Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 20, No. 4, August 2005 ( C 2005) DOI: 10.

1007/s10896-005-5988-8

Perception of and Satisfaction with Relationship Power, Sex, and Attachment Styles: A Couples Level Analysis
William S. Rogers,1,3 Jeremy Bidwell,2 and Laura Wilson2

Eighty heterosexual dating couples provided information about their gender, individual histories of abuse in their current relationship, attachment styles, perception of and satisfaction with relationship power. Partner report of physical abuse was the dependent variable. APIM actor results suggest that an individuals gender interacts with perceived level of relationship power and satisfaction with relationship power for physical abuse. Both dimensions of attachment interacted with perceived relationship power for physical abuse. Partner effects were also found. Ones partners sex interacted with perceived power and satisfaction with relationship power. Finally, the partners avoidant attachment interacted with satisfaction with relationship power. These ndings generally replicate and extend the work of H. M. Ronfeldt, R. Kimerling, and I. Arias (1998, J. Marriage Fam. 60: 7078) by showing how attachment styles, perception of relationship power, and satisfaction with relationship power are related in predicting aggression against a romantic partner.
KEY WORDS: attachment; relationship power; physical abuse; domestic violence; APIM.

INTRODUCTION Violence between intimates has been a serious topic for research over the past 30 years. Research in this area has focused on the individual as the unit of analysis. Though this is a good place to begin, domestic violence is probably best thought of as a couples level phenomenon. One reason for the emphasis on the individual has been that there has not been an appropriate statistical method for analyzing couples data until Kenny (1996) recently described a new analytic method for analyzing data from dyads. Though he described several methods in his work, the one that is perhaps the most promising is the Actor/Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kashy & Kenny, 2000). It is this method that will be used in this study.

1 Trinity

University, San Antonio, Texas. F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, McMurry University, McMurry Station, Box 86, Abilene, Texas 79697; e-mail: wrogers@hesser.edu.
2 Stephen

APIM is a new analytic method that focuses on nonindependence. One member of a dyad may not only inuence his or her own dependent variable, but may also inuence the other dyad members dependent variable. For example, one may do things to increase ones own relationship satisfaction, but one may also do things to increase ones partners relationship satisfaction. In APIM analysis, both members of the couple provide scores for the independent and dependent variables. Regression coefcients are calculated for the difference between dyad member scores and for the average of dyad member scores (Kashy & Kenny, 2000). These regression coefcients are then used to estimate the effects that each dyad member has on themselves and on their partner. These effects are referred to as actor effects and partner effects. Figure 1 illustrates a basic actor/partner interdependence analysis. Actor effects can be described as the effect that the actor has on the actors dependent variable. This is the traditional method of analysis and is at the level of the individual (Kenny & Cook, 1999). It can address, for example, the question of whether growing up in a violent home contributes to people being more abusive in their 241
0885-7482/05/0800-0241/0
C

2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

242

Rogers, Bidwell, and Wilson Hotaling and Sugarman (1986) examined the risk marker research and found that relationship power was an inconsistent marker for abuse across studies. Other researchers have also noted the inconsistent ndings for power in domestic violence research (Babcock et al., 1993; Bersani & Chen, 1988). One reason for the inconsistent ndings might be that researchers are looking at different aspects of power. Comparing power base research to power outcome research may not reveal a consistent pattern of ndings. One way to tease these them apart might be to examine the role that both play in relationship aggression.

Fig. 1. The Actor/Partner Interdependence Model in its simplest form.

adult relationships. These effects are calculated by adding the regression coefcients for the difference scores with the coefcients for the averaged scores and dividing by two. The horizontal arrows in Fig. 1 represent actor effects (the effect of X on Y and X on Y). Partner effects can be described as the effect that the partner has on the actors dependent variable. A signicant partner effect indicates the existence of nonindependence for the variables under study (Kenny & Cook, 1999). This output can address, for example, the question of whether people who grew up in violent homes have abusive spouses or not. These effects are calculated by subtracting the averaged coefcients from the difference coefcients and dividing by two. The diagonal lines in Figure 1 represent partner effects (the effect of X on Y and X on Y). APIM is ideal for the analysis of domestic violence data since domestic violence is a dyadic phenomena, APIM is a method for analyzing dyadic data. APIM promises a new level of understanding domestic violence. It may also shed light on the inconsistent ndings of work done at the level of the individual. Relationship Power Cromwell and Olson (1975) identied three aspects of relationship power. Power base represents the resources one brings to the relationship. Resources are the things used to gain control in a relationship. Finances are resources that easily come to mind; however, there are other resources that can be used such as emotions, physical appearance, and ones perception of having power in the relationship (Babcock et al., 1993). Power process is the tactics used to gain control of the relationship. Power processes can include ones ability to solve problems, intimidation, and persuasion. Power outcome is what actually transpires, or who makes the nal decision.

