Table 3. Husbands’ and Wives’ Demand–Withdraw Behaviors Over Time: Dyadic Latent Growth Curve Models (N = 127).
Husbands | Wives | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model fit | Intercept | Slope | Intercept | Slope | |||||
χ2(df), p | M | σ 2 | M | σ 2 | M | σ 2 | M | σ 2 | |
Blamea,b,c | 13.27(15), p = .58 | 2.73*** | 1.25*** | 0.08 | 3.40*** | 2.20*** | 0.20 | ||
Pressurea,b,c,d | 21.37(18), p = .26 | 2.66*** | 0.69*** | −0.02 | 3.37*** | 1.44*** | 0.05 | ||
Withdrawala,c,e | 17.14(13), p = .19 | 2.24*** | 0.75*** | 0.10 | 1.74*** | 0.43*** | 0.10 | ||
Couple | |||||||||
Avoidanceb,f | 2.41(2), p = .30 | 2.01*** | 0.50*** | 0.26*** | 0.18* |
Note: Results for blame, pressure, and withdrawal behavior are based on a series of dyadic latent growth curve models conducted for husbands and wives simultaneously. Results for avoidance behavior are based on a couple-level latent growth curve model (LGM; the dyadic LGM did not converge because of high correlations between husbands’ and wives’ avoidance behavior).
Linear LGM with slope loadings set to [0;1;2].
Residual variances set equal across time.
Slope variance set to [0].
Residual covariances not included.
Residual variances equal across time for husbands.
Nonlinear LGM with slope loadings set to [0;free;2].
p < .05.
p < .001