Spirituality and Common Dyadic Coping

Abstract

This study examined whether spirituality and dyadic coping protected partners from becoming psychologically aggressive toward each other using secondary, cross-sectional data from a sample of 104 Latino couples living in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The model tested was based on Bodenmann’s Systemic Transactional model and incorporated an Actor–Partner Interdependence Model approach. Structural equation modeling results indicated that each partner’s spirituality had a direct negative effect on their own psychological aggression and a direct positive effect on their own supportive dyadic coping and the couple’s common dyadic coping. Each partner’s spirituality also had an indirect effect on both partners’ psychological aggression through increases in the couple’s common dyadic coping. Supportive dyadic coping was not found to mediate the relation between spirituality and psychological aggression. Limitations of the study as well as clinical, programmatic, and research implications are discussed.

Keywords

psychological aggression coping stress immigration Latinos

The Latino population in the United States has been rapidly growing, rising from more than 35,300,000 individuals in 2000 to nearly 50,500,000 people in 2010 (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). Projections indicate that by 2050 nearly 1 in 5 individuals in the United States will be Latino/a (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008). Within the Latino population a large proportion (37.4%) continues to be first-generation immigrants (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). In addition to past traumatic experiences in their countries of origin (e.g., war, political torture and/or persecution, abuse) and in their immigration journey, immigrant Latinos often face a variety of stressors while living in the United States. Some of these stressors include the language barrier, cultural differences (e.g., parenting, gender roles), emotional and material losses, limited economic resources, discrimination, and concerns about their immigration status (Arbona et al., 2010; Klevens et al., 2007; Negy, Schwartz, & Reig-Ferrer, 2009). These stressors have been cited as important factors contributing to the psychological and physical aggression found among Latino couples (Hass, Dutton, & Orloff, 2000; Klevens et al., 2007; Lewis, West, Bautista, Greenberg, & Done-Perez, 2005). This is consistent with Bodenmann’s Systemic-Transactional Model (STM; Bodenmann, 1997), according to which external stressors may spill over into a couple’s relationship, increasing partners’ risk for conflict escalation and aggression. It is also consistent with findings that have associated stress and aggression in other populations (Bodenmann, Meuwly, Bradbury, Gmelch, & Ledermann, 2010; Frye & Karney, 2006).

Psychological aggression, which has been defined as “both coercive verbal behaviors (e.g., insulting or swearing at partner) and coercive nonverbal behaviors that are not directed at the partner’s body (e.g., slamming doors or smashing objects)” (Murphy & O’Leary, 1989, p. 579), has been reported to be common among Latino couples (Falconier, McCollum, Wainbarg, & Austin, 2010; Hass et al., 2000; Hazen & Soriano, 2007; Klevens et al., 2007). Even though qualitative studies indicate that both men and women can be psychologically aggressive toward their partners (Falconier et al., 2010; Klevens et al., 2007), most findings regarding psychological aggression among Latinos come from studies using women as informants (e.g., Denham et al., 2007; Hass et al., 2000), making it difficult to determine prevalence rates of female to male psychological aggression, though rates of male to female psychological aggression have been reported to be as high as 82.5% (Hazen & Soriano, 2007).

Similarly to findings in other populations, within the Latino community, psychological aggression has been associated with depression, hostility, and somatization among women (Hazen, Connelly, Soriano, & Landsverk, 2008) and appears to be the initial type of aggression experienced, prior to escalation into physical and sexual aggression (Zarza, Ponsoda, & Carrillo, 2009). Additionally, children who are exposed to psychological aggression in their homes seem to be at an increased risk of exhibiting violent and aggressive behaviors (Ferguson, San Miguel, & Hartley, 2009). Despite the high percentage of Latino immigrants in the United States, the presence of psychological aggression in this population, and the risks that psychological aggression presents to individuals, couples, and families, little is known about what factors may protect Latino immigrant couples from engaging in this form of aggression. Understanding protective factors that may reduce these couples’ engagement in psychological aggression may contribute to the development of clinical and programmatic approaches aimed at preventing and reducing this type of aggression and its potential escalation into physical and sexual violence.

Spirituality, which “refers to a dimension of human experience involving personal transcendent beliefs and practices, within or outside formal religion, through family and cultural heritage, and in connection with nature and humanity” (Walsh, 2009, p. 5), has been described as an important dimension in the Latino community in the United States (Falicov, 2009; Fitchett et al., 2007). Despite the fact that 90% of Latinos identify with a specific religion (Pew Hispanic Center, 2007), spirituality among Latinos encompasses many different traditions and beliefs including Christian beliefs in a divine and all powerful God, Espiritismo (the belief in an invisible world of both good and evil spirits), and Santeria (the belief in priests and priestesses who heal and perform rituals; Falicov, 2009). Similar to findings with non-Latino populations (e.g., Kim & Seidlitz, 2002; Nelson et al., 2009), among Latinos spirituality has found to be associated with improved psychological well-being and physical health (Abraído-Lanza, Vásquez, Echeverría, 2004; Finch, 2003) and identified as a coping resource in the adjustment to a new country (Falicov, 2009) or when facing medical conditions such as cancer or arthritis (Abraído-Lanza et al., 2004; Culver, Arena, Wimberly, Antoni, & Carver, 2004).

At the couple’s level research on the effects of spirituality in the Latino population has been limited. Two studies have reported spirituality to be negatively related to physical aggression (Ellison, Trinitapoli, Anderson, & Johnson, 2007; Lown & Vega, 2001). This finding is consistent with studies that have found that spirituality and related behaviors, such as church attendance, decrease the likelihood of physical violence (Ellison & Anderson, 2001; Ellison, Bartowski, & Anderson, 1999) and verbal abuse (Mahoney et al., 1999) in non-Latino couples, in some cases even after controlling for social support, abuse of drugs and alcohol, low self-esteem, and depression (Ellison & Anderson, 2001). Spirituality might protect couples’ relationships by offering partners a coping strategy to deal with stressors (e.g., meditation, prayer) or by increasing their tendency to be more forgiving, accepting, and willing to minimize conflicts and make positive attributions of their partner, all of which ultimately aid couples in de-escalation of conflict and/or prevention of psychological aggression (Mahoney et al., 1999). The role of spirituality in protecting Latino and non-Latino couples from physical aggression, the high spiritual orientation among Latinos, as well as their tendency to rely on spirituality in times of stress suggest that spirituality might protect Latino partners’ from becoming mutually psychologically aggressive.

In addition to individual coping strategies such as spirituality, the couple’s literature has also identified dyadic coping strategies that may protect couples from conflict and dissatisfaction. Studies of couples’ coping processes with non-Latino populations have found that one partner’s efforts to support the partner experiencing stress (supportive dyadic coping [SDC]) and the couple’s joint efforts to cope with common stressors (common dyadic coping [CDC]) are positively associated with marital quality and satisfaction, relationship stability, and improved behavior during conflicts (Bodenmann, 2005; Bodenmann, Pihet, & Kayser, 2006; Papp & Witt, 2010). Regarding psychological aggression, a recent study conducted by Bodenmann et al. (2010) found that SDC and CDC were negatively related to verbal aggression. The study concluded that “recognizing the link between context and verbal aggression is important, because it suggests that some individuals and couples who are stressed will not become verbally hostile if they are able to effectively reduce or manage stress” (p. 410).

Even though dyadic coping processes have not been studied in Latino populations, it is likely that Latino couples rely on positive forms of coping given their strong family orientation, commonly referred to as familismo. This concept describes the strong family orientation found in the Latino culture reflected in the importance given to the extended family ties, family rituals, interdependence, collective efforts to support one another, and cooperation (Falicov, 1998). Moreover, the strong family support found in this culture has been found to protect individuals’ physical and mental health (Mulvaney-Day, Alegría, & Sribney, 2007), which suggests the possibility that SDC and CDC strategies may be present in Latino couples and may protect them from engaging in psychologically aggressive behaviors toward one another. Consequently, this study examined the roles of spirituality, SDC, and CDC as potential protective factors against psychological aggression among first-generation Latino immigrant couples living in the United States from an STM perspective. The study also incorporated an Actor–Partner Interaction Model (APIM; Kenny et al., 2006) approach to examine and control for partners’ interdependence.

The Systemic-Transactional Model

STM (Bodenmann, 1997) is based on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional approach in which stress is created by the interaction between an individual’s perception of the demands of a situation and the resources available to deal with the demand. STM extends the work of Lazarus and Folkman (1984) by examining stress processes in the couple’s context created by the interplay between partners’ behaviors. According to Bodenmann (1997), individuals first use individual coping strategies and then dyadic coping methods if individual efforts are not sufficient to manage stress. Dyadic coping includes (a) the extent to which partners communicate to each other that they are stressed and need support (stress communication), (b) the kind of coping responses each partner gives when the other partner feels stressed, and (c) the extent to which the couple engages in joint efforts to cope with their stress (common dyadic coping). In this model, the couple’s dyadic coping can take a positive or negative form. Negative dyadic coping forms refer to support that can be hostile (withdrawing, blaming, minimizing), ambivalent (providing help unwillingly or showing it is not necessary), and/or superficial (providing support insincerely). Positive forms of dyadic coping include supportive, delegated, and common dyadic coping. Supportive dyadic coping occurs when one partner offers support in the forms of “practical advice, empathic understanding, helping the partner to reframe the situation, communicating a belief in the partner’s capabilities, or expressing solidarity with the partner” (Bodenmann, 2005, p. 38). Delegated dyadic coping occurs when a partner takes over responsibilities normally handled by the stressed partner. Common dyadic coping occurs when partners mutually engage in “joint problem solving, joint information seeking, sharing of feelings, mutual commitment, or relaxing together” (Bodenmann, 2005, p. 38). It is the inclusion of CDC that makes STM different from other dyadic coping models (e.g., Empathic Responding Model, O’Brien, DeLongis, Pomaki, Puterman, & Zwicker, 2009; the Congruence Model, Revenson, Abraído-Lanza, Majerovitz, & Jordan, 2005).

Conceptual Model

From an STM perspective, each partner’s spirituality can be viewed as an individual coping strategy that may prevent each partner from being psychologically aggressive toward each other. A spiritual orientation places a high value on other centered behaviors, selflessness, and unconditional love, which may create the motivation to be respectful and affectionate, and to extend support to partners during times of stress, thus possibly increasing participation in SDC and CDC (Lambert & Dollahite, 2006; Wilcox & Wolfinger, 2008). Consequently, the model examined in this study views spirituality as protecting couples from psychological aggression directly and indirectly through increases in their SDC and CDC behaviors (Figure 1). Taking an APIM approach, the model also includes positive associations between male and female partners’ psychological aggression, SDC, and spirituality. Empirical evidence (e.g., Falconier & Epstein, 2010; Mahoney et al., 1999; Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010; Papp & Witt, 2010; Sullivan, 2001) related to partners’ mutual influence and selection effects during the courting process support the inclusion of such associations. Despite the dyadic nature of STM, this is the second STM-based study, after Papp and Witt’s research (2010), that has analyzed data from both partners and has included them within the same model. The following hypotheses summarize the conceptual model (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model

Hypothesis 1: Each partner’s spirituality will have a direct, negative effect on their own psychological aggression.

Hypothesis 2: Each partner’s SDC will mediate the relationship between their own spirituality and their partner’s psychological aggression. Each partner’s spirituality will have a direct, positive effect on their SDC, which in turn will have a direct, negative effect on the other partner’s psychological aggression.

Hypothesis 3: The couple’s CDC will mediate the relationship between each partner’s spirituality and both partners’ psychological aggression. Each partner’s spirituality will have a direct, positive effect on the couple’s CDC, which in turn will have a direct, negative effect on each partner’s psychological aggression.

Method

Sample

This study was a secondary analysis of existing, cross-sectional data collected at Virginia Tech in 2009 from a community sample of 114 Latino couples living in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Inclusion criteria included that both partners must be Latino, at least 18 years old, living together for at least 1 year, and currently living together. Participants were recruited from community outpatient mental health clinics, private psychotherapists’ offices, churches, community agencies, festivals, and medical offices. Given that this study focused on first-generation Latino immigrant couples, only data from couples in which both partners were foreign born and had immigrated to the United States after turning 10 years old were used. These criteria led to the exclusion of 10 couples, leaving a sample of 104 couples.

In the sample used in this study, women’s average age was 39.43 (SD = 7.87) and men’s average age was 40.64 (SD = 8.68). All men and women were Latin American immigrants with men averaging 14.32 (SD = 8.03) years in the United States and women averaging 12.37 (SD = 7.43) years, and with 32.7% of participants born in El Salvador, 13.9% in Peru, 12% in Mexico, 11.1% in Guatemala, and 30.3% in other Latin American countries. Even though this sample is not representative of the Hispanic population in all of the United States (64.5% Mexican, 3.2% Salvadoran, 2.0% Guatemalan, 1.0% Peruvian; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009), it is of the population in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area (e.g., Montgomery County: 9.4% Mexican, 32.2% Salvadoran, 7.2% Guatemalan, 6.3% Peruvian; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).

Seventy-six couples (73.1%) were married and 28 couples (26.9%) were cohabiting. Couples had been living together for 12.09 years on average (SD = 7.66) and were living with an average of 1.84 (SD = 1.22) children younger than 21 years in their household. Half of the couples (51%) had met in the United States whereas the other half (49%) had met in their countries of origin. Level of education was varied in this sample with 21.2% of men and 24% of women holding at least a bachelor’s degree whereas 27.9% of men and 30.7% of women had not completed high school. The majority of men (84.6%) and women (61.5%) were employed. Partners’ combined income of more than $50,000 was reported by 47.1% of couples, income ranging from $20,000 to $49,999 was reported by 31.7% of couples, and income less than $19,999 was reported by 14.4% of couples. When considering combined income, it is important to remember that in 32.4% of couples at least one partner reported that there was another adult contributing to the household income. Males reported that 72.1% were Catholic, 15.3% of other Christian religions, 1.9% Jewish, and 7.7% had no religious affiliation. Women reported that 80.8% were Catholic, 14.4% of other Christian religions, 1% Jewish, and 3.8% reported no religious affiliation.

Procedure

Interested participants received packets that included research consent forms, an instruction sheet, and a self-report questionnaire for each partner. All participants preferred to complete the assessments in Spanish. Participation was voluntary, and written informed consent was obtained from each participant. Each partner was instructed to complete their individual written questionnaires separately, and on returning questionnaires and consent forms each participant received a $25 gift card. Three-digit numbers were assigned to each participant couple to maintain confidentiality. The data were then entered into SPSS and prepared for analysis. Identifying contact information and names were excluded from the database and original assessment documents were filed in a locked cabinet.

Instruments

Except for the Conflict Tactics Scale–Revised (CTS-R; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), whose translation was provided by Western Psychological Services, all the other measures were translated into Spanish by a native speaker and then back-translated into English. Both versions, the original English version and the back-translation, were then compared for accuracy. Participants completed a demographics questionnaire (age, marital status, ethnicity, family and household composition, education, employment, etc.).

Psychological aggression

The eight-item psychological aggression subscale of the Spanish version of the CTS-R was used in this study (Straus et al., 1996). The items include a participant’s report of their own, as well as their partner’s frequency of use of psychologically aggressive behaviors (e.g., insulting or swearing at one’s partner). Possible answers and their original value include (0) this has never happened, (1) not in the past year but it did happen, (2) once in the past year, (3) twice in the past year, (4) 3 to 5 times in the past year, (5) 6 to 10 times in the past year, (6) 11 to 20 times in the past year, and (7) more than 20 times in the past year. Items were then recoded as follows: 0 = 0, 1 = 0, 2 = 1, 3 = 2, 4 = 3, 5 = 4, 6 = 5, 7 = 6, a coding strategy suggested by Newton, Connelly, and Landsverk (2001) given that the strategy based on the midpoint of the categories is likely to increase the skewness and kurtosis of the data. Considering that self-reports may be affected by a social desirability bias, only the partner’s report was used. Given that some participants with a high value response wrote that they would call their partner ugly or fat in a “caring” way the item “My partner called me fat or ugly” was not included in the study as it was not necessarily an indicator of aggression for this population. The internal consistencies of partner’s report of the male and female psychological aggression scales were .83 and .86, higher than past reports of internal consistency ranging from .72 to .79 (Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & McGrath, 2007; Straus et al., 1996).

Supportive dyadic coping

The SDC subscale from the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann, 2000) was used to measure SDC. The DCI is a 37-item self-report questionnaire with nine different subscales including one’s own and one’s partner’s stress communication, SDC, delegated dyadic coping, and negative dyadic coping, as well as CDC and an overall evaluation of coping. Responses are rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very rarely) to 5 (very often). The DCI has been increasingly used over the past 10 years to measure couple’s coping (for a review, see Bodenmann, 2008). Consistent with the strategy used for the CTS-R, only the SDC by partner subscale was used in this study. This five-item subscale assesses the way in which the partner provides emotion-focused (e.g., showing empathy, being on the same side, listening) and problem-focused (e.g., helping to analyze the situation and see it in a different light) support (Bodenmann, 2000) to the respondent when under stress (Bodenmann, 2000). For example, one of the five items is “My partner shows empathy and understanding to me.” The internal consistency for the SDC subscale was .89 for both males and females, close to the internal consistency values of .82 and .83 reported in past studies (e.g., Lederman et al., 2010).