Attachment Some domestic violence researchers are turning to attachment theory to help in their study of domestic violence (for example, Dutton et al., 1994; HoltzworthMonroe et al., 1997). Bowlby (1984) described family violence as a disorder of the attachment system. He proposed that the maladaptive violence within abusive families might be understood better as distorted and exaggerated behavior that in a much milder form could be functional. These maladaptive behaviors are likely to be responses to behaviors or situations that threaten the relationship. When a relationship is threatened, one is likely to feel anxiety as well as anger (Bowlby, 1984). When used as a reproach, anger can be functional (Bowlby, 1973, p. 246). Such use is intended to correct the partners behavior so that anxiety over the relationship will not occur again. When used to exact revenge, anger becomes dysfunctional (Bowlby, 1973, p. 248). In this case, the anger is intended to punish and serves to weaken the relationship bond instead of strengthening it. People who grow up in violent homes are at greater risk of developing insecure attachment styles. Belsky (1999) suggests that there may be a direct link between the development of insecure attachments and marital conict. Sims et al. (1996) found that children who were in homes where the father abused the mother, tended to develop insecure attachment styles. Owens and Cox (1997) later found that children who witnessed more marital conict also tended to have more insecure attachments. Specically, these children developed insecure attachments with the father and disorganized attachments with the mother. This may lead to poor interpersonal marital skills for these children in their adult lives (see Shaver et al., 1996) such as a withdraw/pursuit communication pattern (Roberts & Noller, 1998) or low assertiveness (see review by Tolman & Bennett, 1990). People with an insecure attachment

Satisfaction With Power in Couples style are more likely to be abusive than people with a secure attachment style. Ones attachment system is a factor in ones romantic relationship, particularly when one is stressed (see Simpson & Rholes, 1994). Stressors include being ill, fatigued, or perceiving that one is being abandoned by ones attachment gure. Simpson et al. (1992) showed that stressed individuals differed in the degree to which they sought support depending on their attachment style. Women sought more support if they were more secure whereas they sought less support when they were more avoidant. Their male partners gave more support if they were more secure and less support if they were more avoidant. These ndings indicate that attachment styles can inuence behavior in stressful situations. Being in an abusive relationship is a stressful situation. It is understandable that a victim might become more avoidant of the abusing partner as the abuse in the relationship continues. Withdrawal is a tactic one might expect from someone with a highly avoidant attachment style. A person who withdraws from his or her partner can be perceived to be abandoning the relationship thereby activating the other partners attachment system. The partner who perceives abandonment may pursue the other to keep him or her in the relationship. Pursuit is a tactic one might expect from someone with a highly anxious attachment style. Roberts and Noller (1998) found that couples who engaged in withdrawal/pursuit communication patterns were at greatest risk becoming violent. It is therefore possible for a conict situation to be exacerbated by one or both partners attachment style. Some researchers have examined the distribution of attachment styles among known abusers. Pistole and Terrant (1993) found in their sample a distribution that statistically was similar to that found in college student samples. However, an interesting pattern is evident in their sample. The distribution of abusers with the secure attachment style was near the lower end of the range of secure attachment styles across other studies. Similarly, the insecure attachment styles were near the high end of their respective ranges. This suggests that abusers are more likely to have an insecure attachment style than a secure one. Dutton et al. (1994) reported a distribution of attachment styles among known abusers in which secure attachments were clearly under represented (20%), and abusers with the preoccupied attachment style were clearly over represented (33%). A sample with a typical distribution of attachment styles would be 47% secure, 18% dismissing-avoidant, 14% preoccupied, and 21% fearful-avoidant (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). This suggests that it is likely that abusers will have an insecure attachment style. Hypotheses

243

The purpose of this study is rst to replicate the Ronfeldt ndings. Like Ronfeldt, we should nd low satisfaction with relationship power to be associated with higher aggression towards romantic partners. A second goal is to examine the relationship between attachment and relationship power with respect to domestic violence. Generally, we should nd that attachment and relationship power should moderate aggression in relationships. Finally, this study is intended to extend the previous ndings by conducting the analysis at the level of the couple. We should nd that attachment styles, perception of power, and satisfaction with power in one member inuences aggression in the other. Actor Effects Actor effect analysis addresses the question of who is more abusive? We predict that people with insecure attachment styles will be more abusive than people with secure attachment styles. We predict that the effect of satisfaction with power will depend upon the level of perceived power. Finally, we predict that there will be an interaction between attachment and power such that people with insecure attachment styles and who are not satised with their level of relationship power will be more abusive that people with secure attachments and who are satised with their relationship power. Partner Effects Partner effect analysis addresses the question are people more abusive if their partners have certain characteristics? We predict that people will be more abusive if their partners have insecure attachment styles. We predict that people will be more abusive depending upon the level of perceived relationship power and the level of satisfaction with relationship power. Finally, we predict that there will be an interaction between attachment and relationship power such that people with insecure attachments and who are not satised with their relationship power will have partners who are more abusive than partners of people with secure attachments who are satised with their relationship power. METHOD Participants Eighty heterosexual college dating couples were obtained for this study through the psychology department

244 participant pool consisting of undergraduates enrolled in the departments introductory psychology course. The couples were required to have been in a relationship for at least 2 months. The couples reported being in their relationships for and average of 16.64 months (SD = 14.48 months) and 92.5% of them reported that these relationships were serious. The mean age for the women was 19.54 year (SD = 3.40) and ranged from 16 to 45. The mean age for the men was 20.71 (SD = 3.66) and ranged from 18 to 47. The majority of the participants in the sample were White (88.75% for the females and 87.50% for the males). Hispanic American females accounted for 7.50% of the sample and Hispanic American males accounted for 5.00% of the sample. Asian American females accounted for 2.50% of the sample and Asian American males accounted for 3.75% of the sample. African American females accounted for 1.25% of the sample and African American males accounted for 1.25% of the sample. No female reported being of another heritage but 2.50% of the males reported being of another heritage. Measures A demographics form, history of abuse questionnaire, Adult attachment questionnaire, and a relationship power questionnaire were used in this study. The demographics form asked participants to indicate their sex, age, and ethnicity, the length of their relationship in months, and whether they thought the relationship was serious or casual. History of Abuse Questionnaire The dependent variable for this study was physical abuse and was derived from the history of abuse questionnaire. This questionnaire is a modication of the Conict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979), and is one of the most widely used measures of abuse in the domestic violence eld. The CTS was originally designed to measure the participants experience with abuse in their current relationship. It has four items that tap the abusive behavior of each participant. Partner reports of abusive behavior were used because socially desirable response sets have been found to be associated with self-reports of abusive behavior (Arias & Beach, 1987) but not with partner reports of abusive behavior. An example of a physical abuse questions was, About how often has the use of physical force involved hitting or kicking? Each item was rated using a 7-point Likert scale. A rating of 1 indicated the behavior occurred none of the time. A rating of 4 indicated the behavior occurred some of the time. A rating

Rogers, Bidwell, and Wilson of 7 meant the behavior occurred most of the time. Items about physical abuse were summed to obtain a physical abuse score (428). Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbachs alpha. The reliability for this measure was .84 for women and .91 for men. The questions are face valid as they ask about violent acts against ones partner. Straus (1979) demonstrated that the CTS measures three separate violence variables. The variables used in this study tap physical violence only. Adult Attachment Questionnaire The Adult Attachment Questionnaire (Simpson et al., 1996) was used to measure attachment styles. It has 17 items that tap the two dimensions of attachment (dimension of self and dimension of other). Eight items measure the dimension of other (also called the avoidant dimension). Nine items measured the dimension of self (also called the anxious dimension). Examples of questions from the avoidant dimension are, I nd it relatively easy to get close to others and I am not very comfortable having to depend on others. Examples of questions from the anxious dimension are, I rarely worry about being abandoned by others and Im condent that my partner loves me just as much as I love them. All items were rated using a 7-point Likert scale. A rating of 1 indicated that the participant strongly disagreed with the statement. A rating of 4 indicated neither agreement nor disagreement, whereas a rating of 7 indicated strong agreement with the statement. After the appropriate items were reverse coded, the eight avoidant items were summed to obtain an avoidance attachment score, and the nine anxious items were summed to obtain an anxious attachment score. Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbachs alpha. The reliability for the avoidant scale was .74 for women and .78 for men. The reliability for the anxious scale was .71 for women and .83 for men. This measure of attachment was validated by Simpson et al. (1996). Their avoidant dimension correlated highly with Bartholomew and Horowitzs (1991) measure of other but less so with the dimension of self. The AAQ anxious scale correlated highly with Bartholomew and Horowitzs dimension of self. Power Perception and Power Satisfaction Questionnaire The power perception and power satisfaction questionnaire (Ronfeldt et al., 1998) was used to measure perceived relationship power and satisfaction with power. It consisted of 24 self-report items, 12 of which asked participants to report how much power they thought they had in their relationship, and 12 items that asked participant

