Conflict Resolution Strategies and Marital Adjustment of Heterosexual Couples: Assessment of Actor

Abstract

This study tested a dyadic theoretical model in which conflict resolution strategies have impact on couples’ marital adjustment. The study features a quantitative and transversal approach and a correlational and explanatory design. Participants included 231 heterosexual couples from different regions of Brazil, contacted after indication. The instrument composed of the Conflict Resolution Behavior Questionnaire (CRBQ) and the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (R-DAS) was filled out in the residence of the participants. Data were submitted to dyadic analysis by the latent trait model. The results indicated that the strategies have a strong impact on the individual’s adjustment. Assessing the impact of one of the spouse’s strategies on the other, only the marital adjustment of the men was affected. The evidence suggests differences between husbands and wives regarding the impact of strategies on adjustment. The data are discussed in light of the literature and considering their applicability in the clinical area.

Keywords

conflict resolution strategies marital relations marital adjustment

Introduction

Romantic relationships have been the focus of research in the scientific community, mainly because the quality of the relationships—or its lack—is associated with longevity, health and well-being, as well as psychopathology, malaise and a condition of unhappiness (Fincham, 2003; Neves & Duarte, 2015). The analysis of this issue is also relevant when considering the significant increase in divorce rates in Brazil.

According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), in 2017 there was an increase of 8.3% in the number of divorces compared to 2016 (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística [IBGE], 2018). A broader retrospective analysis shows that the number of divorces and separations has been growing significantly since 1993 (IBGE, 2017). The high divorce rates may explain the decrease in long-term marriages in Brazil. In the period between 2007 and 2017, the average time of marriages decreased from 17 to 14 years (IBGE, 2017). While in the scientific literature long-term marriages are those over 20 years (Norgren et al., 2004), the IBGE estimates that the average marriage duration in Brazil is 15 years (IBGE, 2013).

The data presented may suggest changes in the perception of Brazilian couples about the function and format of the relationship (Costa & Mosmann, 2015b) and reflect the asymmetry in the division of domestic tasks and expressions of power in the relationship. Both aspects are triggered by a predominantly sexist culture that influences interpersonal relationships between men and women and consequently the dynamics of marriage (Gomes & Fernandes, 2018).

The reasons for the instability in marriage were investigated in Brazil by Zordan et al. (2012) through documentary analysis of 152 marital separation proceedings from 1992 to 2006. The results showed that the main reasons for separation were fights and frequent arguments and aggression between the spouses. Although there is an increase in the complexity of the interaction between partners in the digital age (Costa & Mosmann, 2015b), the main reasons for divergence have remained the same for a long time. In general, they are related to the education of the children, the finances of the family, the maintenance of the intimacy and free time of the couple, excessive dedication to individuality and professional life, inequality in the division of household chores, among others (Costa et al., 2015; Fincham, 2003).

A systematic literature review of national and international studies published from 2004 to 2013, carried out in 10 databases, analyzed marital conflicts and conflict resolution strategies finding that the latter have been the focus of the research in detriment of the analysis of the reasons for the conflicts (Costa et al., 2016). The review corroborated an extensive theoretical work developed by Gottman and Notarius (2002), which found out that the main focus of investigation of the marital relations in the last two decades was the way couples solve their problems.

The literature points out that the existence of conflicts is inherent to a marital relation, and that the understanding of the dynamics established in these situations must go beyond the reasons (Fincham, 2003; Gottman, 1991). A robust body of empirical studies indicates that the strategies used to solve problems and divergences have a more important role than the reasons for conflict, especially in the long run. For this reason, research began to investigate the strategies that provoke favorable outcomes and the constructive resolution of the problems and those considered destructive, since they tend to aggravate the situation and transform the conflict into a deleterious experience of conjugality (Driver et al., 2016; Fincham, 2003; Gottman, 1991; Leggett et al., 2012; Veldorale-Brogan et al., 2013).

Strategies are behaviors in response to a specific problem or theme with causes disagreement between the spouses. By using different strategies, the partners give the conflict-generating situation an outcome, which may be favorable or unfavorable to one or both spouses, depending on the couple’s ability to manage such problems by using constructive or destructive strategies (Gottman, 1991; Leggett et al., 2012). Constructive strategies suggest good humor, self-control, flexibility, sensitivity, tolerance, engaged listening, empathy, attempts to reach agreement, among others. Destructive strategies involve attack, threat, coercion, retaliation, grievances, excessive rationalization, strictness, withdrawal, dominance or subordination (Anderson & Johnson, 2010; Leggett et al., 2012).

The (in)compatibility of the couples was tested in a sample of 1,983 couples with three different styles of conflict resolution in association with the separation, fights, satisfaction, and marital stability variables (Busby & Holman, 2009). The evaluated model, initially proposed by Gottman, consists of the profiles: (a) volatile, characteristic of passionate individuals and who tend to discuss their points of view warmly with the partner, who demonstrate negative feelings, but compensate through affection and fondness; (b) validator, profile that seeks to respect and understand the other, to appreciate and validate their points of view, to talk about problems and to use “we” to the detriment of the “I”; (c) avoider, a profile that emphasizes and shares positive feelings with the partner, prefers to minimize and avoid conflict regardless of agreeing of disagreeing. (Driver et al., 2016; Gottman, 1991). In the study in question, the researchers added a fourth style; (d) a hostile style, characteristic of individuals who make conflict a destructive event marked by contempt, decrease or absence of positive feelings and emotional instability.