Common dyadic coping

The five-item CDC subscale from the DCI was used to assess CDC. The CDC subscale assesses partners’ joint efforts to cope with stressors that affect both partners. Items include emotion- (e.g., relaxing together) and problem-focused coping strategies (e.g., searching for solutions). An example of an item from this scale is “We try to cope with the problem together and search for ascertained solutions.” Value responses are the same as the ones described for the SDC subscale. However, the coding involved averaging both partners’ responses to capture both partners’ perceptions of common coping. T-tests comparing male and female reports of the couple’s engagement in CDC indicated no significant difference, MD = .34, t(91) = .68, p = .50. In the current study, the internal consistency of male and female reports of CDC subscale were .94 and .92, higher than the internal consistency of .83 reported in previous studies (Bodenmann, Charvoz, Widmer, & Bradbury, 2004; Bodenmann et al., 2006).

Spirituality

Participants’ level of spirituality was assessed using the question: “How important is religion or spirituality to you in your daily life?” Answer options ranged from (4) very important to (0) not at all important on a Likert-type scale. Though it would be preferable to have a more extensive measure of spirituality, because this study is a secondary analysis of existing data, this was not possible. Nonetheless, the use of a measure of spirituality comprising one or two variables is common in the literature as demonstrated by a review of research studies that explored the role of religion in family relationships, which found that 77% of quantitative studies depended on such one- and two-item measures (Mahoney, 2010).

Results

Variable Characteristics for Women and Men

Overall, the sample reported high levels of spirituality (Males: M = 3.13, SD = 1.03; Females: M = 3.41, SD = 0.85), moderate levels of SDC (Males: M = 11.56, SD = 5.23; Females: M = 13.03, SD = 4.96), and low levels of psychological aggression (Males: M = 6.39, SD = 7.79; Females: M = 4.86, SD = 6.37). T-tests for paired samples were conducted to assess gender mean differences among study variables. Compared with men, women’s level of spirituality, MD = 0.28, t(87) = −2.59, p = .01, and use of SDC, MD = 5.28, t(88) = 2.63, p = .01, were significantly higher, but they were significantly less psychologically aggressive, MD = −1.53, t(86) = 2.06, p = .04. Bivariate correlations among all factors are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Spearman’s Correlations Among Factors

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Male Spirituality	—
2. Female Spirituality	.45**	—
3. Male SDC	.09	−.05	—
4. Female SDC	.00	.23*	.46**	—
5. Male Psyc. Agg.	−.10	−.05	−.30**	−.09	—
6. Female Psyc. Agg.	−.07	−.30**	−.20	−.17	.63**	—
7. CDC	.28*	.26*	.66**	.50**	−.27*	−.34**

Note: N = 104 women and 104 men. SDC = Supportive Dyadic Coping; CDC = Common Dyadic Copping.

p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed).

Multivariate Analysis

Structural equation modeling using EQS 6.1 and the maximum likelihood estimation method were employed to test the conceptual model. First, three separate confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted for the measurement models, a two-factor model (male and female) for both psychological aggression and SDC and a one-factor model for common coping. In the first two models, male and female factors were related to each other. Once goodness of fit was achieved in each measurement model, the three measurement models were incorporated into the structural model and the full model was evaluated. Given there were missing data (4.3%) and the fact that the data were not multivariately normally distributed (Yuan, Lambert, & Fouladi’s, 2004, normalized coefficient = 15.92), model fit was evaluated with robust statistics. Model fit was assessed by computing the robust Yuan–Bentler scaled chi-square $(χ_{YB}^{2})$ , and an adjusted chi-square statistic was used for nonnormal and incomplete data (Yuan & Bentler, 2000). A statistically significant chi-square $(χ_{YB}^{2})$ value means that the sample distribution differs significantly from the distribution expected from the proposed model, and therefore, the model should be rejected. Given the χ² test’s sensitivity to sample size, the recommended ratio of no more than 3:1 for the $χ_{YB}^{2} / d f$ ratio was used to evaluate model fit (Kline, 1998). In addition, the three fit indices recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999) were used to assess model fit: Bentler’s comparative fit index (CFI), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). CFI > .96, SRMR < .08, and RMSEA < .06 indicate good model fit. Robust CFI and RMSEA values were used in this study. Respecifications were based on theoretical and cultural considerations, results of the Lagrange multiplier (LM) test, and findings from previous studies. Given the limited sample size, length of relationship was the only control variable included in this study. Length of relationship was controlled for because it has been found to be correlated with psychological aggression, as well as positive and common dyadic coping (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997; Feldman & Broussard, 2006).

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

The seven items that measured psychological aggression were used as the observed variables in the CFA. This measurement model included a covariance between both latent constructs (male and female psychological aggression) and between the errors of both partners’ same observed variables in order to control for partners’ interdependence. The fit indices for this model did not indicate a good fit to the data, $χ_{YB}^{2} (69) = 86.00.65$ , p = .08; robust CFI = .95; SRMR = .96; robust RMSEA = .04 (.00, .07). An examination of the LM test results and theoretical considerations led to the inclusion of a covariance for each partner, relating the error terms of the shouting/yelling and threatening to hit/throw something items. The resulting model showed a significantly improved fit, $Δ χ_{YB}^{2} (2) = 9.18$ , p <.01. This model was kept as it also indicated a good fit to the data, $χ_{YB}^{2} (67) = 77.82$ , p = .17; robust CFI = .97; SRMR = .09; robust RMSEA = .03 (.00, .07). Standardized factor loadings ranged from .52 to .86.

The five items that measured SDC were used as the observed variables in the CFA. This measurement model included a covariance between both latent constructs (male and female SDC) and covariances between the errors of both partners’ same observed variables to control for the interdependence between partners’ variables. Results indicated a good fit to the data, $χ_{YB}^{2} (29) = 44.62$ , p = .03; robust CFI = .97; SRMR = .06; robust RMSEA = .07 (.000, .107), with standardized factor loadings ranging from .55 to .91.

The five averaged items that measured CDC were used as the observed variables in the CFA. Initial results did not indicate a good fit of the model to the data, $χ_{YB}^{2} (5) = 35.62$ , p = .000; robust CFI = .89; SRMR = .07; robust RMSEA = .24 (.17, .32). Results from the LM test suggested the model could be improved by adding a covariance between the error terms of two items. Given that these two items differentiated themselves from the other three by representing emotion-focused strategies and that the relationship between these two indicators of CDC had also been noted and included in previous studies (Bodenmann, 2008; Donato et al., 2009), the covariance was added to the model. The new model showed a significantly better, $Δ χ_{YB}^{2} (1) (1) = 29.29$ , p <.001, fit to the data, $Δ χ_{YB}^{2} (4) = 6.33$ , p = .18; robust CFI = .99; SRMR = .02; robust RMSEA = .07 (.000, .18), with factor loadings ranging from .74 to .98.

Structural Model

The final CFA models were incorporated into the structural model and the full model was evaluated (Figure 2). Fit indices indicated an acceptable fit to the data, $Δ χ_{YB}^{2} (430) = 508.26$ , p = .005; robust CFI = 1.00; SRMR = .09; robust RMSEA = .000 (.000, .030).

Figure 2.

Structural and measurement model: Standardized results

Hypothesis 1 was supported as results indicated direct negative paths between female (−.33) and male’s (−.29) own spirituality and psychological aggression. Hypothesis 2, which stated that SDC would mediate the relationship between one’s own spirituality and one’s partner’s psychological aggression, was not supported as relationships between one’s own spirituality and one’s own SDC were found to be statistically significant, but relationships between one’s own SDC and partner’s psychological aggression were not demonstrated. Female spirituality had a direct positive effect on female SDC (.25), and male spirituality had a direct positive effect on male SDC (.19). Hypothesis 3 was supported as CDC was found to mediate the relationship between each partner’s spirituality and each partner’s psychological aggression, above and beyond the direct influence of spirituality on psychological aggression. This indicates that spirituality influences psychological aggression indirectly through CDC. Female (.17) and male (.28) spirituality had direct positive effects on CDC, which then had a direct negative effect on female (−.32) and male (−.36) psychological aggression. Even though the indirect effects of male’s spirituality on his own (−.10) and his female partner’s psychological aggression (−.07) and of the female’s spirituality on her own (−.05) and her partner’s psychological aggression (−.06) were all low, they were statistically significant. The standardized total effect of each partner’s spirituality on their own psychologically aggressive behaviors was −.38 for males and −.39 for females.

The relationships between both partners’ spirituality, SDC, and psychological aggression, which had been included in the model, were supported as well. Positive associations between male and female psychological aggression (.64), male and female SDC (.50), and male and female spirituality (.41) were found above and beyond the influence of other relationship in the model. The hypothesized positive associations between CDC and female (.48) and male (.74) SDC were also found to be statistically significant. The structural model with standardized results (Figure 2) presents these findings.

Models with constraints were tested to examine whether there were statistically significant gender differences among paths with the same measurement units. No significant gender differences were found in the relationships between each partner’s spirituality and the couple’s CDC, their own SDC, and their own psychological aggression.

Finding a good fit of the hypothesized model to the data does not necessarily rule out the possibility of other competing models that might also have a good fit to the data. Given that SDC and CDC were hypothesized to mediate the relationship between spirituality and psychological aggression, an alternative model was tested in which spirituality mediated the relation between CDC and each partner’s psychological aggression and between each partner’s SDC and the other partner’s psychological aggression, while still keeping the direct relation between each partner’s and his or her own psychological aggression. The lower value for the Akaike information criterion showed that the original hypothesized model (−246.20) was a better fitting, more parsimonious model than this alternative model (−229.32), providing further support for the mediation role of CDC in the relationship between spirituality and psychological aggression.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the preventative roles of spirituality, SDC, and CDC against psychological aggression from an STM perspective. To the authors’ best knowledge, this is the first study to explore protective factors against psychological aggression among Latino immigrant couples. On average, participants reported low levels of psychological aggression, which contrasts with the high prevalence among Latinos described in the literature (Falconier et al., 2010; Hazen & Soriano, 2007). It is likely that participants may have underreported their true levels of psychological aggression because of a social desirability bias and the possibility that partners may have shared their responses. However, low psychological aggression might be a result of a selection bias since partners with higher levels of psychological aggression may have been more reluctant to participate in a study about their couple relationship.

Females were significantly less likely to engage in psychological aggression than their partners. Despite the consistency between this finding and the high rates of male to female verbal abuse reported by Hazen and Soriano (2007), this result should be considered with caution. Female’s lower engagement in psychological aggression may be a reflection of this study’s use of males’ report and their tendency to underreport aggression (Caetano, Field, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Lipsky, 2009; Healey & Smith, 1998). As hypothesized and consistent with past research (Falconier & Epstein, 2010; Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010), both partners’ psychological aggression were positively related, indicating that a partner’s level of psychological aggression is one of the factors contributing to the individual’s own psychological aggression.

Similar to findings from studies on other populations (Bodenmann et al., 2010; Papp & Witt, 2010), Latinos in this study engaged in moderate levels of SDC and CDC. However, women tended to provide more SDC than men. This may be because of cultural expectations arising from marianismo, which emphasizes a woman’s responsibility to be a caring and nurturing mother and wife who provides support to her partner (Falicov, 1998). Despite this gender difference both partners’ SDC were positively related, suggesting that one partner’s giving of support may encourage the other partner to give support in return. In line with previous findings (Bodenmann et al., 2004; Lederman et al., 2010), SDC was positively associated with CDC.

Consistent with the literature’s emphasis on the high spiritual orientation of the Latino culture (Falicov, 2009; Fitchett et al., 2007), both males and females reported high levels of spirituality. Similar to findings in Latino and non-Latino populations (Ellison et al., 2007; Stark, 2002), women’s level of spirituality was significantly higher than men’s. Among Latinos, women’s higher spiritual orientation may also be a result of the cultural expectation from marianismo that Latino women should be highly religious (Falicov, 1998). As expected, both partners’ levels of spirituality were positively associated, which may be because of selection effects during courting or mutual partners’ influence (Mahoney et al., 1999; Sullivan, 2001).

Past research (Ellison et al., 2007) has found that church attendance and spirituality could prevent couples from becoming physically aggressive toward each other. As hypothesized, results from the recent study suggest that the more spiritual a person is, the less likely he or she is to engage in psychological aggression toward a partner. If used as an individual coping strategy, it is possible that religious (e.g., praying) and nonreligious forms (e.g., meditation) of spiritual practices may help reduce stress, and thus prevent stress spillover into the couple relationship, and possible escalation into psychological aggression. However, as explained earlier, a spiritual orientation may promote nonviolent relationships as well. Given that participants were asked about the importance given to spirituality in their lives rather than about their reliance on spirituality under stressful circumstances, it is not possible to conclude from this study if couples used spirituality as an individual coping strategy.

As hypothesized, in addition to its direct influence on psychological aggression, each partner’s spirituality was found to protect couples from engaging in psychological aggression indirectly through CDC. Each partner’s spirituality contributed to the couple’s use of CDC above and beyond the independent effects of the other partner’s spirituality onto CDC. This finding suggests that a spiritual orientation in just one of the partners may be protecting both partners from mutual psychological aggression through engagement in CDC, above and beyond spirituality’s direct influence on psychological aggression. Given that religious and nonreligious forms of spirituality value cohesion and connectedness, it could be that the more spiritual a partner is, the more likely he or she will be to seek and promote opportunities for engaging in CDC to cope with common stressors. It is possible that in turn higher levels of CDC indicate that partners are willing to work together to deal with stress, fostering a sense of safety and we-ness in their relationship, which makes it easier for partners to be vulnerable and turn toward each other. Without this sense of togetherness and partners joining against a stressor, couples may instead allow stress to spillover into their relationship, pitting one partner against the other, creating tension and escalation into psychological aggression.

In addition to protecting couples from engaging in psychological aggression and encouraging participation in CDC, results indicate that the more spiritually oriented partners are the greater the likelihood that they will provide SDC to their partners. Spirituality may serve as an individual coping strategy that allows one partner to better manage their own stress and thus be more prepared to offer support to their stressed partner. It could also be that spirituality promotes more other centered behaviors and, therefore, more attention to providing comfort and support to a partner under stress. However, contrary to expectations, an individual’s increased engagement in SDC did not reduce their partner’s engagement in psychologically aggressive acts, and therefore, SDC did not mediate the relationship between the individual’s spirituality and the partner’s psychological aggression.

Given Latinos’ familismo, which emphasizes the giving of support among family members, it was expected that both SDC and CDC would prevent psychological aggression in couples. However, it is also known that the collectivistic orientation of the Latino culture places the common good above individual needs (Falicov, 1998), and consequently, it is possible that for Latino couples joint efforts to cope with stressors are more important and, therefore, a more effective coping strategy than support provided by the partner. Latino views about the martial bond may also explain why what one partner does for the other is less important, in terms of protecting against psychological aggression, than what they do together to cope with stress. Individualistic societies, based on an exchange, utilitarian perspective, may emphasize the contractual give and take aspects of the marital relationship. Considering Latinos’ collectivistic and family orientation and the large influence of Catholicism (around 75% of participants were Catholic), which places emphasis on nurturing relationships, the contractual aspects of marriage and what one partner does for the other may be less relevant, explaining why CDC may be more important than SDC for Latino partners.

Results from the present investigation should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the study. Though the test of alternative models provided support for the validity of the conceptual model in this study, the cross-sectional nature of the data precludes causal inferences. The small sample size also limited the power of the statistical analyses. Therefore, the absence of significant associations, such as the one between partners’ SDC and psychological aggression, should be taken with caution as they may be reflecting the insufficient power in this study rather than a true absence of an association. In addition, the sample in this study is representative of the Latino population in the Washington, D.C. area but not of the United States, which poses limitations to the generalizability of the findings. Another limitation is the one-item measure of spirituality. Though this may reduce the reliability of findings, many other studies rely on such limited measures (Mahoney, 2010). In addition, this measure asked about the importance of spirituality or religion in daily life, and therefore, it is not possible to know whether the findings from the present study refer to religious spirituality, nonreligious spirituality, or both. Additionally, couples completed the self-report assessments in their homes without supervision. Therefore, it is possible that participants were influenced by their partner’s presence or concerns about confidentiality, that one participant completed the assessment for their partner, or that partners consulted each other about answers. Self-report measures are also subject to social desirability biases especially on sensitive subjects such as psychological aggression. Finally, this sample reported low levels of psychological aggression; therefore, it is unknown if spirituality and CDC play a protective role in couples with higher levels of psychological aggression.

The results of the current study have important implications for researchers and clinicians. Research may expand on the current study to explore the relationships between spirituality, SDC, CDC, and psychological aggression among other populations and through a longitudinal design that allows for causal inferences. Studies on spirituality should also discriminate between religious and nonreligious spirituality so that their specific contributions can be examined. Additionally, using a more descriptive measure of spirituality may increase understanding of the specific mechanisms (e.g., congregational or group involvement, specific spiritual practices, specific spiritual beliefs) by which spirituality influences couple functioning and whether spirituality is used as a coping strategy or not. Considering that denominational homogamy, joint regular religious attendance, shared beliefs and values, and shared home worship activities have all been found to influence relationship satisfaction (Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010) and that theological dissimilarity increases the risk of domestic violence (Ellison et al., 2007), it is important that studies in the future also investigate the influence of these factors when examining dyadic coping and psychological aggression in couples. This study confirms the need of collecting data from both partners and using an APIM approach when studying the interplay between individual and dyadic coping and their effects on relationship outcomes. Results from the present study also make clear the need to examine the differing contributions of SDC and CDC to couple functioning instead of measuring SDC and CDC together in a positive dyadic coping scale. Last, this study provides support for the inclusion of culturally relevant variables such as familimo, marianismo, or collectivism in future research on individual and dyadic coping.

Given the harmful effects of psychological aggression on individuals, couples, and families, as well as the potential that it has to escalate into physical and sexual aggression, clinicians and prevention program designers working with Latino couples may consider exploring and encouraging the use of spiritual resources as well as couple’s joint coping processes such as discussing problems and relaxing together. By encouraging the use of spirituality and CDC negative outcomes associated with psychological aggression may be decreased and/or prevented.

Conclusion

Findings from this study provided evidence for the protective function that spirituality and CDC have against psychological aggression among Latino immigrant couples living in the United States. These findings emphasize the importance of conducting future research, collecting data from both partners, applying an APIM approach, and including culturally relevant coping strategies when studying the interplay between individual and dyadic coping and its effects on couple functioning. This type of research can contribute to the development of culturally appropriate prevention and intervention strategies for couples coping with stress.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The study reported in this article represents the first author’s master thesis, whose committee was chaired by the second author. The data used for the present study come from a large data set and were collected by the second author as part of larger study that examines stress coping processes in Latino couples.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abraído-Lanza

A. F.

Vásquez

Echeverría

S. E.

(2004). En las manos de Dios [in God’s hands]: Religious and other forms of coping among Latinos with arthritis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 91-102.

Arbona

Olvera

Rodriguez

Hagan

Linares

Wiesner

(2010). Acculturative stress among documented and undocumented Latino immigrants in the United States. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32, 362-384.

Bodenmann

(1997). Dyadic coping: A systemic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 137-140.

Bodenmann

(2000). Stress und Coping bei Paaren [Stress and coping in couples]. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Bodenmann

(2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In Revenson

Kayser

Bodenmann

(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33-50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bodenmann

(2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar (DCI). Testmanual [Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI). Test manual]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber & Hogrefe.

Bodenmann

Charvoz

Widmer

Bradbury

T. N.

(2004). Differences in individual and dyadic coping among low and high depressed, partially remitted, and nondepressed persons. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 75-85.

Bodenmann

Meuwly

Bradbury

T. N.

Gmelch

Ledermann

(2010). Stress, anger, and verbal aggression in intimate relationships: Moderating effects of individual and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 408-424.

Bodenmann

Pihet

Kayser

(2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 485-493.

10.

Caetano

Field

Ramisetty-Mikler

Lipsky

(2009). Agreement on reporting of physical, psychological, and sexual violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1318-1337.

11.

Capaldi

D. M.

Crosby

(1997). Observed and reported psychological and physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Social Development, 6, 184-206.

12.

Culver

J. L.

Arena

P. L.

Wimberly

S. R.

Antoni

M. H.

Carver

C. S.

(2004). Coping among African-American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White women recently treated for early stage breast cancer. Psychology and Health, 19, 157-166.

13.

Denham

A. C.

Frasier

P. Y.

Hooten

E. G.

Belton

Newton

Gonzalez

Campbell

M. K.

(2007). Intimate partner violence among Latinas in eastern North Carolina. Violence Against women, 13, 123-140.

14.

Donato

Iafrate

Barni

Bertoni

Bodenmann

Gagliardi

(2009). Measuring dyadic coping: The factorial structure of Bodenmann’s Dyadic Coping Questionnaire in an Italian sample. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 16, 25-47.

15.

Ellison

Christopher G.

Bartkowski

John P.

Anderson

Kristin L.

1999. Are There Religious Variations in Spousal Violence? Journal of Family Issues 20(1): 87-113.

16.

Ellison

C. G.

Anderson

K. L.

(2001). Religious involvement and domestic violence among U.S. couples. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 269-286.

17.

Ellison

C. G.

Burdette

A. M.

Wilcox

W. B.

(2010).The couple that prays together: Race and ethnicity, religion, and relationship quality among working-age adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 963-975.

18.

Ellison

C. G.

Trinitapoli

J. A.

Anderson

K. L.

Johnson

B. R.

(2007). Race/ethnicity, religious involvement, and domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 1094-1112.

19.

Falconier

M. K.

Epstein

N. B.

(2010). Relationship satisfaction in Argentinean couples under economic strain: Gender differences in a dyadic stress model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 781-799.

20.

Falconier

M. K.

McCollum

Wainbarg

Austin

(2010). IPV among Latinos: Community perceptions on help seeking and program recommendations. Unpublished manuscript.

21.

Falicov

J. C.

(1998). Latino families in therapy: A guide to multicultural practice. New York, NY: Guilford.

22.

Falicov

C. J.

(2009). Religion and spiritual traditions in immigrant families: Significance for Latino health and mental health. In Walsh

(Ed.), Spiritual resources in family therapy (2nd ed., pp. 156-173). New York, NY: Guilford.

23.

Feldman

B. N.

Broussard

C. A.

(2006). Men’s adjustment to their partner’s breast cancer: A dyadic coping perspective. Health and Social Work, 31, 117-127.

24.

Ferguson

C. J.

San Miguel

Hartley

R. D.

(2009). A multivariate analysis of youth violence and aggression: The influence of family, peers, depression, and media violence. Journal of Pediatrics, 155, 905-908.

25.

Finch

B. K.

(2003). Acculturation stress, social support, and self-rated health among Latinos in California. Journal of Immigrant Health, 5(3), 109-117.

26.

Fitchett

Murphy

P. E.

Kravitz

H. M.

Everson-Rose

S. A.

Krause

N. M.

Powell

L. H.

(2007). Racial/ethnic differences in religious involvement in a multi-ethnic cohort of midlife women. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(1), 119-132.

27.

Frye

N. E.

Karney

B. R.

(2006). The context of aggressive behavior in marriage: A longitudinal study of newlyweds. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 12-20.

28.

Hass

G. A.

Dutton

M. A.

Orloff

L. E.

(2000). Lifetime prevalence of violence against Latina immigrants: Legal and policy implications. International Review of Victimology, 7, 93-113.

29.

Hazen

A. L.

Connelly

C. D.

Soriano

F. I.

Landsverk

J. A.

(2008). Intimate partner violence and psychological functioning in Latina women. Health Care for Women International, 29, 282-299.

30.

Hazen

A. L.

Soriano

F. I.

(2007). Experiences with intimate partner violence among Latina women. Violence Against Women, 13, 562-582.

31.

Healey

K. M.

Smith

(1998). Batterer programs: What criminal justice agencies need to know: Research in action (NCJ 171683).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

32.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

33.

Humes

K. R.

Jones

N. A.

Ramirez

R. R.

(2011, March). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/

34.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.

35.

Kim

Seidlitz

(2002). Spirituality moderates the effect of stress on emotional and physical adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1377-1390.

36.

Klevens

Shelley

Clavel-Arcas

Barney

D. D.

Tobar

Duran

E. S.

. . . Esparza

(2007). Latinos’ perspectives and experiences with intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 141-158.

37.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.

38.

Lambert

N. M.

Dollahite

D. C.

(2006). How religiosity helps couples prevent, resolve, and overcome marital conflict, Family Relations, 55, 439-449.

39.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

40.

Lederman

Bodenmann

Gagliardi

Charvoz

Verardi

Rossier

. . . Iafrate

(2010). Psychometrics of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in three language groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69, 201-212.

41.

Lewis

M. J.

West

Bautista

Greenberg

A. M.

Done-Perez

(2005). Perceptions of service providers and community members on intimate partner violence within a Latino community. Health Education & Behavior, 32, 69-83.

42.

Lown

E. A.

Vega

W. A.

(2001). Intimate partner violence and health: Self-assessed health, chronic health, and somatic symptoms among Mexican American women. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63, 352-360.

43.

Mahoney

(2010). Religion in families 1999-2009: A relational spirituality framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 805-827.

44.

Mahoney

Pargament

K. I.

Jewell

Swank

A. B.

Scott

Emery

Rye

(1999). Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious constructs in marital functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 321-338.

45.

Mulvaney-Day

N. E.

Alegría

Sribney

(2007). Social cohesion, social support, and health among Latinos in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 477-495.

46.

Murphy

C. M.

O’Leary

K. D.

(1989). Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 579-582.

47.

Negy

Schwartz

Reig-Ferrer

(2009). Violated expectations and acculturation stress among U.S. Hispanic immigrants. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 255-264.

48.

Nelson

Jacobson

C. M.

Weinberger

M. I.

Bhaskaran

Rosenfeld

Breitbart

Roth

A. J.

(2009). The role of spirituality in the relationship between religiosity and depression in prostate cancer patients. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 38, 105-114.

49.

Newton

R. R.

Connelly

C. D.

Landsverk

J. A.

(2001). An examination of measurement characteristics and factorial validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 317-335.

50.

O’Brien

T. B.

DeLongis

Pomaki

Puterman

Zwicker

(2009). Couples coping with stress. The role of empathic responding. European Psychologist, 14, 18-28.

51.

Panuzio

DiLillo

(2010). Physical, psychological, and sexual intimate partner aggression among newlywed couples: Longitudinal prediction of marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 689-699.

52.

Papp

L. M.

Witt

N. L.

(2010). Romantic partners’ individual coping strategies and dyadic coping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 551-559.

53.

Pew Hispanic Center. (2007). Changing faiths: Latinos and the transformation of American religion. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=75

54.

Pew Hispanic Center. (2008). U.S. population projections: 2005-2050. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85

55.

Ramisetty-Mikler

Caetano

McGrath

(2007). Sexual aggression among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the U.S.: Alcohol use, physical assault and psychological aggression as its correlates. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Use, 33, 31-43.

56.

Revenson

Abraído-Lanza

Majerovitz

Jordan

(2005). Couples coping with chronic illness: What’s gender got to do with it? In Revenson

T. A.

Kayser

Bodenmann

(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 137-156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

57.

Stark

(2002). Physiology and faith: Addressing the “universal’ gender difference in religious commitment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 495-507.

58.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.

59.

Sullivan

K. T.

(2001). Understanding the relationship between religiosity and marriage: An investigation of the immediate and longitudinal effects of religiosity on newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 610-626.

60.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). American FactFinder American Community Survey. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov/

61.

Walsh

(2009). Spiritual resources in family therapy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

62.

Wilcox

W. B.

Wolfinger

N. H.

(2008). Living and loving “decent”: Religion and relationship quality among urban parents. Social Science Research, 37, 828-843.

63.

Yuan

K.-H.

Bentler

E. M.

(2000). Inferences on correlation coefficients in some classes of nonnormal distributions. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 72, 230-248.

64.

Yuan

K.-H.

Lambert

P. L.

Fouladi

R. T.

(2004). Mardia’s multivariate Kurtosis with missing data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 413-437.

65.

Zarza

M. J.

Ponsoda

Carrillo

(2009). Predictors of violence and lethality among Latina immigrants: Implications for assessment and treatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 1-16.