Satisfaction With Power in Couples how satised they were with their relationship power. An example of the absolute power questions is, To what degree do you think that you inuence how much time you and your partner spend with each other? An example of the satisfaction with power questions is, To what degree are you satised with the inuence you have over how much time you and your partner spend with each other? All items are rated using a 7-point Likert scale. A rating of 1 indicates the statement applies almost none of the time. A rating of 4 indicates the statement applies about equally. A rating of 7 indicates the statement applies almost all of the time. Higher scores mean more perceived relationship power and more satisfaction with power respectively. Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbachs alpha. Reliability for the absolute power scale is reported to be .62 and for the satisfaction with power scale to be .74 (Ronfeldt et al., 1998). Validity data for this questionnaire are not yet available.

245
Table I. Means and Standard Deviations for the Sample and by Sex Variable Women Physical abuse Anger Avoidance Anxious Perceived power Satisfaction with power Men Physical abuse Anger Avoidance Anxious Perceived power Satisfaction with power Mean SD n

5.48 7.91 26.39 30.26 49.33 66.49 4.71 8.96 24.80 29.06 48.99 66.29

2.94 5.29 6.93 9.20 5.33 11.95 2.94 5.29 6.94 10.15 5.51 12.06

80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

Procedure Although couples came to the sessions together, men and women were assigned to separate rooms to permit more honest reporting and to reduce the likelihood of one partner intimidating the other during the data collection session. Participants were told that they would be asked to answer questions about themselves and to make judgments about couples in conict. They were also told that they might be come uncomfortable with some of the questions and that they were not required to answer them if they did not want to. They signed informed consent forms and were then handed the questionnaire package containing the questionnaires, scantron answer forms, and an envelope to put the materials in when they were through. The study took on average an hour and a half to complete. The participants were then free to leave.

down by question. Very few of the participants strongly endorsed any of the CTS questions. Similarly, very few participants moderately endorsed any CTS question. Most of those who endorsed the CTS questions rated the questions mildly. Between 75 and 96% of men and women did not endorse any CTS question. Therefore, the effects that are reported later in this section are within the context of dating couples that engage in relatively mild forms of physical abuse. Four signicant zero-order correlations were found. First, physical abuse scores were signicantly related to anxious attachment (r = .27, p = .0007). As anxious attachment scores increase, so do physical abuse scores. Second, avoidant attachment was signicantly correlated with anxious attachment (r = .51, p < .0001) and satisfaction with relationship power (r = .30, p < .0001). As avoidant attachment scores increased, so did anxious attachment scores. As avoidant attachment scores increased, satisfaction with relationship power scores
Table II. Frequencies of CTS Question Endorsement by Relative Degree of Endorsement for Men and Women Lower 1/3 Middle 1/3 Upper 1/3

RESULTS This study examined the role of relationship power and attachment with respect to domestic violence. The sample means and standard deviations are presented in Table I. The couples in this sample were not very abusive on average. Most physical abuse scores for women and men (96.25 and 97.5%, respectively) were in the lower third of the distribution of possible scores (412). Two women and one man had physical abuse scores in the middle third (1320), and one woman and one man had physical abuse scores in the upper third of the range (21 28). Table II presents reports of partners abuse broken

Question Womens abuse Physical arguments Hitting Throwing things Using a weapon Mens abuse Physical arguments Hitting Throwing things Using a weapon

None

Total

60 67 65 72 70 75 75 77

15 7 12 4 6 3 4 2

4 2 2 4 2 1 1 1

1 4 1 0 2 1 0 0

80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

246 decreased. Finally, there was a signicant correlation between anxious attachment and satisfaction with relationship power (r = .33, p < .0001). As anxious attachment scores increased, satisfaction with relationship power scores decreased. Attachment variables, relationship power variables, and physical abuse variable were not signicantly related to age or duration of relationship. Our analysis was part of a larger study in which the dependent measures were used in other analyses. This, however, is the rst publication of these data. To avoid alpha ination, a Bonferoni correction was made to the alpha level. The alpha level for this analysis was .0167. These data were analyzed using the APIM method developed by Kashy and Kenny (2000). There were two signicant actor effects and two signicant partner effects. The actor effects will be presented rst followed by the partner effects.

