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).

^aLinear LGM with slope loadings set to [0;1;2].

^bResidual variances set equal across time.

^cSlope variance set to [0].

^dResidual covariances not included.

^eResidual variances equal across time for husbands.

^fNonlinear LGM with slope loadings set to [0;free;2].

^*p < .05.

^***p < .001