Dating violence is a significant problem among college students. Using a sample of 248 male and 304 female college students, we explored whether or not male and female college students differed in their approval rates of male-to-female intimate partner violence (IPV) and female-to-male IPV. We also examined how approval of violence related to reports of physical, psychological, and sexual IPV perpetration and victimization. We found that both male and female college students had higher levels of approval of female-to-male IPV than male-to-female IPV. We also found that male students had higher levels of approval of male-to-female IPV and female-to-male IPV than did female students. We found that men who had higher levels of approval of female-to-male IPV were more likely to be perpetrators and victims of physical IPV and perpetrators of sexual IPV. Finally, we found that women who had higher levels of approval of female-to-male IPV were more likely to be victims of sexual and psychological IPV.
Using the family stress model and marital bargaining theory, we aimed to investigate how financial stress and financial management roles are associated with both partners' (men's and women's) initial levels and rates of changes in financial disagreements over time. To test this, we used dyadic latent growth curve analyses obtained from 2158 German heterosexual couples over four waves or a 6‐year time span from the Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics dataset. Financial stress and discrepant or unclear financial management roles were associated with higher initial financial disagreements in both partners. Only discrepant financial management roles were associated with lesser declines in women's financial disagreement trajectories. Additionally, in the context of greater financial stress, discrepant financial roles were associated with ever higher initial financial disagreements in women. Practitioners working with couples in financial distress should consider exploring the couple's level of financial stress as well as specialized and discrepant views on financial role division.
While the research is clear on the risks for distress associated with on‐again, off‐again romantic relationships (i.e., cyclical relationships), little is known about the change mechanisms experienced by partners in cyclical relationships or how helping professionals can assist young adults stably continue or end these relationships. Young adults (N = 21) in different stages of cyclical relationships (renewed, ended, or contemplating renewal) attended focus groups and articulated specific mechanisms that influenced their ability to make distress‐reducing decisions. Main themes for professionals working with partners in cyclical relationships centered on promoting “decision‐making resilience,” which included addressing issues around identity development, communication, power/control dynamics, and intentionality. These results inform assessments and interventions to bolster resilience and reduce distress for cyclical couples.
This article serves as a primer for understanding how to use multilevel modeling (MLM) techniques in couple and family therapy outcome and process research. It outlines the use of HLM and Mplus-two of many software programs that can perform multilevel modelingand provides an applied example of using MLM to investigate the use of postsession feedback on couple satisfaction and change, as well as the influence of trauma on the use of postsession feedback. Two graduate students in COAMFTE accredited PhD programs read the primer and provided questions to the first author that arose. Answers to these questions have been incorporated throughout the explanation of this methodological approach in hopes of addressing common stuck points for those using MLM.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.