Rogers, Bidwell, and Wilson

Actor Effects The analysis revealed a signicant three-way interaction between avoidant attachment, anxious attachment, and perceived relationship power, t(131) = 3.64, p = .0004. People low in perceived relationship power were more physically aggressive with their partner when they had both high avoidant and anxious attachment scores (fearful avoidant attachment). Surprisingly, people were signicantly less physically aggressive with their partners when they had low anxious, but high avoidant attachment scores (dismissing avoidant attachment). However, people who perceived they had high relationship power reported a different pattern. People with low avoidant and high anxious attachment scores (preoccupied attachment) and people with low anxious and high avoidant attachment scores (dismissing avoidant) were signicantly more aggressive with their partners than people with high anxious and avoidant attachment scores (fearful-avoidant) and people with low anxious and avoidant attachment scores (secure). Figure 1 illustrates this interaction. These ndings support our hypotheses that people with insecure attachment styles would be more abusive than those with a secure attachment style, and that there would be a statistical interaction between attachment and relationship power. The APIM analysis also revealed a signicant threeway interaction between sex, perceived power, and satisfaction with power for physical abuse, t(128) = 2.98, p = .0034. Figure 2 illustrates this interaction. Men were more abusive when their partners perceived themselves to be high in relationship power and were satised with it, and when their partners were low in perceived relationship

Fig. 2. Participants physical abuse as a function of level of perceived relationship power, avoidant, and anxious attachment.

power but were dissatised with it. Men were moderately abusive when their partners were high in perceived power and dissatised with it. Finally, men were least abusive when their partners were low in perceived relationship power and were satised with it. However, women were signicantly more abusive when their partners perceived themselves to be high in relationship power regardless of their level of satisfaction, and when their partners were low in perceived relationship power and were satised with that level of relationship power than women who were low in perceived relationship power and were dissatised with it. This nding supports the hypothesis that

Satisfaction With Power in Couples

247 tors physical abuse, t(122) = 2.88, p = .0048. Figure 3 illustrates this interaction. People with high avoidant attachment scores and who are not satised with their relationship power had partners who were signicantly more abusive than people with low avoidant attachment scores regardless of satisfaction with relationship power, and more abusive than people with high avoidant attachment scores who were also satised with their relationship power. People with high avoidant attachment scores who were satised with their relationship power were the least abusive. This nding supports two hypotheses. First, support was found for the hypothesis that people with partners who have insecure attachment styles are more abusive than people who have partners with a secure attachment style, but only for partners with an avoidant attachment style. Second, support was found for the hypothesis that attachment would statistically interact with relationship power. Finally, the APIM analysis revealed that there was a signicant three-way interaction between partners sex, perceived level of relationship power, and satisfaction with their level of relationship power, t(128) = 4.75, p < .0001. Figure 4 illustrates this interaction. Women who perceived themselves low in relationship power and who were not satised with that level of relationship power were signicantly more abusive to their partner than women who perceived themselves to be low in relationship power but were satised with their level of power, and more than women who perceived themselves high in relationship power regardless of their level of satisfaction. There was a different pattern for the men, however. Men who perceived themselves high in relationship power and who were not satised with that level of power

Fig. 3. Participants physical abuse as a function of sex, perceived relationship power, and satisfaction with relationship power.

perception of relationship power and satisfaction with relationship power would interact statistically. Partner Effects The APIM analysis revealed three signicant partner effect interaction terms. This indicates that abuse within a relationship is an interdependent phenomenon. Characteristics of both members of the couple contribute to abuse. First there was a signicant partner effect interaction between the partners avoidant attachment and the partners satisfaction with relationship power for the ac-

Fig. 4. Participants physical abuse as a function of avoidant attachment and satisfaction with relationship power.

248 and men who perceived themselves as low in relationship power but were satised were signicantly more abusive than men who perceived themselves as low in power but were satised and men who perceived themselves as high in power but were satised. These ndings support our hypothesis that perception of relationship power and satisfaction with relationship power would statistically interact.

Rogers, Bidwell, and Wilson

DISCUSSION An interesting property of these data is that the scores for abusive behavior were relatively low. This sample consisted of college dating couples so it is not surprising to nd most participants reporting no violence and some reporting mild abuse. In their review, Hotaling and Sugarman (1986) reported most ndings to be negative relationships between level of education and instances of abuse. Men with loser education tended to be more abusive, and women with lower education tended to be victimized. Further, couples where the woman was more educated tended to include more abuse. In this sample, both members of the couple had posthigh-school education and were of relatively the same level. It is interesting to note that some participants reported moderate (2.5% of women and 5% of men) and severe (2.5% of women and 1.25% of men) levels of abuse in there relationships. Education does not completely protect one from abuse as the victim or the perpetrator. Our hypotheses for this study were generally supported. People with insecure attachment styles were more abusive than people with secure attachment styles depending on perceived level of relationship power. Abusive behavior depended upon the level of the individuals perception of power and their satisfaction with power. Partner effects were also found. People were more abusive when their partners had an avoidant attachment style. Partners satisfaction with relationship power predicted actors abuse, but only for partners with avoidant attachment styles. Both mens and womens abuse depended upon their partners level of perceived relationship power and satisfaction with power (Fig. 5). The ndings of Ronfeldt et al. (1998) were generally replicated. Satisfaction with relationship power can predict abuse in dating couples. The Ronfeldt ndings were extended by showing that the role satisfaction plays depends on the level of perceived relationship power. Further, abusive behavior is also inuenced by ones partners level of perceived power and satisfaction with power. Babcock et al. (1993) found that perception of power was not the best predictor of aggression in relation-

Fig. 5. Participants physical abuse as a function of their partners sex, perception of relationship power, and satisfaction with relationship power.

ships. Ronfeldt et al. (1998) later found the same thing. Satisfaction with relationship power was found to be a stronger predictor than perceived relationship power. Persons dissatised with the level of their relationship power were more likely to use psychological or physical abuse. Though these ndings helped to clarify the relationship power issue, they do not completely explain the inconsistent ndings across studies. The ndings from this study suggest that perceived power and satisfaction with power work together to better explain relationship aggression. Low perceived relationship power does not automatically mean that the individual will be abusive. Nor does low satisfaction with relationship power automatically make one abusive. A person low in satisfaction might be abusive if they are also motivated to obtain more

Satisfaction With Power in Couples power. This might be true with someone high in need for control for example. These people are also likely to report low perceived power. Someone high in perceived power might be abusive if they are not satised with the level of power they have. The interaction between these two variables is also not enough to explain abusive behavior. Both members of the couple must be considered. The couples level analysis helps to explain why someone who is satised with his or her relationship power might still be aggressive in the relationship. The relationship between perceived power and satisfaction with power might not be a zero-sum function. Just because one member of the couple is satised with their level of power does not mean the other is too. It may be the case that those who are satised, but abusive are defending the level of power they have from a partner who is trying to acquire more relationship power. Abuse then becomes instrumental in the struggle for control of the relationship. This is similar to how Stets (1993, 1995) viewed the use of abuse in relationships. Acquiring more power in a relationship means acquiring more control of the relationship. Control over the relationship may also be important to people with insecure attachment styles. People with a dismissing-avoidant attachment style have been characterized as having difculty with intimacy (Bartholomew, 1990). Control over the relationship could translate into control over intimacy for these people. Such control could be instrumental in controlling their anxiety over becoming too intimate and thereby control vulnerability to their partner. People with a preoccupied attachment style have been characterized as using emotion focused coping when faced with a stressful situation and as being overcontrolling (Shaver et al., 1996). Because one aspect of the attachment system is about affect regulation (Feeney, 1995), and anxiously attached individuals are concerned with partner abandonment (Rholes et al., 1995), obtaining and maintaining control of the relationship would be instrumental in controlling anxiety about abandonment for highly anxiously attached individuals. Though the difference was not signicant, men reported more abuse from their partners than did women. The effect for sex did not reveal itself until it was combined with perceived power and satisfaction with power for both actor and partner effects. Not only does the level of perceived power and satisfaction with power effect the individuals abusive behavior, but it also affects the individuals partners abusive behavior as well. The different patterns for men and for women suggest that perception of power and satisfaction with power may be different for men than it is women. It may also be the case that men and women use relationship power differently. Alternatively, men and women may interpret power issues differently.

249 It would be useful in better understanding these ndings to better understand any potential differences in interpretation of power issues. This would be a good avenue for future research. A growing number of researchers are nding predictable links between attachment styles and domestic violence. Mauricio and Gormley (2001) found a moderating effect of attachment styles on need for dominance for frequency of violence. Kesner and McKenry (1998) found that childhood attachment could predict male violence towards female partners and that the violence could predict insecure adult attachment in the females partners. Tweed and Dutton (1998) found a link between impulsive batterers and the avoidant-fearful attachment style within a group of known abusers. Dutton et al. (1994) found a negative relationship between secure attachment and characteristics of abusive men, and positive relationships between highly anxious attachment and the same characteristics. The ndings of this study suggest that individuals with the avoidant-fearful attachment style tend to use more physical abuse when they perceive their level of relationship power to be low. However, individuals with the preoccupied attachment style do so when they perceive they have high relationship power. Though Dutton et al. (1994) found no relationship between the dismissing avoidant attachment style and abuse; the ndings of this study suggest that there is a relationship when such individuals perceive themselves to have high relationship power. Further, individuals with a highly avoidant attachment style tend to use more physical abuse when they are not satised with their relationship power. Inclusion of attachment theory in the investigating of domestic violence is relatively new. To our knowledge, Pistole and Terrant (1993) are the rst to examine attachment styles among known abusers. This study adds to the knowledge by showing that attachment, perceptions of power, and satisfaction with relationship power are linked to physically abusive behavior. Taken with the ndings of other researchers, there appears to be a convergence of ndings that suggest that attachment theory will be useful in addressing the domestic violence issue. There are some limitations to this study. First, college dating couples were the participants. Though there is literature, which suggests that violence between intimates, occurs in dating couples (Arias et al., 1987; Cano et al., 1998; Makepeace, 1981), and that dating violence is comparable to spousal abuse (Carlson, 1987; Rouse et al., 1988), the level of abuse in this sample was relatively low. Further, the majority of the sample reported no abuse at all in their relationship. This produced a highly skewed sample and the ndings are therefore, based on a smaller proportion of the sample

250 that actually reported abuse in their relationships. Only 12.5% of women and 25% of men reported abuse in their relationships. This study should be replicated with a community sample containing a higher proportion of couples reporting abuse in their relationships. The relationships between attachment and relationship power may be different when the level of abuse is high. The majority of the participating couples in this sample were White. Therefore, generalization to the population should be done cautiously. Because this study used the same questions as the Ronfeldt study, it is focused on a single aspect of relationship power. It was deemed important to replicate the Ronfeldt ndings before examining different types of power within relationships. This study did, however, examine the relationship between perceived power and satisfaction with power. Finally, some signicant ndings dropped out after making the Bonferoni correction. Future research that focuses on attachment and relationship power exclusively may uncover additional effects that could clarify the relationship between these variables further. Future research might also include other risk markers consistently found to be associated with spousal abuse, such as history of violence in the family of origin (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986), beliefs about the appropriateness of violence in relationships (Sugarman et al., 1996), and situational catalysts of domestic violence (Rogers, 2001). Satisfaction with relationship power may also mediate or moderate the relationship between discrepancy variables and domestic violence. For example, income discrepancy where the wife brings in more income than the husband may be an indirect indicator of a power differential. In such situations the lower income husband may be dissatised with the level of relationship power he has as represented by his lower income. He may try to compensate by using aggression to control the relationship. These ndings also point to the importance of examining the interdependence of variables associated with domestic violence with dyads. It is possible that interdependence of characteristic variables may help to explain some inconsistent ndings in the literature. It is also important to reveal those variables that function at the level of the individual and those that function at the level of the couple. The ndings of this study should be of particular importance to therapist working with abusive couples. Though it is often difcult to get the perpetrator of the violence into therapy, the ndings here underscore the importance of treating both the victim and the perpetrator. If domestic violence is a disorder of the attachment system, as Bowlby (1984) suggests, then therapies founded

Rogers, Bidwell, and Wilson on attachment theory should be more effective in reducing the phenomenon. These ndings also have important implications for researchers in the eld of domestic violence. It may be time to shift our work from the level of the individual to the level of the couple. Perhaps inconsistent ndings could be better explained and a better understanding of domestic violence could be obtained. REFERENCES
Arias, I., and Beach, S. R. H. (1987). Validity of self-reports of marital violence. J. Fam.Violence 2: 139149. Arias, I., Samois, M., and OLeary, K. D. (1987). Prevelance and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. J. Interpers. Violence 2: 8290. Babcock, J. C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., and Gottman, J. M. (1993). Power and violence: The relation between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 61: 4050. Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. J. Soc. Pers. Relation. 7: 147178. Bartholomew, K., and Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 61: 226244. Belsky, J. (1999). Interactional and contextual determinants of attachment security. In Cassidy, J., and Shaver P. R. (eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, Guilford, New York, NY, pp. 249264. Bersani, C. A., and Chen, H. (1988). Sociological perspectives in family violence. In Van Hasselt, V. B., Morrison, R. L., Bellack, A. S., and Hersen, M. (eds.), Handbook of Family Violence, Plenum, New York, pp. 5786. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2. Separation, Basic Books, New York. Bowlby, J. (1984). Violence in the family as a disorder of the attachment and caregiving systems. Am. J. Psychoanal. 44: 927. Cano, A., Avery-Leaf, S., Cascardi, M., and OLeary, K. D. (1998). Dating violence in two high school samples: Discriminating variables. J. Primary Prevention 18: 431446. Carlson, B. E. (1987) Dating violence: A research review and comparison with spouse abuse. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work 68: 1623. Cromwell, R. E., and Olson, D. H. (1975). Power in Families, Wiley, New York. Dutton, D. G., Saunders, K., Starzomski, A., and Bartholomew, K. (1994). Intimacy-anger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24: 1367 1386. Feeney, J. A. (1995). Adult attachment and emotional control. Pers. Relation. 2: 143159. Holtzworth-Monroe, A., Stuart, G. L., and Hutchinson, G. (1997). Violent vs. nonviolent husbands: Differences in attachment patterns, dependency, and jealousy. J. Fam. Psychol. 11: 314331. Hotaling, G. T., and Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence Victims 1: 101124. Kashy, D. A., and Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In Reis, H. T., and Judd, C. M. (eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 451477. Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in dyadic research. J. Soc. Pers. Relation. 6: 279294. Kenny, D. A., and Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difculties, and illustrations. Pers. Relation. 6: 433448.

Satisfaction With Power in Couples

Kesner, J. E., and McKenry, P. C. (1998). The role of childhood attachment factors in predicting male violence towards female intimates. J. Fam. Violence 13: 417432. Makepeace, J. M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Fam. Relations 30: 97102. Mauricio, A. M., and Gormley, B. (2001). Male perpetration of physical violence against female partners. J. Interpers. Violence 16: 1066 1081. Owens, M., and Cox, M. (1997). Marital conict and the development of infant-parent attachment relationships. J. Fam. Psychol. 11: 152 164. Pistole, M. C., and Terrant, N. (1993). Attachment styles and aggression in male batterers. Fam. Ther. 11: 165173. Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., and Stevens, J. G. (1995). Attachment orientations, social support, and conict resolution in close relationships. In Simpson, J. A., and Rholes, W. S. (eds.), Attachment Theory and Close Relationships, Guilford, New York, pp. 166188. Roberts, N., and Noller, P. (1998). The association between adult attachment and couples violence: The role of communication patterns and relationship satisfaction. In Simpson, J. A., and Rholes, W. S. (eds.), Attachment Theory and Close Relationships, Guilford, New York, pp. 317350. Rogers, W. S. (2001). Actor/partner effects and acceptance of aggression in conicted couples: Attachment styles and spousal abuse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, A&M University, Texas. Ronfeldt, H. M., Kimerling, R., and Arias, I. (1998). Satisfaction with relationship power and perpetration of dating violence. J. Marriage Fam. 60: 7078. Rouse, L. P., Breen, R., and Howell, M. (1988). Abuse in intimate relationships: A comparison of married and dating college students. J. Interpers. Violence 3: 414429. Shaver, P. R., Collins, N., and Clark, C. L. (1996). Attachment styles and internal working models of self and relationship partners. In

251
Fletcher, G., and Fitness, J. (eds.), Knowledge Structures in Close Relationships, Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 2561. Simpson, J. A., and Rholes, W. S. (1994). Stress and secure base relationships in adulthood. In Bartholomew, K., and Perlman, D. (eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships, Vol. 15, Attachment Process in Adulthood, Jessica Kingsley, Bristol, PA, pp. 181 204. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., and Nelligan, J. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 62: 434446. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., and Phillips, D. (1996). Conict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71: 899914. Sims, B., Hans, S., and Cox, S. (1996). Raising Children in High Risk Environments: Mothers Experience of Stress and Distress Related to Attachment Security. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the International Conference on Infant Studies, Providence, RI. Stets, J. E. (1993). Control in dating relationships. J. Marriage Fam. 52: 501514. Stets, J. E. (1995). Modeling control in relationships. J. Marriage Fam. 55: 589501. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conict and violence: The conict tactics (CT) Scales. J. Marriage Fam. 41: 7588. Sugarman, D. B., Alderando, E., and Boney-McCoy, S. (1996). Risk markers of husband-to-wife violence: A continuum of aggression. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26: 313337. Tolman, R. M., and Bennett, L. W. (1990). A review of quantitative research on men who batter. J. Interpers. Violence 5(1): 87 118. Tweed, R. G., and Dutton, D. G. (1998). A comparison of impulsive and instrumental subgroups of batterers. Violence Victims 13: 217 230.