The results indicated that 32% of the participants perceived incompatibility between their style of conflict resolution and that of the partner. According to Driver et al. (2016), this may interfere with the relationship in a negative manner, since spouses with different styles tend not to meet each other’s needs. Couples with the volatile/avoider profile presented higher levels of conflict and separation risks and lower levels of satisfaction and stability than the other different/incompatible profiles. The most robust predictor of negative outcome variables was the hostile style, and contrary to Gottman’s assumption, compatible/equal profiles did not predict marital satisfaction and stability. Only the compatible validator style was a predictor of positive outcome variables for couples compared to the volatile and elusive styles (Busby & Holman, 2009).

In order to identify and understand the conflict resolution strategies used by individuals in long-term marriages in Southern Brazil, Costa and Mosmann (2015a) conducted a focal group with nine participants, four heterosexual men and five heterosexual women, with time of union ranging from 20 to 32 years. The results showed that anticipating conflict situations, perceiving the seriousness of the problem, and the predisposition of the partner to dialogue is a constructive strategy. It was also found that expectations and strategies can change over time of marriage, an alteration associated with flexibility, tolerance and cooperation, peculiar to older couples, corroborating national and international studies (Delatorre & Wagner, 2015; Gottman et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2017).

An interactional pattern that is widely investigated in the scientific literature is called demand-withdrawal (Baucom et al., 2010; Driver et al., 2016; Fonseca & Duarte, 2014; Verhofstadt et al., 2005). In heterosexual couples who live this pattern, the woman tends to use active strategies, such as, for example, demanding, or seeking to discuss the problem. Differently, the man tends to use withdrawal strategies, obstructing discussion, avoiding verbal response and eye contact, and even withdrawing from the partner’s environment (Baucom et al., 2010; Delatorre et al., 2017; Verhofstadt et al., 2005).

In this pattern, the demander often considers the other party responsible for the problem and, therefore, demands a solution, complains and insists in order to have his or her request answered, causing a state of stress. The demand, under high levels of tension and through coercion and control strategies, makes it necessary to resist the realization of what is being requested, causing an increase in their levels of negative emotional excitement, in the intensity of the conflict and, consequently, in the withdrawal/avoidance of the stressful situation. This will reverberate in even more intense negative emotional reactions in the demanders who will feel frustration and anger because they consider that the spouse is relieving themselves of their responsibility for the problem, disinvesting and/or not caring.

Thus, the behavior of each of the spouses is understood as a trigger and a consequence of the behavior of the other, that is, the more one partner demands coercively, the more the other withdraws. A cyclical process of demand and withdrawal behaviors is set in motion and it is fed back and aggravated (Verhofstadt et al., 2005). Systemic authors identify this positive feedback loop pattern that occurs if an individual’s behavior causes unwanted behavior to increase in the other (Nichols & Schwartz, 2007). In fact, it is possible to suppose that the problem that generated dissatisfaction, a priori for one of the spouses, takes on greater proportions, provoking dissatisfaction to both and contributing to a negative evaluation of the marital adjustment.

The relationship between adjustment and conflict resolution strategies has been investigated for more than two decades in the scientific milieu (Neves & Duarte, 2015), mainly because constructive problem solving is the most robust predictor of satisfaction (Fincham, 2003; Perrone-McGovern et al., 2014; Rauer et al., 2017), a factor that composes adjustment, together with consensus and cohesion (Busby et al., 1995; Hollist et al., 2012). In the study by Perrone-McGovern et al. (2014), for example, constructive strategies correlated positively with marital satisfaction.

On the other hand, giving in a discussion without defending the personal position to meet the wishes and demands of the spouse or avoid situations of confrontation and discomfort, showing excessive tolerance, increased the physiological excitement of those involved and correlated negatively with their marital satisfaction. Also, a multicultural study developed by Norgren et al. (2004) in collaboration with researchers from the United States, Sweden, Germany, Holland, Canada, South Africa, Israel and Chile, revealed that marital satisfaction increases if there is cohesion, constructive problem-solving strategies, communication skills, satisfaction with economic status and if spouses are practicing their religion (Norgren et al., 2004; Sharlin et al., 2000).

According to Gottman et al. (2015), a context favorable to the constructive resolution of a conflict is quite difficult to occur spontaneously in marital experience. According to studies conducted at the Gottman Institute, this occurs because each spouse would be emotionally available or predisposed to talk in a positive and favorable mood only 50% of the time. Therefore, in a couple’s equation (½ × ½ = ¼), the constructive resolution of a conflict would occur only in 25% of the occasions, the other 75% being contraindicated to attempts to solve the problems, since both, or at least one of the partners, would be unavailable. Added to this is the fact that variations between partners in marital adjustment levels and in the type of strategy used tend to aggravate conflict situations (Rauer et al., 2017). In addition, the impact of negative issues on the relationship tends to outweigh the impact of positive issues (Gottman et al., 2015; Rauer et al., 2017), a proposition that explains why satisfied couples present five positive interactions for each negative interaction (Driver et al., 2016). Finally, national and international studies point out differences in the way men and women solve conflicts, as men use mainly constructive strategies and women destructive strategies (Delatorre et al., 2017; Delatorre & Wagner, 2018; Perrone-McGovern et al., 2014; Yaşın & Sunal, 2016).

Research on couples using dyadic data collection and analysis methods are scarce in Brazil (Wagner et al., 2019) and may be an alternative to assess complex phenomena through cross-sectional methodological designs (Andrade et al., 2017; Costa et al., 2016). In addition, multivariate data analyses (Byrne, 2010) make it possible to verify how much each partner contributes to the studied phenomenon, the levels of interdependence between the spouses and the impact of the independent variables on the dependent variables of the individual on himself/herself and on the partner (Kenny et al., 2006).

