for husbands (1.40 to 1.15, p(Wald) = .04) and for wives (1.98 to 1.55, p(Wald) = .01).

Table 2.

Results of Piecewise Regression Base Model of IPA Trajectories (Hypothesis 1)

Variable Pre-COVID-19 IPA Post-COVID-19 IPA Pre- vs Post-COVID-19
Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Wald
Husband Intercept
 Mean 1.40** 0.10 1.15** 0.12 4.36*
 Variance 1.63** 0.30 2.21** 0.51 1.29
Husband Slope
 Mean −0.05* 0.02 −0.13* 0.06 1.75
 Variance 0.05* 0.02 0.20 0.11 2.20
Wife Intercept
 Mean 1.98** 0.15 1.55** 0.15 7.29**
 Variance 4.08** 1.02 3.44** 0.62 0.44
Wife Slope
 Mean −0.10** 0.03 −0.23** 0.07 3.39
 Variance 0.12** 0.04 0.20 0.17 0.22
Open in a new tab

Note. IPA = Intimate partner aggression, S.E. = Standard Error. Unstandardized estimates are shown.

RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .08.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01

Further evidence that COVID-19 generated declines in IPA comes from data on the percentage of participants who endorsed at least one aggressive act (see Table 1, % Yes): In the six waves prior to COVID-19 onset, an average of 63% of husbands endorsed any IPA (range = 53% to 76%), which dropped to an average of 42% following the onset of COVID-19 (range = 40% to 44%). Similarly, an average of 69% of wives endorsed any IPA prior to COVID-19 (range = 61% to 81%), which dropped to an average of 47% following the onset of COVID-19 (range = 45% to 50%). Moreover, the “% Yes” endorsements declined from the final pre-COVID-19 assessment (T6) to the first post-COVID-19 assessment (T7), from 63% to 44% for husbands and from 65% to 50% for wives.

Aim 2: Predictors of Post-COVID-19 IPA Trajectories

As shown in Table 3, post-COVID-19 IPA intercepts tended to be higher when spouses reported more IPA, less satisfaction, and more stress at T6; of twelve possible effects here, ten were statistically significant. Slope effects were less robust, but husbands’ and wives’ declines in IPA following the onset of COVID-19 were steeper to the extent that wives reported greater IPA at T6. Although counter-intuitive, this pattern may reflect a regression to the mean effect such that the higher in IPA a couple was pre-COVID-19, the more potential they had to decline in IPA over time (see Muthén, 2008). Alternatively, it is possible that couples who were once more aggressive in private could no longer be as aggressive because they were confined to their homes, with their children and other family members around at all times. Future research is needed to explore these possibilities.

Table 3.

Results of Actor Partner Interdependence Models Examining the Effects of Pre-COVID-19 (T6) IPA, Satisfaction, and Stress on Post-COVID-19 IPA (Hypothesis 2)

Outcome Husband IPA Intercept Husband IPA Slope Wife IPA Intercept Wife IPA Slope
Predictor Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E.
Model 2a
 T6 Husband IPA 0.54** 0.11 −0.01 0.08 −0.01 0.13 0.09 0.10
 T6 Wife IPA 0.22* 0.10 −0.09* 0.04 0.79** 0.12 −0.19* 0.08
Model 2b
 T6 Husband Satisfaction −3.05* 1.44 0.54 0.82 −4.54** 1.56 0.99 0.77
 T6 Wife Satisfaction −3.85** 1.40 1.32 0.67 −2.94* 1.44 0.61 0.60
Model 2c
 T6 Husband Stress 1.16** 0.40 −0.11 0.18 1.11* 0.51 0.07 0.22
 T6 Wife Stress 0.47 0.41 0.09 0.21 1.23* 0.53 −0.08 0.22
Open in a new tab

Note. IPA = Intimate partner aggression, S.E. = Standard Error. Unstandardized estimates are shown.

Model 2a: RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .12; Model 2b: RMSEA = .10, SRMR = .23; Model 2c: RMSEA = .10, SRMR = .24.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01

General Discussion

The present study used multiple waves of prospective dyadic data to clarify whether the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic generated changes in trajectories of IPA among established married couples. While family stress models and associated empirical findings suggest that COVID-19 might accelerate rates of aggressive behavior in couples, we found instead that ongoing declines in IPA prior to COVID-19 continued after the onset of the pandemic, that IPA intercepts dropped reliably from pre- to post-COVID-19, and that the proportion of couples reporting any IPA declined by roughly 20%. These findings therefore align more closely with models that emphasize ‘tending and befriending’ in the face of stress (Taylor, 2012), thereby highlighting the support and secure bases that partners naturally provide for one another (Bodenmann et al., 2005; Bowlby, 1979). It is also possible that the pandemic led to fewer overall interactions between partners, for example because partners were quarantining from one another or because partners spent more time with other family members (e.g., their children or their parents), thus leading to fewer opportunities to be aggressive towards one another.3 Finally, post-COVID-19 IPA intercepts were reliably predicted from pre-COVID-19 IPA, stress, and satisfaction, consistent with the view that the global pandemic did not fundamentally transform low-IPA partners into aggressors.

Key strengths of our study include a diverse sample, multiple waves of data collected prospectively before and after COVID-19 onset, and dyadic data, with the latter allowing us to use both partners’ reports to estimate IPA trajectories. In addition to key limitations related to the relatively small sample and reliance on self-report data, arguably the most important limitation of this study lies in constraints on the generalizability of our findings. The current sample was specifically targeted and included couples who joined the parent project as newlyweds in 2009. Thus, we cannot know whether similar processes unfolded for couples in less established partnerships, couples from other ethnicities, interracial couples, couples not living in Los Angeles County, and couples living in more socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods. Based on prior research on IPA epidemiology (see Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020), it is reasonable to expect that married couples from non-White, urban, low-income backgrounds might differ in IPA outcomes relative to those who are non-married, White, suburban, or higher-income. Moreover, because the marriages of couples with more severe IPA may have dissolved, our results may generalize primarily to low-IPA couples. In more distressed samples, psychological and physical IPA might produce distinct effects, which did not emerge in the current sample, where most IPA was verbal and emotional in nature, with only some instances of mild physical IPA. Indeed, in light of evidence from crime and medical reports showing that severity of abuse increased during the pandemic (e.g., Gosangi et al., 2020), it remains possible that IPA may have increased among the most vulnerable couples.

Accordingly, we echo Pietromonaco and Overall’s (2021) call for greater attention to the interpersonal and extradyadic factors driving couples’ heterogeneous responses to COVID-19 and the need to study couples from a wider set of backgrounds. For example, social distancing measures may have fostered isolation by trapping couples at home, limiting access to social support systems such as family and friends as well as access to resources such as couple counseling or shelters (for a rapid review, see Mohajed et al., 2021). Research of this sort will be especially valuable for adding specificity to models (e.g., the Vulnerability Stress Adaptation Model; Karney & Bradbury, 1995) that posit unmoderated links between circumstances external to couples’ relationship dynamics and the adaptive processes that couples deploy to manage those circumstances. Moreover, exploring extradyadic factors such as social and geographic isolation may be particularly valuable among marginalized populations (such as low-income couples) who face overlapping social discriminations due to their race, gender, class, etc., which could directly decrease their access to resources and increase their risk of IPA.

Transparency and Openness.

We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study.

All data, analysis code, and research materials are available by emailing the corresponding author. Data were analyzed using Mplus, Version 8. Some of the current analyses were preregistered at https://osf.io/nvu58

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD076566) awarded to Benjamin R. Karney.

Footnotes

The research presented in this manuscript has not been disseminated previously. Data on intimate partner aggression from earlier waves of the data collection used in the current analyses have been published previously (Hammett et al., 2018; 2021a; 2021b); however, there are no previous publications that include intimate partner aggression data from all nine waves.
  • Hammett, J. F., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2018). Longitudinal effects of increases and decreases in intimate partner aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 32, 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000351
  • Hammett, J. F., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2021a). When does verbal aggression in relationships covary with physical violence? Psychology of Violence, 11, 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000311
  • Hammett, J. F., Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2021b). Intimate partner aggression and marital satisfaction: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, NP1463–1481NP. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517747607

We have no conflict of interest to disclose.

1

The parent project did not include interracial couples in the sample because (a) these couples likely face unique issues and (b) at the time of data collection, they represented only a relatively small proportion of the low-income married population.

2

Although both the original CTS2 and UCLA Life Stress Interview evidence solid psychometric properties (see Hammen et al., 1987; Straus et al., 1996), we do not report coefficient alpha for IPA and stress in the present study as these constructs were treated as cumulative indices, with data reflecting different behavioral acts that are not necessarily expected to be correlated (see Cortina, 1993; Follingstad, 2017), rather than unidimensional constructs.

3

Exploratory analyses showed that changes in the amount of time spent together and number of other people in the household were not significantly associated with post-COVID IPA intercepts and slopes in the current sample (b’s ranging from |0.01| to |0.04|, all p’s > .05). It is possible that this lack of significant associations is due to limited power, or that these variables did not provide an accurate measure of private space; thus additional research is needed before ruling out this hypothesis.

References

  1. Bhuptani PH, Hunter J, Goodwin C, Millman C, & Orchowski LM (2023). Characterizing intimate partner violence in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24, 3220–3235. 10.1177/15248380221126187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blau PM (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bodenmann G (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In Revenson TA, Kayser K, & Bodenmann G (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–49). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/11031-002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bowlby J (1979). The Bowlby-Ainsworth attachment theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 637–638. 10.1017/S0140525X00064955 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chiaramonte D, Simmons C, Hamdan N, Ayeni OO, López‐Zerón G, Farero A, Sprecher M, & Sullivan CM (2023). The impact of COVID‐19 on the safety, housing stability, and mental health of unstably housed domestic violence survivors. Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 2659–2681. 10.1002/jcop.22765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Conger RD, & Elder GH (2020). Family stress and adaptation: Reviewing the evidence. In Conger RD (Ed.), Families in troubled times (pp. 255–268). Routledge. 10.4324/9781003058809 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cortina JM (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Eckhardt CI, & Parrott DJ (2017). Stress and intimate partner aggression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 153–157. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.09.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Evans S, Mikocka-Walus A, Klas A, Olive L, Sciberras E, Karantzas G, & Westrupp EM (2020). From “it has stopped our lives” to “spending more time together has strengthened bonds”: The varied experiences of Australian families during COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 588667. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.588667 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Follingstad D (2017). The challenges of measuring violence against women. Sourcebook on Violence Against Women, 57–78. Los Angeles: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gracia E, Marco M, López-Quílez A, & Lila M (2021). Chronic high risk of intimate partner violence against women in disadvantaged neighborhoods: An eight-year space-time analysis. Preventive Medicine, 148, 106550. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106550 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gosangi B, Park H, Thomas R, Gujrathi R, Bay CP, Raja AS, Seltzer SE, Balcom MC, McDonald ML, Orgill DP, Harris MB, Boland GW, Rexrode K, & Khurana B (2021). Exacerbation of physical intimate partner violence during COVID-19 pandemic. Radiology, 298, E38–E45. 10.1148/radiol.2020202866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hammen C, Adrian C, Gordon D, Burge D, Jaenicke C, & Hiroto D (1987). Children of depressed mothers: Maternal strain and symptom predictors of dysfunction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 190–198. 10.1037/0021-843X.96.3.190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hammett JF, Lavner JA, Karney BR, & Bradbury TN (2021). Intimate partner aggression and marital satisfaction: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, NP1463–1481NP. 10.1177/0886260517747607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hardesty JL, & Ogolsky BG (2020). A socioecological perspective on intimate partner violence research: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82, 454–477. 10.1111/jomf.12652 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Jackson GL, Krull JL, Bradbury TN, & Karney BR (2017). Household Income and Trajectories of Marital Satisfaction in Early Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79, 690–704. 10.1111/jomf.12394 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Karney BR, & Bradbury TN (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Karney BR, Story LB, & Bradbury TN (2005). Marriages in context: Interactions between chronic and acute stress among newlyweds. In Revenson TA, Kayser K, & Bodenmann G (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 13–32). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/11031-001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lawrence E, & Bradbury TN (2007). Trajectories of change in physical aggression and marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 236–247. 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Magesh S, John D, Li WT, Li Y, Mattingly-App A, Jain S, Chang EY, & Ongkeko WM (2021). Disparities in COVID-19 outcomes by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 4, e2134147–e2134147. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.34147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Muthén BO (2008, August 4). Negative covariate on negative slope. Mplus Discussion. http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/14/3447.html?1511553069 [Google Scholar]
  24. Muthén LK., & Muthén BO (2017). Mplus user’s guide (Eighth Edition). Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mojahed A, Brym S, Hense H, Grafe B, Helfferich C, Lindert J, & Garthus-Niegel S (2021). Rapid review on the associations of social and geographical isolation and intimate partner violence: implications for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 578150. 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.578150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Parrott DJ, Halmos MB, Stappenbeck CA, & Moino K (2022). Intimate partner aggression during the COVID-19 pandemic: Associations with stress and heavy drinking. Psychology of Violence, 12, 95–103. 10.1037/vio0000395 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Pietromonaco PR, & Overall NC (2021). Applying relationship science to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic may impact couples’ relationships. American Psychologist, 76, 438–450. 10.1037/amp0000714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Piquero AR, Jennings WG, Jemison E, Kaukinen C, & Knaul FM (2021). Domestic violence during COVID-19: Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 74, 101806. 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Schwab-Reese LM, Peek-Asa C, & Parker E (2016). Associations of financial stressors and physical intimate partner violence perpetration. Injury Epidemiology, 3, 1–10. 10.1186/s40621-016-0069-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Shortt JW, Capaldi DM, Kim HK, & Tiberio SS (2013). The interplay between interpersonal stress and psychological intimate partner violence over time for young at-risk couples. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 619–632. 10.1007/s10964-013-9911-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Steiger JS (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. 10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, & Sugarman DB (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. 10.1177/019251396017003001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Taylor SE (2012). Tend and befriend theory. In Van Lange PAM, Higgins ET, & Kruglanski AW (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 32–49). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  34. Young BJ, Furman W, & Laursen B (2011). Models of change and continuity in romantic experiences. In Fincham FD & Cui M (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 44–66). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES