The Risk of Partner Aggression Research: Impact of Laboratory Couples Conflict Protocols on Participants

Abstract

The impact of male-to-female intimate partner violence (IPV) research on participants is unknown. A measure of impact was given to participants in an IPV study to assess systematically the impact of completing questionnaires, engaging in conflict conversations, and being interviewed individually about anger escalation and de-escalation during the conversations. Participants completed the six question, Likert-scaled, impact measure. Both male and female participants rated the impact of the study as helpful to them personally and to their relationships. Female participants rated different segments of the study as more helpful to themselves and their relationships, while male participants did not find any segment of the study to have a different impact than other segments. KeywordsEthics; Participation Impact; Intimate Partner Violence; Couples; Observational Research Male-to-female intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs in between 5.2 and 13.6% of American couples each year (Shafer, Caetano & Clark, 1998). IPV elevates victims' risk of physical injury (O'Leary, 1999;Thompson, Saltzman & Johnson, 2001;), chronic and acute physical problems (Coker et al., 2000), and myriad psychological disorders (e.g., Major Depressive Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety disorders and substance abuse; Magdol et al., 1998). The prevalence and impact of IPV has evoked the interest of advocates, clinicians, and researchers alike, resulting in over 5,600 published works listed in PsycINFO.An important but nearly unstudied element in this burgeoning area is the meta-topic of research participation's effect on research participants. IPV is considered a "sensitive topic" (i.e., one that might pose considerable threat to both participants and researchers; Lee, 1993). Possible harm to participants in research studies on sensitive topics is a concern of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), whose primary goal is to ensure the safety of research participants (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1978). For many studies of IPV, it is difficult to determine whether the procedures confer "minimal risk" or "more than minimal risk." Minimal risk means that the chance and extent of harm that might result from research participation are not any greater than normally encountered during daily activities or during standard psychological or physical examinations or assessments (45 CFR 46.102i, 2001 (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995;Medina et al., 2001), interviews (Lawson, 2003;Murphy et al., 2005), and problem solving discussions (for reviews see Heyman, 2001;Gottman, 1998).However, is minimal risk a correct assumption for these research methods? Most researchers formulate their opinions about the risk involved in conducting such research through informal means (e.g., past experience, perceived norms within an area of study, discussions with colleagues). When little is known about the impact of a study, researchers may infer minimal risk based on these informal means, whereas IRBs ...

Ethical Dilemmas of a Clinician/Researcher Interviewing Women who have Grown up in a Family Where There was Domestic Violence

“…Participants have experienced a decrease in intrusive thoughts over time when compared to a control group (Lutgendorf & Antoni, 1999) or felt that they learnt more about themselves (Reich & Kaplan, 1994). Similar effects were reported by participants in a study by Owen, Heyman, and Smith Slep (2006) who looked into the impact of participants completing questionnaires (Couples Conflict Protocols), engaging in conflict conversations and being interviewed individually about anger escalation and deescalation during these conversations. Both men and women rated the impact of the study as helpful to them personally and to their relationships.…”

PTSD and conflict behavior between veterans and their intimate partners

“…Participants rated the typicality of their partner’s behavior on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = much less than usual to 3 = about usual to 5 = much more than usual. Based on previous research (e.g., Foster et al, 1997; Owen, Heyman, & Smith Slep, 2006), two typicality subscales were scored: social support and social undermining. Cronbach’s alphas for the two subscales averaged across both discussions were .60 for social support (5 items) and .85 for social undermining (3 items).…”

The Challenges of Conducting Qualitative Research on “couples” in Abusive Intimate Partner Relationships Involving Substance Use

“…Research with survivors of domestic violence and abusive relationships has found that some participants experience taking part in research as supportive (Campbell et al, 2010). In other studies, participants also reported the therapeutic benefits of being involved in research concerning conflict in relationships [personal communication from the English cohort of the study]; Owen et al, 2006). These benefits were commented upon in this study, for example, one female commented on the positive effect of being listened to and the opportunity to talk about her violent relationship.…”