Based on what has been presented and from the perspective of Systemic Theory (Heatherington et al., 2015; Nichols & Schwartz, 2007), the objective of this study was to test a theoretical dyadic model in which conflict resolution strategies have impact on couples’ marital adjustment. More specifically, the objective is to assess which constructive or destructive strategies have more impact on marital adjustment (Rauer et al., 2017; Verhofstadt et al., 2005) and the possible differences between husbands and wives, as other researches have shown (Baucom et al., 2010; Delatorre et al., 2017; Delatorre & Wagner, 2018; Perrone-McGovern et al., 2014; Verhofstadt et al., 2005; Yaşın & Sunal, 2016).

Finally, confirming or refuting the model and the hypotheses raised can contribute to the clinical area by guiding psychologists and couple therapists about the particularities of the individual, the couple interacting and the differences between men and women, which are often overlooked in interventions. In order to do so, the following hypotheses were considered: H₁: the most robust conflict resolution strategy for husbands will be withdrawal and for wives attack, H₂: conflict resolution strategies of husbands and wives correlate moderately, H₃: moderate force correlations between the variables that make up marital adjustment of husbands and wives—satisfaction, consensus and marital cohesion—will be found, H₄: the actor-effect of the strategies of husbands and wives on marital adjustment will occur, H₅: the partner-effect for husbands and wives on conflict resolution strategies on marital adjustment will occur.

Method

Design and Participants

The study is characterized by a quantitative approach of a cross-sectional nature and a correlational and explicative design. It tries to explain, from a theoretically proposed model, the reason for the phenomenon investigated, testing the hypotheses raised (Creswell, 2010).

A total of 231 heterosexual couples (462 individuals) participated in this study. The minimum age of the respondents was 18 years and the maximum age was 79 years (M = 41.41; SD = 12.40). Regarding education, 8.0% (n = 37) of the participants had elementary education, 23.8% (n = 110) had attended high school, 6.1% (n = 28) had attended technical schools, 26% had higher education and 36.1% (n = 167) had attended graduate school. As a place of residence, 16% (n = 74) of the participants lived in Porto Alegre, 13.9% (n = 64) in the metropolitan region and 70.1% (n = 324) in cities in the countryside of the state.

In relation to the marital situation, most of the respondents, 44.6% (n = 206) had both a civil and a religious marriage, 39.2% (n = 181) lived together without any religious or civil marriage, 13.9% (n = 64) had only a civil marriage and 2.4% (n = 11) had only a religious marriage. The time of union ranged from 6 months to 53 years (M = 15.15, SD = 12.05). Among the respondents, 82.5% (n = 381) were in the first union and 17.5% (n = 81) had at least one previous relationship. Regarding the offspring, 33.8% (n = 156) of the respondents stated that they did not have children. Participants who reported having children were 66.2% (n = 306), 56.3% (n = 260) had one or two children and 9.9% (n = 46) had between 3 and 5 children.

In relation to their labor activity, 83.8% (n = 387) of the respondents reported working outside the home, working four to 14 hours a day (M = 6.67, SD = 3.31), and 16.2% (n = 75) reported being retired or not working. The income of the participants presented the following variation: 8.2% (n = 38) did not have a personal income, 6.7% (n = 31) earns a minimum wage, 36.1% (n = 167) earns from 2 to 3 minimum wages, 26% (n = 120) from 4 to 6 minimum wages, 13.9% (n = 64) from 7 to 10 minimum wages and 9.1% (n = 42) earns 11 or more minimum wages. Regarding religion, 67.7% (n = 313) of the respondents reported being Catholic, 10.2% (n = 47) evangelic, 12.1% (n = 56) spiritualist, 1.9% (n = 9) protestant, and 8% (n=37) reported not to have a religion (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Sample (N = 462), Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, 2018.

Sociodemographic Variables		Participants
Sociodemographic Variables		N	Frequency (%)
Educational level	Elementary school	37	8.0
	High school	110	23.8
	Technical school	28	6.1
	Higher education	120	26
	Lato and Stricto Sensu postgraduate programs	167	36.1
Home location	Porto Alegre	74	16
	Metropolitan region	64	13.9
	Cities and towns in the countryside of the state	324	70.1
Marital status	Civil marriage	64	13.9
	Religious marriage	11	2.4
	Civil and religious marriage	206	44.6
	Living together—stable union	181	39.2
About the marital	First union	381	82.5
	Least one previous relationship	81	17.5
	Length of current relationship (years)	M = 15.15	SD = 12.05
Number of children	No children	156	33.8
	1 or 2 children	260	56.3
	3, 4, or 5 children	46	9.9
Work	Retired or unemployed	75	16.2
	Has a job—outside home	387	83.8
	Working hours outside home	M = 6.67	SD = 3.31
Monthly income Minimum wage, Brazil, R$1.045,00 (US$192,80)	No income	38	8.2
	Up to 1 minimum wage	31	6.7
	2 to 3 minimum wages	167	36.1
	4 to 6 minimum wages	120	26
	7 to 10 minimum wages	64	13.9
	11 or more minimum wages	42	9.1
Religion	Catholic	313	67.7
	Evangelical Christian	47	10.2
	Kardecist spiritism	56	12.1
	Protestant	9	1.9
	No religion	37	8

Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

Instruments

(a) Sociodemographic Questionnaire: The survey of the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants was done through a questionnaire with 15 questions that investigated: age, sexual orientation, place of residence, marital status, time of union in the current relationship, existence of previous relationship, time of union in the previous relationship, education, profession, work outside from home, workload, personal income, number of children and religion.

(b) Conflict Resolution Behavior Questionnaire—CRBQ (Rubenstein & Feldman, 1993; evidence of validity in Delatorre & Wagner, 2015): The questionnaire has 22 items through which conflict resolution strategies are assessed on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from one “never” to five “always.” The questionnaire is divided into three factors: attack, composed of nine items referring to behaviors involving physical and verbal attacks on the spouse; withdrawal, consisting of eight items referring to the withdrawal of the conflict or suppression of the feelings, and agreement, consisting of five items that include negotiation behavior, joint discussion of problems and conciliation. In the original study (Rubenstein & Feldman, 1993), and in the study for adaptation (Delatorre & Wagner, 2015), Cronbach’s alpha values were, respectively, 0.73 and 0.70 for the withdrawal factor, 0.78 and 0.79 for the attack factor, and 0.77 and 0.68 for the agreement factor. In this study, Cronbach’s Alpha values for men and women were respectively 0.76 and 0.74 for the withdrawal factor, 0.74 and 0.73 for the attack factor, and 0.77 and 0.77 for the agreement factor.

(c) Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale—R-DAS (Busby et al., 1995; validated by Hollist et al., 2012). The reduced version of the marital adjustment scale has 14 items that constitute three factors. The first, consensus, has six items that assess the level of agreement /disagreement between partners on different topics on a five-point Likert scale ranging from five “we always agree” to zero “we always disagree.” The satisfaction factor has four items that measure how often partners quarrel, talk about divorce, among other issues, on a five-point Likert scale ranging from zero “always” to five “never.” The third factor, cohesion, has four items that assess the frequency with which the partners perform different activities together. Items should be scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from zero “never” to five “more than once a day,” except for item 11 that is scored on a four-point Likert scale, four being “every day” and zero “never.” In the translation and validation for Brazil, Cronbach’s Alpha was found to be 0.90 for total adjustment, 0.81 for the consensus factor, 0.85 for satisfaction, and 0.80 for cohesion. In this study, Cronbach’s Alpha values for total adjustment and consensus, satisfaction and cohesion factors were, respectively, 0.84, 0.77, 0.78, and 0.80 for men and 0.87, 0.72, 0.83, and 0.82 for women.

Data Collection Procedures

Data were collected in Porto Alegre, in the metropolitan region and in cities in the countryside of the state of Rio Grande do Sul in order to have a heterogeneous sample. The researcher in charge contacted the couples via telephone, WhatsApp and e-mail after their names had been indicated by other people; therefore, the sample was a convenience sample. In the first contact, the objectives of the study and the risks and benefits involved in the participation were explained. If there was interest and availability, data collection was arranged on the day and at the time and place of the couple’s preference, which was either their residence or place of work. The procedure lasted an average of 60 minutes and involved reading out loud the informed consent form (ICF), clarifying any doubts and signing four copies of the term. Each member of the couple could keep one copy and return the other to the researcher, who would keep the documents separate from the questionnaires, avoiding the identification of the participants based on the ICF. Finally, the research questionnaire was completed, which was done by the couple separately, that is, without one having access to the other’s answers. In addition, each research questionnaire was identified with the letter corresponding to the gender, “M” for man and “W” for woman and a number corresponding to the dyad, according to the example: Envelope 1 = Questionnaires M1 and W1; Envelope 2 = Questionnaires M2 and W2, etc.

Ethical Considerations

The present study was submitted to the evaluation of the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos and approved, as stated in opinion nº 2.013.348; Certificate no.: 65851616.6.0000.5344. The procedures adopted followed strictly what is stated in Resolution 510/2016 of the National Health Council, taking into account the pertinent ethical and scientific foundations, as read in the ICF. The information provided in the term included: free and voluntary participation in the research, possibility of withdrawal without any harm, risks and benefits, guarantee of secrecy and protection of information, right to request the results of the study, assistance and referral in case of psychological damage due to the participation in the research and contact of the researchers in charge.

Data Analysis

Initially, a database was built in Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 25.0, and the normality criteria of the sample were verified and descriptive analyzes were performed to calculate the percentages, the means and the standard deviation. A second database was organized for conducting dyadic analyses. In this format, differently from the usual one, where each individual corresponds to a row in the database, each couple corresponds to one row. There are, therefore, twice as many variables and a reduction of the sample by half (Andrade et al., 2017).

The Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) 22.0 software was used to perform the latent trait model analysis, in which the structural equation modeling (SEM; Blunch, 2008) was used. It is a multivariate data analysis technique in which it is possible to test simultaneous relationships between dependent and independent variables (Kenny et al., 2006) through theoretical models of multiple relationships (Byrne, 2010; Hair et al., 2009).

The first step was to carry out the invariance test of the latent trait model, using the database organized in an individual structure, which makes it possible to perform the Multigroup Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (maximum likelihood [ML]). In this analysis, the invariance of parameters between men and women is observed, that is, if observable variables are interpreted by members of the dyad in a relatively equivalent way (Andrade et al., 2017). In the invariance test, the structure (configural invariance) and factorial loads (metric invariance) were evaluated, considering that the equivalence in factor loads shows the similarity in the latent traits for both groups (Andrade et al., 2017). The invariance is accepted if the difference in the CFI adjustment index between the unrestricted general model and the factor-restricted model is equal to or less than 0.010 (Blunch, 2008; Byrne, 2010).

In the second step, the theoretically proposed latent trait model was tested, verifying the effects of conflict resolution strategies on marital adjustment, considering the effects of the latent variables of the husbands and wives on the outcome variables, that is, structural and multifactorial (Byrne, 2010; Hair et al., 2009). The following adjustment indices were used: chi-square (χ²), comparative fit index (CFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with a 90% confidence interval. The ML estimation method was used. Lower chi-square values, values greater than 0.900 for CFI and NNFI and less than 0.080 for RMSEA are acceptable and indicate a good fit. Adjustment indexes greater than 0.950 for CFI and NNFI and lower than 0.050 for RMSEA are suggested (Blunch, 2008; Byrne, 2010).

Results

The second-order multigroup factor model made it possible to test the invariance of the withdrawal, agreement and attack factor loads that make up the latent trait “conflict resolution strategies,” and the satisfaction, cohesion and consensus factors that make up the latent trait “marital adjustment,” as presented in Table 2. When comparing the unrestricted model (model 0) in which configural invariance was tested and the restricted model of the factorial loads (model 1) in which the metric invariance was tested the difference in the CFI was less than 0.010, which made it is possible to continue with the dyadic analysis through the latent trait model.

Table 2.

Second-Order Multigroup Factor Model (N = 462).

Multigroup Confirmatory Model Analysis
Model Comparison	χ²	df	p	CFI	RMSEA (90%)
No restricted model Configural invariance	47.663	14	<.000	0.955	0.072 (0.050 – 0.095)
Restriction of the factorial loads Metric invariance	54.694	18	<.000	0.950	0.067 (0.047 – 0.087)

Note. χ² = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; p = significance; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

The structural dyadic model using latent traits, represented graphically in Figure 1, presented good adjustment rates, indicating that the empirical data fit the model proposed in the theoretical plan. Therefore, it was possible to assess the magnitude of the impact of constructive and destructive conflict resolution strategies on the marital adjustment of husbands and wives who participated in this study. The adjustment indices of the final model were: [χ2 = 91.315; df = 45; p < .000; χ²/df = 2.029; CFI = 0.954; NNFI = 0.932; RMSEA = 0.067 (90% CI = 0.047– 0.087)].

Figure 1.

Latent trait dyadic model for conflict resolution and marital adjustment.

The latent trait model allows estimating the correlation force between the independent variables and between the errors of the dependent variables or the outcome of husbands and wives (Andrade et al., 2017). The latent traits “conflict resolution strategies” of husbands and wives presented moderate correlation (r = 0.46). The correlations between the errors of the outcome factors of the couples ranged from mild to moderate. The following correlations were found between husband and wife: consensus (r = 0.16), cohesion (r = 0.44), and satisfaction (r = 0.62). For a better adjustment of the model, as indicated in the modification indexes, a correlation between the errors of the cohesion and consensus factors (r = 0.21) of the wives was added.

The latent trait model also indicates how much each observable variable contributes (prediction) to the latent trait. For the husbands, the most robust conflict resolution factor was the attack (B = 0.71), followed by agreement (B = −0.68) and withdrawal (B = 0.59). For the wives, the order of the factors was the same, first the attack (B = 0.72), followed by agreement (B = −0.63) and withdrawal (B = 0.48). In the latent trait “marital adjustment” of the husbands, the most robust factor was consensus (B = 0.73), followed by marital satisfaction (B = 0.71) and cohesion (B = 0.51). For spouses, the most robust factor was marital satisfaction (B = 0.82), followed by consensus (B = 0.68) and cohesion (B = 0.54). All regressions presented were significant at the p <0.001 level.

Finally, the latent trait model allows estimating the magnitude of the prediction of the independent variables on the outcome variables of husbands and wives. It was found that the husbands’ conflict resolution strategies predicted their own marital adjustment (B = −0.71, p < .001), but they were not predictive of the wives’ adjustment (B = −0.15, p < .097). The wives’ conflict resolution strategies were predictive of their marital adjustment (B = −0.84, p < .001) and the husbands’ adjustment (B = −0.38, p < .001).

Discussion

The objective of this study was to test a theoretical dyadic model in which conflict resolution strategies have impact on the marital adjustment of heterosexual couples. The results obtained allowed the partial confirmation of the hypotheses raised. The most robust conflict resolution strategy for husbands and wives was attack, which is a result that differs from other studies in relation to husbands, but it confirms that women tend to use attack primarily as a means of conflict resolution (Delatorre et al., 2017; Delatorre & Wagner, 2018; Perrone-McGovern et al., 2014; Yaşın & Sunal, 2016). For wives, attack is confirmed as the most robust variable although they also use strategies of agreement and withdrawal, similar to the outcome of their husbands.

When considering this data in isolation, it is understood that the attack strategy effectively stands out compared to the other two ways of solving the conflicts assessed in this study. On the one hand, this data is in line with what was pointed out in other studies (Gottman et al., 2015; Rauer et al., 2017) when the negative aspects of conjugality preponderated over the positive. This is because five positive interactions are required to compensate for a negative interaction, which is the equation of couples who have higher levels of marital satisfaction (Driver et al., 2016). This fact would be one way of explaining why the negative issues in the romantic relationship become more evident in the research results. On the other hand, evaluating the attack, considered a destructive strategy, as an attempt to fight and try to solve problems, makes us think of the demand-withdrawal interactional pattern (Baucom et al., 2010; Driver et al., 2016; Fonseca & Duarte, 2014; Verhofstadt et al., 2005). Perhaps the relationship member who demands positioning, attitude, and haughtiness is more active and appears to “attack” the spouse, although it may be an attempt to “attack” the problems.

Conflict resolution strategies of husbands and wives had a moderate association, similarly to the covariation between errors of satisfaction, consensus and cohesion dependent variables, confirming the hypotheses raised in this study and the results of the study by Rauer et al. (2017) on the association between how to resolve conflicts between husbands and wives and between the factors that make up the couples’ marital adjustment. This result evidences the complexity of the analysis and understanding of the phenomenon in question, considering interaction, interdependence and feedback between predictor variables and outcome variables (Heatherington, et al., 2015; Watzlawick et al., 1973). In addition, the association between the cohesion and the consensus of the wives shows that these factors influence each other in the composition of their marital adjustment.

This result suggests two possible reflections, the first from the epistemological point of view, since the phenomenon in question occurs in a procedural perspective, being feedbacked by negative and positive feedback circuits that tend to create fixed structural patterns (Nichols & Schwartz, 2007). Therefore, neglecting the “relational/interactional” characteristics may suggest a linear and static understanding of the phenomenon (Costa et al., 2016; Gottman & Notarius, 2002). The clinical relevance of these results is added to the epistemological questions, indicating the need to evaluate, understand and intervene in a systemic way, especially in couple psychotherapy, since the interaction and reciprocal influence between the spouses occurs not only in relation to the conflict resolution, but it also involves the levels of consensus, cohesion and satisfaction at that particular moment (context).

Consensus was the strongest predictor of the husbands’ marital adjustment, followed by marital satisfaction and cohesion. This evidence may indicate that men, compared to women, seek a negotiating climate because they demonstrate more constructive conflict resolution skills (Delatorre et al., 2017; Delatorre & Wagner, 2018; Perrone-McGovern et al., 2014; Yaşın & Sunal, 2016). Moreover, men show less closeness and therefore they tend to avoid it in conflict situations, which expressed itself through the cohesion factor.

For wives, marital satisfaction was the most robust predictor, followed by consensus and cohesion. Considering that approximately 3/4 of the sample in this study consists of Catholic and Evangelical couples, the results of husbands and wives may be a reflection of the impact of religious beliefs on marriage (Hoffmann & Costa, 2019). Husbands can adopt a more consensual attitude towards conflicts and wives can show higher levels of satisfaction as a way to maintain conjugal harmony, avoid wearing the relation out and prevent themselves from a possible divorce, an outcome considered negative in the Christian religious doctrine that represents 77.9% of the participants of this study.

The actor-effect, hypothesis four, in which an independent variable interferes with the dependent variable in the same individual was confirmed in this study, suggesting that the marital adjustment of men and women undergoes reverberations of the type of strategy they use. It should be emphasized that the data analysis method used does not allow us to infer that marital adjustment, through satisfaction, consensus and cohesion, in an earlier moment, would influence the strategy adopted subsequently.

The fifth hypothesis that conflict resolution strategies of husbands would have impact on marital adjustment of wives and vice versa was partially confirmed, that is, it occurred only in one direction. The husbands’ strategies predicted their own marital adjustment, but not the adjustment of the wives. The wives’ conflict resolution strategies predicted their own marital adjustment and the adjustment of the husbands. The results of the actor and partner effects together confirm that the solution of problems and divergent aspects among the partners through constructive and destructive strategies have an effective impact on marital adjustment (Fincham et al., 2003; Perrone-McGovern et al., 2014; Rauer et al., 2017).

The result that only the way in which wives resolve marital conflicts has had an impact on the marital adjustment of husbands might indicate, to some extent, the protagonism of wives when it comes to marriage, confirming several studies that point out differences related to sex (Delatorre et al., 2017; Delatorre & Wagner, 2018; Perrone-McGovern et al., 2014; Yaşın & Sunal, 2016). In addition, it is evidence that may be associated with the demand-withdrawal pattern, since wives tend to identify marital demands and trigger partners (Baucom et al., 2010; Driver et al., 2016; Fonseca & Duarte, 2014). In this sense, it would be possible to explain why women’s strategies have impact on the adjustment of husbands, but not the opposite, since their strategies would be a consequence of the demands of the wives.

From a Systemic perspective, it is important to consider that consensus has been the strongest predictor of adjustment for men and the satisfaction the strongest predictor for women. Therefore, if the attack is the strongest variable between strategies for husbands and wives, it has also provoked an actor-effect for both, but partner-effect only from the wives towards adjustment of husbands, we can conjecture that husbands give in more often in conflict situations. Either because of cultural and/or religious issues involved in the marital experience of Brazilian couples or because they seek their own adjustment in marriage, the behavior of husbands has proved to be more consensual. Among wives, we have observed the impact of the attack strategy mainly on their own satisfaction, a result that can be associated to the inequalities in the division of family responsibilities and in their perception of the lack of involvement/investment of husbands in marriage.

Conclusion

This study enabled testing a dyadic theoretical model by verifying the impact that the different ways of solving conflict provoke on the marital adjustment of husbands and wives. The results point out relevant implications for the clinical area, specifically regarding couple psychotherapy. The main results refer to the assumptions of the different Schools of the Systemic Approach, such as the Structural and the Strategic, in which the focus of the interventions should consider, among other aspects, the structured and fixed interaction patterns that feedback through positive and negative feedback circuits in the family.

As observed in the data, it is possible to understand that the dynamics of the couple is similar to the dynamics of the families and this points out the necessity of the clinical work not to focus only on content, that is, the reasons for conflict, for the interaction between the spouses. In this perspective, breaking dysfunctional patterns, encouraging the spouses in a creative way to develop a different repertoire of expectations, feelings and thoughts, including the influence of the variable sex in the marital relations of heterosexual individuals and of the transgenerational patterns of matriarchy is important, since the results indicated different weights for men and women in relation to strategies of conflict resolution and marital adjustment.

This study is limited to the evaluation of a specific group of couples, heterosexual, predominantly catholic, with higher education and average socioeconomic level from the southern region of the country. Although the results should not be generalized to other groups, the average Brazilian, as well as the average American, may indicate the relational dynamics of most couples, as found in the multicultural study by Norgren et al. (2004).

In addition, a recursive structural model was used in which there are independent predictor variables and dependent or outcome variables. These models do not allow to infer about the non-recursion (repetition) of the assessed phenomenon, verifying if the outcome variables provoke later effect on the independent variables, that is, if the conflict resolution strategies have impact on the marital adjustment that, in its turn, has impact on the conflict resolution strategies of husbands and wives. Thus, other studies can advance in the analysis of the phenomenon through the construction of non-recursive dyadic models. In addition, longitudinal studies in which data are collected at different stages of the life cycle of a same sample and with couples of non-heterosexual individuals are a necessary agenda for advancement in this area of research, since the national panorama is short of research on romantic relationships, which have become more diverse and complex.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jfi-10.1177_0192513X20986974 – Supplemental material for Conflict Resolution Strategies and Marital Adjustment of Heterosexual Couples: Assessment of Actor–Partner Interaction

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jfi-10.1177_0192513X20986974 for Conflict Resolution Strategies and Marital Adjustment of Heterosexual Couples: Assessment of Actor–Partner Interaction by Crístofer Batista da Costa and Clarisse Pereira Mosmann in Journal of Family Issues

Footnotes

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, CAPES, Brasil. Process Code 88887.150788/2017-00.

ORCID iD

Crístofer Batista da Costa

References

Anderson

S. R.

Johnson

L. N.

(2010). A dyadic analysis of the between and within system alliances on distress. Family Process, 49(2), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01319.x

Andrade

A. L.

Cassepp-Borges

Ferrer

Sanchez-Aragón

(2017). Análises de dados diádicos: Um exemplo a partir da pesquisa com casais [Analysis of daily data: An example from the research with couples]. Temas em Psicologia, 25(4), 1571–1588. https://doi.org/10.9788/TP2017.4-05

Baucom

B. R.

McFarland

P. T.

Christensen

(2010). Gender, topic, and time in observed demand-withdraw interaction in cross-and same-sex couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019717

Blunch

(2008). Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS statistics and AMOS. SAGE Publications.

Busby

D. M.

Christensen

Crane

D. R.

Larson

J. H.

(1995). A revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21(3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00163.x

Busby

D. M.

Holman

T. B.

(2009). Perceived match or mismatch on the Gottman conflict styles: Associations with relationship outcome variables. Family Process, 48(4), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01300.x

Byrne

B. M.

(2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Costa

C. B.

Cenci

C. B.

Mosmann

C. P.

(2016). Conflitos conjugais e estratégias de resolução: Uma revisão sistemática da literatura [Marital Conflicts and Resolution Strategies: A Systematic Review of the Literature]. Temas em Psicologia, 24(1), 1–14, https://doi.org/10.9788/TP2016.1-22

Costa

C. B.

Falcke

Mosmann

C. P.

(2015). Marital conflicts in long-term marriages: Motives and feelings. Psicologia em Estudo, 20(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.4025/psicolestud.v20i3.27817

10.

Costa

C. B.

Mosmann

C. P.

(2015a). Estratégias de resolução dos conflitos conjugais: Percepções de um grupo focal [Strategies for resolving marital conflicts: Perceptions of a focus group]. Revista Psico, 46(4), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-8623.2015.4.20606

11.

Costa

C. B.

Mosmann

C. P.

(2015b). Relacionamentos conjugais na atualidade: Percepções de indivíduos em casamentos de longa duração [Marital relationships in the present: Perceptions of individuals in long term marriages]. Revista da SPAGESP, 16(2), 16–31.

12.

Creswell

J. W.

(2010). Projeto de pesquisa: Métodos qualitativo, quantitativo e misto [Research project: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods]. (3rd ed.). Artmed.

13.

Delatorre

M. Z.

Scheeren

Wagner

(2017). Conflito conjugal: Evidências de validade de uma escala de resolução de conflitos em casais do sul do Brasil [Conjugal conflict: Evidence of the validity of a conflict resolution scale in couples in southern Brazil]. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 35(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.3742

14.

Delatorre

M. Z.

Wagner

(2015). Estratégias de resolução de conflitos conjugais: Evidências de validade do CRBQ [Marital conflict resolution strategies: Evidence of validity of the CRBQ]. Avaliação Psicológica, 14(2), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.15689/ap.2015.1402.08

15.

Delatorre

M. Z.

Wagner

(2018). Marital conflict management of married men and women. Psico-USF, 23(2), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712018230204

16.

Driver

Tabares

Shapiro

A. F.

Gottman

J. M.

(2016). Interação do casal em casamentos com altos e baixos níveis de satisfação. Estudos do Laboratório Gottman [Interaction of the couple in marriages with high and low levels of satisfaction. Gottman Laboratory Studies]. In Walsh

(Org.), Processos normativos da família: Diversidade e complexidade [Normal Family Processes: Diversity and complexity] ( Rosa

S. M. M.

, Trad., 4a. ed., pp. 57–77). Artmed.

17.

Fincham

F. D.

(2003). Marital conflict correlates, structure, and context. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01215

18.

Fonseca

S. R. A.

Duarte

C. M. N.

(2014). Do namoro ao casamento: Significados, expectativas, conflito e amor [From dating to marriage: Meanings, expectations, conflict and love]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 30(2), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-37722014000200002

19.

Gomes

I. R. R.

Fernandes

S. C. S.

(2018). A permanência de mulheres em relacionamentos abusivos à luz da teoria da ação planejada [The permanence of women in abusive relationships in the light of planned action theory]. Boletim: Academia Paulista de Psicologia, 38(94), 55–66.

20.

Gottman

J. M.

(1991). Predicting the longitudinal course of marriages. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1991.tb00856.x

21.

Gottman

J. M.

Driver

Tabares

(2015). Repair during marital conflict in newlyweds: How couples move from attack-defend to collaboration. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 26(2), 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975353.2015.1038962

22.

Gottman

J. M.

Notarius

C. I.

(2002). Marital research in the 20th century and an agenda for the 21th century. Family Process, 41(2), 159–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41203.x

23.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2009). Análise multivariada dos dados [Multivariate analysis of data] (6a ed.). Bookman.

24.

Heatherington

Friedlander

M. L.

Diamond

G. M.

Escudero

Pinsof

W. M.

(2015). 25 years of systemic therapies research: Progress and promise. Journal Psychotherapy Research, 25(3), 348–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2014.983208

25.

Hollist

C. S.

Falceto

O. G.

Ferreira

L. M.

Miller

R. B.

Springer

P. R.

Fernandes

C. L. C.

Nunes

N. A.

(2012). Portuguese translation and validation of the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(s1), 348–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00296.x

26.

Hoffmann

E. F.

Costa

C. B.

(2019). Associações entre religiosidade-espiritualidade e as relações conjugais: Estudo de revisão sistemática [Associations between religiosity - spirituality and marital relationships: systematic review study]. Contextos Clínicos, 12(2), 533–559. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4013/ctc.2019.122.07

27.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística [IBGE] [Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics]. (2013). Estatística de Registro Civil (vol.40). Autor. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/periodicos/135/rc_2013_v40.pdf

28.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística [IBGE] [Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics]. (2017). Estatística de Registro Civil (vol. 44). Autor. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/periodicos/135/rc_2017_v44_informativo.pdf

29.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística [IBGE] [Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics]. (2018). Estatística de Registro Civil (vol. 45). Autor. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/periodicos/135/rc_2018_v45_informativo.pdf

30.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. The Guilford Press.

31.

Leggett

D. G.

Roberts-Pittman

Byczek

Morse

D. T.

(2012). Cooperation, conflict, and marital satisfaction: Bridging theory, research, and practice. Journal of Individual Psychology, 68(2), 182–199.

32.

Neves

Duarte

(2015). Sintomas depressivos, resolução de conflitos e satisfação conjugal em indivíduos num relacionamento [Depressive symptoms, conflict resolution and marital satisfaction in individuals in a relationship]. Psicologia, Saúde & Doenças, 16(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.15309/15psd160305

33.

Nichols

M. P.

Schwartz

R. C.

(2007). Terapia Familiar: Conceitos e métodos [Family Therapy: Concepts and Methods]. Artmed.

34.

Norgren

M. B. P.

Souza

R. M.

Kaslow

Hammerschmidt

Sharlin

S. A.

(2004). Satisfação conjugal em casamentos de longa duração: Uma construção possível [Marital satisfaction in long term marriages: A possible construction]. Estudos de Psicologia (Natal), 9(3), 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-294X2004000300020

35.

Perrone-McGovern

K. M.

Oliveira-Silva

Simon-Dack

Lefdahl-Davis

Adams

McConnell

Howell

Hess

Davis

Gonçalves

O. F.

(2014). Effects of empathy and conflict resolution strategies on psychophysiological arousal and satisfaction in romantic relationships. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 39(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-013-9237-2

36.

Rauer

Williams

Jensen

(2017). Finer distinctions: Variability in satisfied older couples’ problem-solving behaviors. Family Process, 56(2), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12198

37.

Rubenstein

J. L.

Feldman

S. S.

(1993). Conflict-resolution behavior in adolescent boys: Antecedents and adaptational correlates. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3(1), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0301_3

38.

Sharlin

A. S.

Kaslow

Hammerschmidt

(2000). Together through thick and thin: A multinational picture of long-term marriages. The Haworth Clinical Practice Press.

39.

Silva

L. A.

Scorsolini-Comin

Santos

M. A.

(2017). Casamentos de longa duração: Recursos pessoais como estratégias de manutenção do laço conjugal [Long-term marriages: Personal resources such as marital bond maintenance strategies]. Psico-USF, 22(2), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712017220211

40.

Veldorale-Brogan

Lambert

N. M.

Fincham

F. D.

DeWall

C. N.

(2013). The virtue of problem-solving: Perceived partner virtues as predictors of problem-solving efficacy. Personal Relationships, 20(3), 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01421.x

41.

Verhofstadt

L. L.

Buysse

De Clercq

Goodwin

(2005). Emotional arousal and negative affect in marital conflict: The influence of gender, conflict structure, and demand-withdrawal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(4), 449–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.262

42.

Wagner

Mosmann

C. P.

Scheeren

Levandowski

D. C.

(2019). Conflict, conflict resolution and marital quality. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 29, e2919. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e2919

43.

Watzlawick

Beavin

J. H.

Jackson

D. D.

(1973). Pragmática da comunicação humana. Um estudo dos padrões, patologias e paradoxos da interação [Pragmatics of human communication. A study of patterns, pathologies and paradoxes of interaction]. Cultrix.

44.

Yaşın

Sunal

A. B.

(2016). The mediator role of relationship satisfaction on the relation between time perspective and responses to romantic relationship dissatisfaction. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 31(78), 91–94.

45.

Zordan

E. P.

Wagner

Mosmann

(2012). O perfil de casais que vivenciam divórcios consensuais e litigiosos: Uma análise das demandas judiciais [The profile of couples experiencing consensual and litigious divorces: An analysis of judicial demands]. Psico-USF, 17(2), 185–194.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB