Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Violence. 2015 Jun 11;30(8):977–986. doi: 10.1007/s10896-015-9743-5

Discrepant Alcohol Use, Intimate Partner Violence, and Relationship Adjustment among Lesbian Women and their Relationship Partners

Michelle L Kelley 1, Robin J Lewis 2, Tyler B Mason 3
PMCID: PMC4607288  NIHMSID: NIHMS699494  PMID: 26478657

Abstract

This study examined the association between relationship adjustment and discrepant alcohol use among lesbian women and their same-sex intimate partners after controlling for verbal and physical aggression. Lesbian women (N = 819) who were members of online marketing research panels completed an online survey in which they reported both their own and same-sex intimate partner’s alcohol use, their relationship adjustment, and their own and their partner’s physical aggression and psychological aggression (i.e., verbal aggression and dominance/isolation). Partners’ alcohol use was moderately correlated. Discrepancy in alcohol use was associated with poorer relationship adjustment after controlling for psychological aggression and physical aggression. Results are discussed in terms of the similarity and differences with previous literature primarily focused on heterosexual couples.

Keywords: lesbian women, same-sex intimate partner violence, relationship adjustment

The most recent Institute of Medicine report (Institute of Medicine, 2011) on sexual minority health documented that, compared to heterosexual individuals, those with same-sex partners have higher rates of substance use and alcohol consumption. Although considerable research has examined discrepant drinking patterns, relationship adjustment, and intimate partner violence (IPV) among heterosexual partners (e.g., Leadley, Clark, & Caetano, 2000), far less research has examined these associations among lesbian women and their same-sex intimate partners. Given the heightened risk of hazardous drinking (based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994] criteria of drinking 4 or more drinks in a two-hour period) among lesbian women (e.g., Cochran & Mays, 2009; McCabe, Hughes, Bostwick, West, & Boyd, 2009) and levels of IPV that are equal to or greater than heterosexual women (see Messinger, 2014; Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2013 for reviews), it is important to examine whether discrepancies in alcohol use are associated with relationship adjustment. In this study, we begin to address the gap in knowledge regarding whether discrepancy in alcohol use among lesbian women and their same-sex intimate partners is associated with relationship adjustment among lesbian couples after controlling for partner physical and psychological aggression.

Alcohol Use among Lesbian Women

Alcohol use has been shown to be consistently higher among lesbian as compared to heterosexual women (e.g., Wilsnack et al., 2008). Using data from the 2004–2005 Wave 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), McCabe et al. (2009) found rates of past year binge drinking (four or more drinks in a period of two hours or less) and alcohol dependence were 20.1% and 13.3% among lesbian women, compared to 8.4% and 2.5% of heterosexual women, respectively. Similarly, the one-year prevalence rate for likely alcohol dependence was 4.7% among lesbian women versus 2.8% for exclusively heterosexual women who participated in the California Quality of Life Survey (Cochran & Mays, 2009). Relative to heterosexual women, lesbian women are more likely to socialize in venues such as bars and clubs that often promote alcohol use (e.g., Hughes, 2005; Wilsnack et al.). Furthermore, while risky alcohol use tends to decline from early to middle adulthood, hazardous alcohol use and drinking disparities increase for lesbian and bisexual women during this same period (e.g., Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2009).

Few studies have examined whether discrepancy in alcohol use among lesbian women and their relationship partners may be associated with relationship adjustment. The paucity of research is especially notable given the long history of research on heterosexual couples that, consistent with social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), shows partners may co-create environments that promote, maintain, or exacerbate alcohol use (see Fischer & Wiersma, 2012, for a review; Homish & Leonard, 2006, 2007). The lack of attention to drinking partnerships among lesbian women is also of concern given that the percentage of lesbian women in intimate relationships is similar to that of heterosexual women. Specifically, using data from the State of California’s 2003 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Tobacco Survey, and the 2001, 2003, and 2005 waves of the California Health Interview Survey, Carpenter and Gates (2008) reported 51% to 62% of lesbian women aged 18 to 59 are in relationships; this estimate compares to 62% of heterosexual women of similar ages.

Alcohol Use, Intimate Partner Violence, and Relationship Adjustment among Heterosexual Couples

Extensive theoretical and empirical literature on heterosexual partners has shown that alcohol use is linked to physical and verbal aggression (e.g., Dawson, Grant, Chou, & Stinson, 2007; Homish & Leonard, 2007; Leonard, 2005; Stuart, O’Farrell, & Temple, 2009) and breakups (e.g., Torvik, Røysamb, Gustavson, Idstad, & Tambs, 2013). Although few studies have investigated the link between alcohol use and partner violence among lesbian women, Goldberg and Meyer (2013) found that both heterosexual and bisexual women, who reported binge drinking daily or weekly, were more likely to report physical assault or sexual violence in their relationships. Moreover, Eaton et al. (2008) reported a non-significant trend for lesbian women with a history of IPV (i.e., physical assault, destruction of property, psychological aggression, sexual coercion, and threats of revealing one’s partner’s sexual orientation) to have clinically meaningful scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Saunders, Aasland, Babor, de la Fuente, & Grant, 1993). Furthermore, in a study of women who have sex with women, Glass et al. (2008) reported physical partner violence was associated with current or ex-partner alcohol misuse.

Although a number of processes have been used to explain this relationship, the psychopharmacological effects of alcohol may disinhibit aggression and directly or indirectly contribute to psychological aggression and physical abuse (Giancola, 2000; Pernanen, 1991; Shorey, Stuart, & Cornelius, 2011). More specifically, when intoxicated, alcohol use interferes with one’s primary cognitive ability by limiting the capacity to take in as much information from our surroundings as when not drinking heavily. That is, the user may focus on one aspect of the situation and be unable consider other aspects such as the surrounding, social norms, and so forth. Furthermore, secondary cognitive abilities may be impacted and reduce the user’s ability to read the situation rationally and speak clearly (i.e., the user may be unable to discuss the situation calmly; Pernanen).

Other research has supported the association between alcohol and violence. Retrospective reports of alcohol use and violence demonstrated that drinking within three hours of an argument predicted female college students’ use of verbal and physical aggression (Shook, Gerrity, Jurich, & Segrist, 2000). Similarly, among college women, the odds of being involved in physical aggression increased by 11.84, and the odds of being involved in verbal aggression increased by 2.25 on heavy drinking days (i.e., more than four drinks; Parks, Hsieh, Bradizza, & Romosz, 2008). Furthermore, Fischer et al. (2005) found episodes of heavy drinking resulted in modest increases in negative interactions and disagreements later that same day. In a study of 19,997 Norwegian couples, heavy drinking was associated with future marital dissolution; however, it is important to note that the odds of divorce were twice as high when the female (3.07) versus the male (1.51) partner was the heavy drinker (Torvik et al., 2013).

Although literature on heterosexual couples has focused mostly on quantity of alcohol use or alcohol problems as related to physical aggression, discrepancy in partner drinking may also be key to relationship problems. For instance, heterosexual couples in which both partners were categorized as alcohol dependent based on an instrument that included Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., rev.; DSM-III; American Psychiatric Association, 1987) symptoms of alcohol dependence reported more positive marriages compared to discordant couples (McLeod, 1993). In a longitudinal study of 418 newlywed couples, Homish and Leonard (2005) examined patterns of marital satisfaction among congruent nondrinkers, congruent drinkers who typically drank with their partners, and congruent drinkers who typically drank apart from their spouses. Although the pattern of martial decline was similar for men in each group, women who typically drank with their spouses showed less declines in marital satisfaction over time relative to nondrinkers.

Similar results were found in a cross-sectional sample of New Zealand adults. Couples who reported the highest number of drinking occasions with their partner in the previous 12 months were most likely to indicate they were happy in their relationship. As the number of heavy drinkers in the couple increased, the likelihood of being happy in the relationship declined (Meiklejohn, Connor, & Kypri, 2012). Thus, it appears that, among heterosexual couples, frequent (but not heavy) drinking is associated with better relationship quality (Roberts & Linney, 2000), whereas heavy levels of alcohol use and alcohol use disorders, and wives or both partners’ alcohol abuse, may have stronger associations with relationship satisfaction and dissolution. Specifically, Leadley et al. (2000) found discrepant drinking couples were 3.1 times more likely to have experienced intimate partner violence in the previous year as compared to abstaining couples. Discrepant drinking also predicted heterosexual women’s relationship satisfaction after controlling for her partner’s physical and verbal aggression (Kelly & Halford, 2006).

Alcohol Use and Partner Physical and Psychological Aggression among Lesbian Woman and their Same-Sex Intimate Partners

A growing body of research has also documented the co-occurrence of alcohol use and physical and psychological partner violence among women who have sex with women (i.e., Bimbi, Palmadessa, & Parsons, 2008; Lewis, Milletich, Kelley, & Woody, 2012). In a study of women who had sex with other women, Glass et al. (2008) found an increase in physical violence was associated with a partner or ex-partner who misused alcohol. Similarly, in a sample of 104 lesbian women, Schilit, Lie, and Montagne (1990) reported that 37% of their respondents were in abusive relationships. Of those in violent relationships, 64% of both batterers and victims reported using alcohol or drugs prior to or during the incidents of battering.

In one of the few studies to examine emotional abuse and substance use with lesbian women, Lockhart, White, Causby, and Isaac (1994) found lesbian women who reported verbal abuse with their same-sex intimate partners reported significantly greater likelihood of arguing over their partner’s alcohol/drug use as compared to women with no verbal abuse in their relationships. Moreover, a recent review demonstrated the importance of psychological aggression and health outcomes in Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual samples (see Mason et al., 2014).

Schumacher and Leonard (2005) found that verbal aggression predicted physical aggression and lower relationship satisfaction 1 to 2 years after couples had applied for marriage licenses. Moreover, O’Leary (1999) argued that psychological aggression has as strong, if not stronger, an impact on domestic violence victims. Furthermore, Marshall (1999) found that men’s subtle psychological aggression had stronger and more consistent relationships with women’s self-esteem, psychological symptoms, and relationship perceptions than did overt psychological, physical, and sexual aggression. In a recent study, both psychological aggression victimization and prior physically aggressive relationships predicted women’s reports of more frequent perpetration of physical aggression toward their same-sex relationship partners (Milletich, Gumienny, Kelley, & D’Lima, 2014). Given that psychological aggression and physical aggression may be associated with relationship adjustment, both were examined in the present study.

The Present Study

Although discrepant drinking patterns between heterosexual partners has been clearly linked to intimate partner violence and dissatisfaction, this association has not, to our knowledge, been examined among lesbian women and their partners. We chose to focus on young women (ages 18 to 35) given that for many emerging and young adults, time and energy are devoted to partners, and friendships tend to wane as romantic partners quickly become the most important close relationship (Collins, 2003; Collins & Laursen, 2004; Steinberg & Monahan, 2007).

Based on the findings for heterosexual partners, we hypothesized that discrepancy in partners’ alcohol use (i.e., number of standard drinks per week as compared to partners’ standard drinks per week), as reported by lesbian women for themselves and for their same-sex intimate partners, would be associated with poorer relationship adjustment after controlling for reports of partner physical and psychological aggression. Our decision to control for partner aggression is based on the notion that the association between alcohol use discrepancy and relationship satisfaction may be an artifact of verbal conflict and aggression; that is, partner verbal and physical aggression may in part stem from differences in alcohol use (Kelly & Halford, 2006). As a result, it is important to determine if discrepant alcohol use is associated with relationship satisfaction independently of partners’ psychological and physical aggression that no doubt also contributes to relationship adjustment.

Method

Participants

Self-identified lesbian women were recruited from several online market research panels. Criteria for participation were that the women: (a) self-identified as lesbian; (b) were between 18 and 35 years of age; (c) were in a romantic or dating relationship with a same-sex intimate partner for at least three months (see Table 1 for a description of types of relationships); and (d) reported seeing their partner in person at least once monthly. Potential participants were invited to take part in a study about “your experiences as a lesbian, your relationships with others, and your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.” In exchange for completing this survey, participants received incentives consistent with the market research firm’s structure such as points that could be exchanged for gift cards or cash payments into an account. The survey took approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Table 1.

Demographics of Sample

Variable n %
Ethnicity
 White 648 79.1
 African American 73 8.9
 American Indian and Alaska Native 6 0.7
 Asian 35 4.3
 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 2 0.2
 Some other race alone 35 4.3
 Two or more races 11 1.3
 Prefer not to answer 9 1.1
Highest educational level
 High school graduate 35 4.3
 Some college 165 20.1
 Associate’s degree 64 7.8
 Bachelor’s degree 333 40.7
 Master’s degree 173 21.1
 Doctoral/professional degree 47 5.7
 Missing 2 0.2
Annual income
 < $50,000 342 41.8
 $50,000 to < $100,000 287 35.0
 $100,000 to < $150,000 115 14.0
 > $150,000 39 4.8
 Declined to answer 36 4.4
Relationship status
 Single, dating in a casual relationship 26 3.2
 Single, dating in a serious relationship 38 4.6
 Partnered, in a casual relationship 27 3.3
 Partnered, in a committed relationship 524 64.0
 Partnered, married, or in a civil union 189 23.1
 Other 15 1.8
Cohabitating with partner
 Yes 600 73.3
 No 217 26.5
 Missing 2 0.2
Frequency of physically seeing partner
 Daily 634 77.4
 A few times a week 86 10.5
 Once or twice a week 44 5.4
 A few times a month 28 3.4
 Monthly 27 3.3
Sexual orientation
 Only homosexual/lesbian 582 71.1
 Mostly homosexual/lesbian 219 26.7
 Other 18 2.2
 Prefer not to answer 4 0.5
Lifetime sexual behaviora
 Women only 310 37.9
 Women and men 504 61.5
 No one 1 0.1
 Prefer not to answer 4 0.5
Past year sexual behaviorb
 Women only 776 94.7
 Women and men 35 4.3
 No one 5 0.6
 Prefer not to answer 3 0.4
Sexual attraction
 Only women 463 56.5
 Mostly women 351 42.9
 Prefer not to answer 5 0.6
Open in a new tab

Note. N = 819.

a

Participants were asked, “During your lifetime, with whom have you had sex?”

b

Participants were asked, “During the past year, with whom have you had sex?”

Sixty percent (60%) of participants who received the e-mail invitations and met eligibility requirements completed the survey (N = 1051). For the present study, only data from respondents who indicated that they and their partners had consumed alcohol in the last three months were included in the analyses that follow. A total of 228 participants indicated that they (n = 60), their partner (n = 19), or both (n = 149) had not consumed alcohol in the past three months and were excluded from the analyses. In addition, data were excluded from four participants who reported drinking more than 100 drinks per week. After removing non-drinkers and outliers, the final sample included 819 lesbian women. Demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

Measures

Daily Drinking Questionnaire

Participants reported their own and their partners’ alcohol use using the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ; Collins, Parks, & Marlatt, 1985). Participants were shown a chart that defined one standard drink as 12 oz. beer, 1 ½ oz. of liquor, or 5 oz. of wine and depicted a picture of each. They used the DDQ 7-day grid to report: 1) the average number of ‘standard’ drinks they consumed in the past three months, and 2) the average number of ‘standard’ drinks consumed by their same-sex intimate partners in the past three months. Participant responses for each day of the week were summed, yielding a total score for typical drinks per week for themselves and their partners. The DDQ has good convergent validity and test–retest reliability (Collins et al., 1985; Collins & Lapp, 1992).

Revised Conflict Tactics Scale-2

The Conflict Tactics Scale-2 (CTS-2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) is an expanded version of the original CTS. For the purposes of the present study, we examined data from the physical assault subscale. The CTS-2 measures physical aggression victimization (i.e., how often their partner committed acts of physical aggression toward them) in the past year. Sample items include “My partner slapped me,” “My partner grabbed me,” and “My partner beat me up.” Participants responded to 12 items indicating the frequency of physical aggression victimization during the past year using count-based anchors ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times). The reliability and validity of the CTS-2 has been demonstrated previously with lesbian women (Matte & Lafontaine, 2011; McKenry, Serovich, Mason, & Mosack, 2006). Cronbach’s alpha in the current study was .89.

Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory

The Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI; Tolman, 1989) measures past-year partner psychological aggression with two 7-item subscales (i.e., dominance-isolation and emotional-verbal violence). The dominance-isolation subscale assesses monitoring and controlling behaviors and isolation from resources (e.g., “My partner monitored my time and made me account for my whereabouts”). The emotional-verbal subscale includes behaviors such as verbal attacks, withholding emotional resources, and demeaning actions (e.g., “My partner called me names,” “My partner treated me as an inferior”). In the case of participants who reported that their relationship was less than a year, they reported on psychological aggression that had occurred since they begin their current relationship. Participants responded to items by indicating the frequency of dominance/isolation and emotional/verbal violence during the past year using a scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (very frequently). Balsam, Rothblum, and Beauchaine (2005) established the reliability of the PMWI among lesbian women. Cronbach’s alpha for the dominance/isolation and emotional/verbal violence subscales in this study were .78 and .87, respectively.

Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale

Participants completed the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS; Busby, Christensen, Crane, & Larson, 1995) to assess relationship adjustment. The RDAS is a 14-item revised version of the original Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) that assesses 3 of the 4 original DAS subscales: dyadic consensus (agreement on matters such as demonstrations of affection, conventionality; correct or proper behavior); dyadic satisfaction (e.g., “How often do you discuss terminating your relationship?”; “How often do you and your partner ‘get on each other’s nerves?’”); and dyadic cohesion (e.g., “Do you and your partner engage in outside interests together?”). Busby et al. demonstrated strong factor loadings for each of the scales and good concurrent validity with the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; Locke & Wallace, 1959). In addition, both the RDAS and DAS correctly distinguished 81% of distressed (i.e., individuals seeking marital therapy and who scored above both of the recommended cutoffs for dyadic stress on the DAS and the MAT) from non-distressed individuals (i.e., a convenience sample who scored below the DAS and MAT cutoff scores for distress). Internal consistency and Guttman and Spearman-Brown split-half reliability coefficients were reported for each of the subscales and the overall RDAS. Internal consistency for the present study was α = .82.

Results

The data were analyzed for missing data patterns. Approximately 98% of respondents had complete data for all items; approximately .31% of data points were missing. Missing values were imputed using the expectation-maximization algorithm. Alcohol quantity discrepancy was calculated by taking the absolute value of subtracting the participant’s number of standard drinks per week from their partner’s standard drinks per week. For example, if a participant reported that their partner consumed 10 standard drinks and they consumed 7 standard drinks, then their discrepancy score would be 3 standard drinks. Participants reported on average that they consumed 8.56 (SD = 8.10) drinks per week and partners consumed 8.01 (SD = 9.04) drinks per week. Although the means appear to show that participants and their partners drink the same amount per week, the mean discrepancy in drinks per week between participants and their partners was 4.51 (SD = 7.59). Descriptive information and correlations for the study variables are provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Pearson Correlations among Study Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Relationship adjustment - −.32** −.45** −.53** −.02 −.12** −.08* −.22**
2. Physical assault - .45** .55** .01 .08* .24** .23**
3. Partner dominance/isolation aggression - .63** −.03 .20** .19** .27**
4. Partner emotional/verbal aggression - .10** .15** .21** .24**
5. Relationship length (in years) - −.07 −.10** −.08*
6. Self alcohol quantity - .48** .50**
7. Partner alcohol quantity - .54**
8. Alcohol quantity discrepancy -
M 44.42 .92 1.76 3.53 3.65 8.56 8.01 4.51
SD 6.56 3.33 2.92 4.19 3.13 8.10 9.04 7.59
Minimum 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .25 1.00 1.00 0.00
Maximum 59.00 34.00 21.00 26.00 17.83 60.00 85.00 81.00
Skewness −1.10 5.70 2.65 1.69 1.33 2.29 3.76 4.88
Kurtosis 2.35 38.67 8.40 3.27 1.61 7.39 22.93 34.73
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01.

A bootstrapped multiple regression with 1,000 resamples was conducted of relationship quality on the partner aggression variables (i.e., physical aggression, emotional-verbal, and dominance-isolation), relationship length, self alcohol quantity, partner alcohol quantity, and alcohol quantity discrepancy (see Table 3). Bootstrapping was applied to the regression analysis due to non-normality of variables (see Table 2 for skewness and kurtosis; Efron & Tibshirani, 1993). The variance inflation factor (VIF) was examined to detect multicolinearity using criteria of VIF > 5 as potential multicolinearity (Chatterjee & Yilmaz, 1992). All VIF values were less than 5 with the highest value being 2.00, suggesting that multicolinearity was not present. Both types of psychological aggression examined (i.e., partner emotion/verbal aggression and dominance/isolation aggression), and alcohol quantity discrepancy, were significantly associated with poorer relationship adjustment. Greater partner alcohol quantity was significantly associated with better relationship adjustment. The model explained 32% of the variance in relationship quality and demonstrated a large effect size.

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Predicting Relationship Satisfaction

B β CI R R2 F
Partner physical aggression −.04 −.02 [−.25, .17] .56 .32 53.68*
Partner dominance/isolation aggression −.38 −.17 [−.59, −.13]
Partner emotional/verbal aggression −.64 −.41 [−.79, −.49]
Relationship length .05 .02 [−.08, .16]
Self alcohol quantity −.01 −.01 [−.07, .06]
Partner alcohol quantity .09 .12 [.03, .15]
Alcohol quantity discrepancy −.11 −.13 [−.19, −.04]
Open in a new tab

Note. For predictors, CIs that do not include 0 are significant.

*

p < .001.

Discussion

We sought to examine whether discrepancy in alcohol use between lesbian women and their same-sex intimate partners would be associated with lower relationship adjustment after controlling for reports of their partners’ physical aggression and psychological aggression. We controlled for partner aggression based on the notion that the association between alcohol use discrepancy and relationship adjustment may in part stem from differences in alcohol use (Kelly & Halford, 2006).

As predicted, and consistent with findings for heterosexual couples (e.g., Kelly & Halford, 2006), discrepancy in partners’ alcohol use was significantly associated with poorer relationship adjustment after controlling for physical and psychological aggression. This finding is of note as psychological aggression has been associated with poorer relationship quality among lesbian women (Matte & Lafontaine, 2011) and has been shown to be one of the strongest predictors of relationship problems in heterosexual couples (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; O’Leary, 1999; Schumacher & Leonard, 2005). This result was expected given that marriages in which male partners drink heavily and their female partners do not are often marked by relationship distress (Halford, Price, Kelley, Vouma, & Young, 2001).

In addition, higher levels of partner psychological aggression (i.e., emotional/verbal aggression and dominance/isolation) were associated with poorer relationship adjustment. This finding is consistent with previous research that found a strong negative relationship between relationship satisfaction and psychological aggression among lesbian women (Lewis, Milletich, Derlega, & Padilla, 2014). Furthermore, Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montagne, & Reyes (1991) argued that the alienation and isolation experienced by some lesbian and bisexual women may be associated with feelings of loss of control. Hoskins (1986) contends that individuals high in dominance are more likely to use verbal means to attempt to control their relationship partners. Although our data do not allow us to determine directionality, verbal aggression and dominance/isolation were moderately correlated. Furthermore, our results are similar to those of Lockhart et al. (1994) who found lesbian women who experienced verbal abuse in their relationships reported significantly greater likelihood of arguing over their partners alcohol/drug use.

Previous research with heterosexual (e.g., Shortt, Capaldi, Kim, & Laurent, 2010) and lesbian participants (e.g., Balsam & Szymanski, 2005) demonstrated that physical aggression was associated with lower relationship quality. Similarly, in the present study the bivariate correlation between these variables was significant. Yet, when physical aggression was entered in the multiple regression along with other variables, it was not significantly associated with relationship quality. These results are consistent with Kelly and Halford (2006) who found that partner verbal aggression and disparities in partners’ alcohol use predicted 65.8% of the variance in relationship satisfaction. However, individual alcohol consumption of each partner and partner physical aggression were not associated with relationship quality when verbal aggression and alcohol discrepancy were entered into a multiple regression. It seems that among heterosexual and lesbian women with same-sex intimate partners, physical aggression is associated with poorer relationship adjustment when physical aggression is considered alone. When both physical and psychological aggression are considered together, however, psychological aggression is a stronger predictor of relationship adjustment. It has been suggested that controlling behaviors and verbal aggression characterize relationships in which physical aggression is present (Matte & LaFontaine, 2011). If this is the case, this would explain the lack of association between physical aggression and relationship adjustment after controlling for psychological aggression. Another explanation for this finding is that our model became saturated (see Rauer, Karney, Garvan, & Hou, 2008). In this case, as the number of risk factors in the model increase, additional variables have less impact on relationship adjustment.

In some ways, our results parallel the long history of research with heterosexual couples that has examined concordance in partner alcohol use and the association between alcohol use and intimate partner violence. For instance, as demonstrated in previous research with heterosexual couples (see Fischer & Wiersma, 2012, for a review; Homish & Leonard, 2006), partners’ alcohol use was moderately correlated.

In contrast to what was expected, higher alcohol use by one’s partner was associated with better relationship adjustment in the multiple regression. In part, this finding may be explained by the argument made by Roberts and Linney (2000) that frequent (but not heavy) drinking is associated with higher relationship quality, whereas heavy levels of alcohol use and alcohol use disorders are associated with relationship dissatisfaction and dissolution. In addition, lesbian women tend to drink more than heterosexual women (for a review, see Hughes, 2011). Because lesbian women tend to drink more than heterosexual women, it is possible that lesbian women have higher perceived norms about alcohol use (i.e., descriptive norms). If descriptive norms for alcohol use are higher among lesbian women, they may not perceive their same-sex intimate partners’ alcohol use as heavy, which may account for the association between higher alcohol use and better relationship adjustment.

Another possible explanation for the unexpected direction of the association between partner alcohol use and relationship adjustment is that including the violence measures in the multivariate regression caused the regression coefficient of partner drinking to change to a positive sign. Because the correlations between other predictors in the model and relationship satisfaction were significantly different from zero and the correlations between partner drinking and the other predictors in the model were significantly different from zero, the conditions for positive net suppression were met (Darmawan & Keeves, 2006). Thus, the sign change for partner drinking may be explained as positive net suppression; that is, the zero-order correlation between partner drinking and relationship adjustment was negative, but in the multivariate model the sign for partner drinking changed from negative to positive (Darmawan & Keeves). Furthermore, according to Darmawan and Keeves, partner drinking is suppressing the error variance in the other predictors and not influencing relationship satisfaction greatly.

Study Limitations

Although this is the first study to examine associations between psychological and physical aggression, alcohol use, and relationship adjustment in a large sample of lesbian women, there are several notable limitations. The data are cross-sectional, thus we cannot establish causality nor the temporal order of relationships. In addition, participants reported on their drinking and their same-sex intimate partners’ alcohol use. These reports may be subject to under or over-reporting. Although the majority of the sample saw their partners daily or a few times a week, we included women who saw their partners less frequently. It is likely that reports of their partners’ alcohol use may have been less accurate for women who saw their partners infrequently.

Furthermore, while the sample included 171 women of color, most women were White. Future research should attempt to oversample women of color. In addition, most participants were middle to high income. Thus, our method of recruitment (via online research panels) may exclude those who cannot afford computers or internet services. We targeted emerging adult and young adult lesbians, most of whom reported they were ‘not too worried’ or ‘never hesitated’ to disclose their sexual orientation. In addition, all participants had a same-sex intimate partner. Thus, our results may not generalize to older lesbian women, those less open about their sexuality, or those who are not in relationships with same-sex partners.

Clinical Implications

The association between partners’ drinking quantity and both psychological aggression and relationship adjustment is important to understanding lesbian women’s individual health and has implications for improving the quality of lesbian women’s relationships. Specifically, clinicians who work with lesbian women around issues of hazardous drinking must be aware of the association between partners’ drinking. To reduce an individual’s problem drinking, primary care physicians and other treatment providers should be encouraged to ask relevant questions to assess partner drinking as well as to consider involving partners in treatment to reduce hazardous drinking. In addition, clinicians who treat lesbian couples must recognize that discrepancy in drinking between partners may be more important than either partner’s individual alcohol use. Effective efforts to address relationship conflict and aggression among lesbian women should include the role of alcohol in relationship dynamics.

Future Research Directions

Our results extend the literature on discrepant alcohol use from heterosexual relationships to same-sex intimate partnerships. Previous research with heterosexual couples shows that dating partners may co-create environments or drinking contexts that promote or exacerbate alcohol use. Thus, partners may reinforce initial drinking behaviors or create “contagion” or socialization effects (Fischer & Wiersma, 2012; Fleming, White, & Catalano, 2010; Homish & Leonard, 2006). In fact, Mushquash et al. (2013) found bidirectionality in partner alcohol influences in emerging adult dating partners over a 28-day period. Research is needed to examine whether young lesbian women may change their alcohol use to align with their partners.

Although our results suggest that discrepant drinking patterns are associated with poorer relationship adjustment, it is important to ascertain the underlying mechanism to determine how this pattern creates relationship problems. As Kelly and Halford (2007) suggest, perhaps couples’ discrepant drinking creates disagreement or one partner’s heavy drinking creates additional stress as the other partner assumes more responsibility. Increased understanding of this underlying mechanism will provide useful information for couples’ intervention and treatment. In addition, given that lesbian women appear to use more alcohol than heterosexual women (Cochran & Mays, 2009; McCabe et al., 2009), understanding how descriptive norms are associated with alcohol use, and potentially problematic alcohol use, is important.

Conclusion

Among lesbian women who were part of online marketing research panels, discrepancy in alcohol use between their own and their same-sex intimate partners was associated with relationship adjustment, after controlling for psychological and physical aggression, such that greater discrepancy was associated with lower relationship adjustment. Importantly, results suggest both similarities and differences with previous literature on heterosexual couples and the need for additional research on dyadic satisfaction and alcohol use among lesbian women and their same-sex intimate partners. Clinical treatment providers may also use the results of this study to inform and deliver culturally informed treatment for lesbian women.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism under the NIH Award Number R15AA020424 to Robin J. Lewis (PI). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Footnotes

The Harris Interactive Service Bureau (HISB) was responsible solely for the data collection in this study. The authors were responsible for the study’s design, data analysis, reporting the data, and data interpretation.

Contributor Information

Michelle L. Kelley, Old Dominion University

Robin J. Lewis, Old Dominion University and the Virginia Consortium Program in Clinical Psychology

Tyler B. Mason, Old Dominion University

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 3. Washington, DC: Author; 1987. revised. [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4. Washington, DC: Author; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  3. Balsam KF, Rothblum ED, Beauchaine TP. Victimization over the life span: A comparison of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005;73:477–487. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Balsam KF, Szymanski DM. Relationship quality and domestic violence in women’s same-sex relationships: The role of minority stress. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2005;29:258–269. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00220.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandura A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1977. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bimbi DS, Palmadessa NA, Parsons JT. Substance use and domestic violence among urban gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Journal of LGBT Health Research. 2008;3(2):1–7. doi: 10.1300/J463v03n02_01. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Busby DM, Christensen C, Crane DR, Larson JH. A revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 1995;21:89–308. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00163.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carpenter C, Gates GJ. Gay and lesbian partnership: Evidence from California. Demography. 2008;45:573–590. doi: 10.1353/dem.0.0014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chatterjee S, Yilmaz M. A review of regression diagnostics for behavioral research. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1992;16:209–227. doi: 10.1177/014662169201600301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cochran SD, Mays VM. Burden of psychiatric morbidity among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals in the California Quality of Life Survey. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2009;118:647–658. doi: 10.1037/a0016501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Collins RL, Lapp WM. The Temptation and Restraint Inventory for measuring drinking restraint. British Journal of Addiction. 1992;87:625–633. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1992.tb01964.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Collins RL, Parks GA, Marlatt GA. Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1985;53:189–200. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.53.2.189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Collins WA. More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2003;13:1–24. [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins WA, Laursen B. Changing relationships, changing youth interpersonal contexts of adolescent development. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2004;24:55–62. doi: 10.1177/0272431603260882. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Darmawan I, Keeves JP. Suppressor variables and multilevel mixture modelling. International Education Journal. 2006;7:160–173. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dawson DA, Grant BF, Chou SP, Stinson FS. The impact of partner alcohol problems on women’s physical and mental health. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2007;68:66–75. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2007.68.66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Eaton L, Kaufman M, Fuhrel A, Cain D, Cherry C, Pope H, Kalichman SC. Examining factors co-existing with interpersonal violence in lesbian relationships. Journal of Family Violence. 2008;23:697–705. doi: 10.1007/s10896-008-9194-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fischer JL, Fitzpatrick J, Cleveland B, Lee JM, McKnight A, Miller B. Binge drinking in the context of romantic relationships. Addictive Behaviors. 2005;30:1496–1516. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fischer JL, Wiersma JD. Romantic relationships and alcohol use. Current Drug Abuse Reviews. 2012;5:98–116. doi: 10.2174/1874473711205020098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fleming CB, White HR, Catalano RF. Romantic relationships and substance use in early adulthood: An examination of the influences of relationship type, partner substance use, and relationship quality. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2010;51:153–167. doi: 10.1177/0022146510368930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Giancola PR. Executive functioning: A conceptual framework for alcohol-related aggression. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2000;8:576–597. doi: 10.1037/1064-1297.8.4.576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Glass N, Perrin N, Hanson G, Bloom T, Gardner E, Campbell JC. Risk for reassault in abusive female same-sex relationships. American Journal of Public Health. 2008;98:1021–1027. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.117770. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg NG, Meyer IH. Sexual orientation disparities in history of intimate partner violence: Results from the California Health Interview Survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2013;28:1109–1118. doi: 10.1177/0886260512459384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Halford WK, Price J, Kelly AB, Bouma R, Young RM. Helping the female partners of men abusing alcohol: A comparison of three treatments. Addiction. 2001;96:1497–1508. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.9610149713.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Homish GG, Leonard KE. Marital quality and congruent drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2005;66:488–496. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2005.66.488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Homish GG, Leonard KE. Relationship processes and alcohol use: The role of one’s spouse. In: Brozner EY, editor. New research on alcohol abuse and alcoholism. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc; 2006. pp. 19–33. [Google Scholar]
  28. Homish GG, Leonard KE. The drinking partnership and marital satisfaction: The longitudinal influence of discrepant drinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2007;75:43–51. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.1.43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hughes TL. Alcohol use and alcohol-related problems among lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Nursing Research. 2005;23:283–325. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hughes T. Alcohol use and alcohol-related problems among sexual minority women. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly. 2011;29:403–435. doi: 10.1080/07347324.2011.608336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Institute of Medicine. The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation for better understanding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Karney BR, Bradbury TN. The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin. 1995;118:3–34. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kelly AB, Halford WK. Verbal and physical aggression in couples where the female partner is drinking heavily. Journal of Family Violence. 2006;21:11–17. doi: 10.1007/s10896-005-9003-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Leadley K, Clark CL, Caetano R. Couples’ drinking patterns, intimate partner violence, and alcohol-related partnership problems. Journal of Substance Abuse. 2000;11:253–263. doi: 10.1016/S0899-3289(00)00025-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Leonard KE. Alcohol and intimate partner violence: When can we say that heavy drinking is a contributing cause of violence? Addiction. 2005;100:422–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00994.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lewis RJ, Milletich RJ, Derlega VJ, Padilla MA. Sexual minority stressors and psychological aggression in lesbian women’s intimate relationships: The mediating roles of rumination and relationship satisfaction. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2014 doi: 10.1177/0361684313517866. Advance online publication. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lewis RJ, Milletich RJ, Kelley ML, Woody A. Minority stress, substance use, and intimate partner violence among sexual minority women. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2012;17:247–256. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.02.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lewis RJ, Padilla MA, Milletich RJ, Kelley ML, Winstead BA, Lau-Barraco C, Mason TB. Emotional distress, alcohol use, and bidirectional partner violence among lesbian women. Violence Against Women. doi: 10.1177/1077801215589375. (in press) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lie GY, Schilit R, Bush J, Montagne M, Reyes L. Lesbians in currently aggressive relationships: How frequently do they report aggressive past relationships? Violence and Victims. 1991;6:121–135. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Locke HJ, Wallace KM. Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living. 1959;21:251–255. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lockhart LL, White BW, Causby V, Isaac A. Letting out the secret: Violence in lesbian relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1994;9:469–492. doi: 10.1177/088626094009004003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Marshall LL. Effects of men’s subtle and overt psychological abuse on low-income women. Violence and Victims. 1999;14:69–88. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Mason TB, Lewis RJ, Milletich RJ, Kelley ML, Minifie JB, Derlega VJ. Psychological aggression in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals’ intimate relationships: A review of prevalence, correlates, and measurement issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2014;19:219–234. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Matte M, Lafontaine MF. Validation of a measure of psychological aggression in same-sex couples: Descriptive data on perpetration and victimization and their association with physical violence. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2011;7:226–244. doi: 10.1080/1550428x.2011.564944. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. McCabe SE, Hughes TL, Bostwick WB, West BT, Boyd CJ. Sexual orientation, substance use behaviors, and substance dependence in the United States. Addiction. 2009;104:1333–1345. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02596.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. McKenry PC, Serovich JM, Mason TL, Mosack K. Perpetration of gay and lesbian partner violence: A disempowerment perspective. Journal of Family Violence. 2006;21:233–243. doi: 10.1007/s10896-006-9020-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. McLeod JD. Spouse concordance for alcohol dependence and heavy drinking: Evidence from a community sample. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 1993;17:1146–1155. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1993.tb05220.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Meiklejohn J, Connor J, Kypri K. The effect of low survey response rates on estimates of alcohol consumption in a general population survey. PLOS ONE. 2012;7:e35527. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Messinger AM. Marking 35 years of research on same-sex intimate partner violence: Lessons and new directions. In: Peterson D, Panfil VR, editors. Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice. Springer; New York: 2014. pp. 65–85. [Google Scholar]
  50. Milletich RJ, Gumienny L, Kelley ML, D’Lima GM. Predictors of women’s same-sex partner violence perpetration. Journal of Family Violence. 2014;29:653–664. doi:org/10.1007/s10896-014-9620-7. [Google Scholar]
  51. Mushquash AR, Stewart SH, Sherry SB, Sherry DL, Mushquash CJ, MacKinnon AL. Depressive symptoms are a vulnerability factor for heavy episodic drinking: A short-term, four-wave longitudinal study of undergraduate women. Addictive Behaviors. 2013;38:2180–2186. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.11.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. O’Leary KD. Psychological abuse: A variable deserving critical attention in domestic violence. Violence and Victims. 1999;14:3–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Parks KA, Hsieh YP, Bradizza CM, Romosz AM. Factors influencing the temporal relationship between alcohol consumption and experiences with aggression among college women. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2008;22:210–218. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.22.2.210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Pernanen K. Alcohol in human violence. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rauer AJ, Karney BR, Garvan CW, Hou W. Relationship risks in context: A cumulative risk approach to understanding relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2008;70:1122–1135. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00554.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Roberts LJ, Linney KD. Alcohol problems and couples: Drinking in an intimate relational context. In: Schmaling KB, Sher TG, editors. The psychology of couples and illness: Theory, research, & practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2000. pp. 269–310. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Sakai JT, Stallings MC, Mikulich-Gilbertson SK, Corley RP, Young SE, Hopfer CJ, Crowley TJ. Mate similarity for substance dependence and antisocial personality disorder symptoms among parents of patients and controls. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2004;75:165–175. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.01.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption: II. Addiction. 1993;88:791–804. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x. doi:org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.05.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Schilit R, Lie GY, Montagne M. Substance use as a correlate of violence in intimate lesbian relationships. Journal of Homosexuality. 1990;19:51–66. doi: 10.1300/J082v19n03_03. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Schuckit MA, Smith TL, Eng MY, Kunovac J. Women who marry men with alcohol-use disorders. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2002;26:1336–1343. doi: 10.1097/00000374-200209000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Schumacher JA, Leonard KE. 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. 2005;73:28–37. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Shook NJ, Gerrity DA, Jurich J, Segrist AE. Courtship violence among college students: A comparison of verbally and physically abusive couples. Journal of Family Violence. 2000;15:1–22. doi: 10.1023/A:1007532718917. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Shorey RC, Stuart GL, Cornelius TL. Dating violence and substance use in college students: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2011;16:541–550. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2011.08.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Shortt JW, Capaldi DM, Kim HK, Laurent HK. The effects of intimate partner violence on relationship satisfaction over time for young at-risk couples: The moderating role of observed negative and positive affect. Partner Abuse. 2010;1:131–152. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.1.2.131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Spanier GB. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1976;38:15–28. [Google Scholar]
  66. Steinberg L, Monahan KC. Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology. 2007;43:1531–1543. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman DB. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS-2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues. 1996;17:283–316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Stuart GL, O’Farrell TJ, Temple JR. Review of the association between treatment for substance misuse and reductions in intimate partner violence. Substance Use and Misuse. 2009;44:1298–1317. doi: 10.1080/10826080902961385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. HHS Publication No. [SMA] 13-4426. Rockville, MD: 2009. Substance Abuse Treatment: Addressing the Specific Needs of Women. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 51. Retrieved from http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//SMA13-4426/SMA13-4426.pdf. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Tolman RM. The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims. 1989;4:159–177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Torvik FA, Røysamb E, Gustavson K, Idstad M, Tambs K. Discordant and concordant alcohol use in spouses as predictors of marital dissolution in the general population: Results from the Hunt Study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2013;37:877–884. doi: 10.1111/acer.12029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Walters ML, Chen J, Breiding MJ. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  73. Wilsnack SC, Hughes TL, Johnson TP, Bostwick WB, Szalacha LA, Benson P, Kinnison KE. Drinking and drinking-related problems among heterosexual and sexual minority women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2008;69:129–139. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2008.69.129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES