Adjustment Problems and Maladaptive Relational Style

Abstract

Four hundred and fifty-three married or cohabitating couples participated in the current study. A meditational model of men’s perpetration of sexual coercion within an intimate relationship was examined based on past theories and known correlates of rape and sexual coercion. The latent constructs of adjustment problems and maladaptive relational style were examined. Adjustment problem variables included perceived stress, perceived low social support, and marital discord. Maladaptive relational style variables included psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy. Sexual coercion was a combined measure of men’s reported perpetration and women’s reported victimization. As hypothesized, adjustment problems significantly predicted sexual coercion. Within the meditational model, adjustment problems were significantly correlated with maladaptive relational style, and maladaptive relational style significantly predicted sexual coercion. Once maladaptive relational style was introduced as a mediator, adjustment problems no longer significantly predicted sexual coercion. Implications for treatment, limitations, and future research are discussed.

Keywords

domestic violence predicting domestic violence sexuality sexual coercion sexual aggression

As shown in a recent review of sexual coercion in intimate relations (Monson, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, & Taft, 2009), the majority of research on sexual aggression focuses on understanding predictors of sexual coercion outside an intimate partner or marriage context. Studies focusing on sexual coercion within intimate relationships are often based on their relation to psychological and physical aggression, not to other relationship factors such as marital discord and stress. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a model of sexual coercion within couples, in which maladaptive relationship style mediates the relationship between adjustment problems and sexual coercion. To our understanding, this is the first research focusing on maladaptive styles of partner interaction and perception of social support, general stressors, and relationship stress that may lead to the development of sexual coercion.

Current Understanding of Sexual Coercion

Sexual aggression has been studied most prominently as a form of assault against females (i.e., rape), and estimates of its prevalence often come from studies on crime, such as the National Crime Victims Survey (NCVS). The NCVS has shown that about one-third of females in representative populations report that they have been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Sexual assault in the NCVS refers to rape and other forms of physically coerced sexual activity, and data from the NCVS show that only 10% of such assaults were made by a married partner or an ex-partner (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Therefore, from the crime survey data, one might conclude that approximately 3% of women are assaulted by a husband or ex-partner. However, based on research with a San Francisco random community sample by Russell (1990) and a Boston area probability community sample of mothers by Finkelhor and Yllo (1985), it is estimated that the lifetime prevalence of marital rape by husbands, cohabiting partners, or ex-husbands is between 10% and 14%. Rape of men by women is very rare; it was reported by only 0.3% of the population in a national sample (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The differences in these prevalence rates of 3% and %10 to 14% seem large, but these differences may be methodological in nature. Though both the NCVS and research by Russell (1990) focused on crime, Russell took great care to train interviewers to elicit detailed personal information from participants regarding their experiences with sexual coercion and rape. Additionally, research by Finkelhor and Yllo (1985) was initially part of a study on child victimization, and mothers were only asked about their experiences with rape and sexual assault later in the study. As discussed in the Sexual Victimization of College Women study (SVCW; Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000), the screening procedures given to potential participants in the NCVS may not have described behaviors specifically enough and may have contained language with criminal connotations that led to lower reports of rape.

The lifetime prevalence of male perpetration of sexual coercion (not rape) within intimate relationships across various samples appears to range from about 29% (Hines & Saudino, 2003) to nearly 50% (Marshall & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2002), with rates higher in clinical samples than in community samples and rates of coercion higher than rates of rape and assault (Monson et al., 2009). There is significantly less research on women’s perpetration of sexual coercion and aggression with estimates between 1% and 5%. In a study by Meyer, Vivian, and O’Leary (1998), 35% of husbands seeking marital therapy and 23% of husbands in a community sample reported perpetration of sexual coercion within the past year. However, the current study goes beyond solely surveying prevalence rates by evaluating a mediation model of sexual coercion using individual and relationship variables. Finally, in the current study, sexual coercion is defined as insistence or verbal pressure to engage in sexual activities and/or promising rewards or necessities in exchange for sexual activities.

Theories on Sexual Coercion and Aggression

The etiology of sexual coercion can be understood from several perspectives, including those based on sexual narcissism, hostile attitudes toward women, and evolutionary patterns. Baumeister, Cantanese, and Wallace (2002) proposed that narcissistic reactance theory can explain both rape and sexual coercion. Here, when a man is refused sexually, his desire for his sexual target increases, and he then tries to reclaim his target by forcing a sexual interaction. Such sexual narcissism has been found to be a stronger predictor of sexual aggression than more global or general assessments of narcissism (Widman & McNulty, 2010).

Relatedly, one of the most well-known theories on coercion and rape as a function of hostility is the confluence model, initially proposed by Malamuth et al. in 1991 (Malamuth, Sockloskie, Koss, & Tanaka, 1991). A 10-year follow-up study of men’s characteristics and violence toward women showed that “hostile masculinity” and “impersonal (e.g., noncommittal, promiscuous) sex” interacted to predict both sexual violence toward women and marital and relationship distress (Malamuth, Linz, Heavey, Barnes, & Acker, 1995). Other researchers have also found characteristics such as “sexual dominance” and “accepting attitudes toward casual sex” to be significant predictors of coercion (Abbey, Parkhill, Clinton-Sherrod, & Zawacki, 2007; Schatzel-Murphy, Harris, Knight, & Milburn, 2009).

Other investigators stress the importance of evolutionarily learned patterns of sexual coercion in relationships. Goetz, Shackelford, Romero, Kaighobadi, and Miner (2008) suggest that men’s perpetrated aggression may be explained by paternal uncertainty, where sexual aggression serves to prevent a man from being the husband of an unfaithful woman. Kaighobadi, Shackelford, and Goetz (2009) further theorize that men may engage in sexually coercive behaviors when they are suspicious of sexual infidelity to decrease the chances of parenting another man’s offspring.

We believe that another model, namely a dyadic model of partner aggression (O’Leary, Smith Slep, & O’Leary, 2007), may be able to be able to account for sexual coercion within an intimate relationship separately from rape and sexual assault. The dyadic model has been evaluated in both the United States (O’Leary et al., 2007) and in Ukraine (O’Leary, Tintle, Bromet, & Guzman, 2008) as a predictor of physical aggression in a relationship, but this work has not been extended to sexual coercion. The dyadic relationship perspective is one in which relationship strain, psychological aggression, and dominance/control are key constructs (O’Leary et al., 2007; Riggs & O’Leary, 1996). In the current research, relationship dissatisfaction, low levels of social support, and perceived stress, conceptualized as adjustment problems, as well as maladaptive individual styles in interacting with a partner, measured by psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy, are used to predict sexual coercion. Additionally, many of these characteristics may be seen within the aforementioned models. For example, dominance is an important piece in both the confluence model and in the paternal uncertainty research. Similarly, jealousy and marital distress are also discussed. However, the theoretical mechanisms driving these variables differ markedly.

Because the first three theoretical positions seek to explain both sexual coercion and rape, and rates of sexual assault and rape are lower than rates of sexual coercion, those theories may be more applicable to more severely disturbed relationships (e.g., Meyer et al., 1998; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Furthermore, many of these characteristics occur on a continuum and therefore may be more prevalent, whereas other dichotomous behaviors (e.g., impersonal sex) may not happen within the context of a long-term intimate relationship. Research has also shown that as sexual abuse within a relationship increases, relationship satisfaction decreases (Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010), thereby implying that relationships containing more abuse may be more disturbed. However, as discussed previously, rates of sexual coercion within relationships are much higher than rates of rape and sexual assault within relationships. Therefore, it is important to have a strong understanding of sexual coercion in less dysfunctional relationships and in representative samples.

Studies Addressing Specific Variables Used Herein as Predictors of Sexual Coercion

While the studies above were generally designed to provide documentation for a specific theoretical position regarding sexual coercion, there also exist a number of studies that document correlates with sexual aggression or coercion in the absence of a specific theoretical model. Throughout the literature on sexual coercion, it has been shown that sexually coercive men exhibit a greater proportion of reactive and aggressive characteristics toward their partners than noncoercive men. In particular, jealousy has been associated with intimate partner violence in general and specifically with sexual coercion across multiple studies (DeGue & DiLillo, 2005; Dutton, van Ginkel, & Landolt, 1996; Fleischmann, Spitzberg, Andersen, & Roesch, 2005). Dutton et al. (1996) has shown significant correlations between jealousy and abusiveness for couples who are together, and jealousy and intrusiveness for divorced or separated couples. Other research has shown that sexually aggressive males and females were both more likely to engage in jealous behaviors and use domineering tactics (Muñoz-Rivera, Graña, O’Leary, & Gonzalez, 2009). Similarly, Goetz and Shackelford (2009) found that men’s sexual coercion was consistently predicted by both female infidelity and men’s controlling and domineering behavior. Both jealousy and dominance have also been shown to be significant predictors of both physical and psychological aggression (O’Leary et al., 2007).

Similarly, psychological aggression has been consistently shown to be a predictor of sexual coercion. Meyer et al. (1998) found that sexual coercion was more closely associated with psychological aggression, whereas sexual aggression (use of force to obtain sexual activity) was more associated with physical aggression. Marshall and Holtzworth-Munroe (2002) have also shown associations between sexual coercion and psychological aggression. Furthermore, Katz, Carino, and Hilton (2002) found that in a sample of heterosexual dating undergraduates, psychological aggression was associated with both sexual coercion and physical aggression. However, both men’s and women’s controlling behaviors were associated with male perpetration of sexual coercion and were not associated with physical aggression, suggesting that more severe psychological aggression and controlling behaviors have a unique relationship with sexual coercion.

Taken together, the body of research on these traits and associations shows that men who engage in sexual aggression and coercion show jealous, dominant, and psychologically aggressive behaviors toward their partners. While the above research suggests that maladaptive relational styles may be central in the prediction of sexual coercion, it is also possible that individual adjustment problems may be centrally related to sexual coercion. Research has also shown that sexual coercion may also be related to several adjustment problems, including stress, social support, and marital dissatisfaction (Bodenmann, Lederman, & Bradbury, 2007; Dehle, Larsen, & Landers, 2001; Mburia-Mwalili, Clements-Nolle, Lee, Shadley, & Yang, 2010; Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010, Sullivan, Pasch, Johnson, & Bradbury, 2010). These adjustment problems have also been shown to be significantly related to jealousy, dominance, and psychological aggression (e.g., O’Leary et al., 2007). This study evaluates whether maladaptive relational styles mediate the relation between individual adjustment problems and sexual coercion.

Intimate partner violence has repeatedly been shown to be associated with marital discord, with bidirectional intimate partner violence having a stronger association with discord than unidirectional violence (Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010). Marital discord also has a unique association with sexual aggression, beyond the relationship between marital discord and physical and psychological aggression (Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010). Additionally, when there is high stress in a relationship, marital satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and frequency of sexual activity decrease (Bodenmann et al., 2007). Bodenmann et al. (2007) also found that relationship stress mediated the relationship between outside stress and both relationship functioning and sexual satisfaction. Finally, high stress is related to lower marital satisfaction over time (Bodenmann et al., 2007; Neff & Karney, 2004).

Similarly, research has shown that social support (both inside and outside the relationship) predicts long-term marital satisfaction and that strong social support is related to positive conflict management (Dehle et al., 2001; Sullivan et al., 2010). Outside social support also may create a buffer against depression in women experiencing intimate partner violence (Mburia-Mwalili et al., 2010).

Current Study¹

Maladaptive relational style and adjustment problems are correlated, and not only do they predict sexual coercion within a relationship, but they predict one another as well. With this in mind, the current study focuses on developing a model of the interconnectedness of these constructs and their effects on men’s sexual coercion. We hypothesized that sexual coercion is predicted by a model in which the relationship between adjustment problems (a composite measure of relationship discord, stress, and social support) and sexual coercion is mediated by maladaptive relational style (a composite measure of psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy). Specifically, we predicted that (a) adjustment problems would initially be positively associated with sexual coercion. Once maladaptive relational style was introduced into the model as the mediator, we hypothesized that (b) the relationship between adjustment problems and sexual coercion will no longer be significant, (c) adjustment problems would be positively related to maladaptive relational style, and (d) that maladaptive relational style would be positively related to frequency of sexual coercion. Since maladaptive relational style is more proximally related to sexual coercion, we believe that maladaptive relational style is a more important predictor of sexual coercion than adjustment problems.

Method

Participants

Four hundred and fifty-three heterosexual couples from Suffolk County, New York, were recruited through random digit dialing as part of a larger study on families and conflict (for a detailed description of recruitment procedures, see Slep & O’Leary, 2005). To be eligible for the study, couples had to be living together for at least 1 year and parenting a biological child (age 3 to 7) of at least one of the partners. Of the 1,815 eligible couples recruited through random digit dialing, 453 agreed to participate. As documented elsewhere (Slep & O’Leary, 2005), couples were representative of the population of parents with young children in the United States, as compared to the 2000 census data. Additionally, based on the initial phone screen, there were few differences between those people who did and did not agree to participate in the full study. Notably, there were no significant differences in relationship satisfaction, husband-to-wife aggression, or wifeto-husband aggression.

Men had a mean age of 37.25 (SD = 6.02), and the mean educational attainment was 14.2 years (SD = 2.3). The majority of participants reported themselves to be Caucasian (79.4%), with 9.5% Hispanic/Latino, 6.6% African American, 1.8% Asian, 1.3% Caribbean, 0.4% Native American, .2% Pacific Islander, and 0.7% other. The majority of the couples were married (94.5%), and mean family income was $81,498 (SD = $43,009). Women had a mean age of 35.1 years (SD = 5.02), and the mean educational attainment was 14.3 years (SD = 2.2). The majority of participants said they were Caucasian (81.9%), with 7.7% Hispanic/Latino, 5.7% African American, 2.2% Asian, 1.5% Caribbean, 0.7% Native American, and 0.2% other.

Procedure

Couples came to the lab for two 3-hour sessions or one 6-hour session for a study on how families handle conflict. Participants separately completed extensive self-report measures on themselves, their families, and their relationships, following which some physiological and observational data were collected. Anonymity and confidentiality of responses were carefully explained, and participants were told that although all written answers would be anonymous, information volunteered to research staff would be confidential unless child abuse, suicidality, or likely homicide was reported. Additionally, all participants received a list of family resources, including abuse hotlines and other abuse-related services. This project was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and all participants consented before beginning the study. Couples were paid $250.00 for their participation.

Measures

Adjustment problems measures

All of the scores on these measures were derived using men’s individual reports.

Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)

The DAS (Spanier, 1976) is a commonly used 32-item measure of couple satisfaction, cohesion, agreement, and affection. The scale has strong reliability and validity (Spanier, 1976), and alpha in this sample was high for men (α = .93). Participants’ responses were coded inversely, such that a high score was indicative of high marital discord.

Interpersonal Support Evaluation List

The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, & Hoberman, 1985) is a 40-item true/ false scale that assesses a person’s social support, including appraisal, belonging, self-esteem, and tangible support. Alpha for the total scale for men in this sample was high (α = .86). Participants’ responses were coded inversely, such that a high score was indicative of low social support.

Perceived Stress Scale

The Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) is a 14-item scale that assesses the degree to which a person perceives ongoing life events as stressful. Statements are rated from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The scale has good reliability and validity (Cohen et al., 1983), and alpha for men herein was high (α = .85).

Maladaptive relational style measures

All of the scores on these measures were derived using both individual and partner reports.

Psychological aggression

The measure of psychological aggression was derived from the Psychological Aggression Scale of the Conflict Tactics Scale-II (CTS-II; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). The CTS-II is a 78-item measure that assesses the frequency of perpetration and victimization of partner conflict behaviors within the past year. Statements are rated from 0 (never) to 6 (20 or more times) and assess physical, psychological, and sexual aggression, in addition to partner-inflicted physical injuries. In order to compensate for underreporting and create a couple report of men’s perpetration, men’s perceptions of their perpetration of psychological aggression and women’s perceptions of their victimization of psychological aggression were compared, and the higher of the two scored was used for analyses. Because the overall rate of men’s perpetration of mild psychological aggression was extremely high (96.9%), only items representing severe psychological aggression were used for this analysis. This strategy allowed for us to look at the more pathological aspects of relational functioning, excluding normative levels of conflict. Alpha was high (α = .76).

Dominance

The measure of dominance was derived from the 36-item Psychological Maltreatment of Women Scale by Tolman (1989). The dominance measure is a 22-item scale that was derived from a factor analysis of Kasain and Painter (1992). Because the dominance score reflects interpersonal interactions, scores were based on an average of the husband’s reports of perpetration and the wife’s reports of victimization. Alpha for the average scores for dominance scale for men was .57 and alpha for the self-report of dominance was .71, reflecting in part the lack of agreement between husbands and wives.

Jealousy

The measure of jealousy was derived from the 36-item Psychological Maltreatment of Women Scale by Tolman (1989). The jealousy measure is a 12-item scale that was derived from a factor analysis of Kasain and Painter (1992). Like the dominance score, the jealousy score was based on an average of the scores of the husband and wife. Alpha for the average scores for jealousy scale for men herein was .75, and alpha for the self-report of jealousy was .75.

Sexual Coercion Measure

The measure of sexual coercion was derived from the sexual abuse scale of the CTS-II (Straus et al., 1996). In order to compensate for underreporting and create a couple report of men’s perpetration, men’s perceptions of their perpetration of sexual coercion and women’s perceptions of their victimization of sexual coercion were compared, and the higher of the two scored was used for analyses. The final sexual coercion scale consisted of four items from the CTS-II (Straus et al., 1996). Items used to calculate sexual coercion were men’s responses to “Have you insisted on sex when your partner did not want to (but did not use physical force)?” and “Have you insisted on oral or anal sex when your partner did not want to (but did not use physical force)?” and women’s responses to “Has your partner insisted on sex when you did not want to (but did not use physical force)?” and “Has your partner insisted on oral or anal sex when you did not want to (but did not use physical force)?” (Straus et al., 1996, p. 309).

Results

All data were initially examined for missing values and normality. If more than half of the items for a variable were available, missing values were replaced using mean substitution. If fewer than half were available, that participant’s variable score was estimated. Variables were examined for outliers, and clear outliers greater than four standard deviations above the mean were deleted. Missing variables were replaced using estimation maximization in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

The overall prevalence rate of men’s self-reported perpetration of sexual coercion was 28.0% (n = 453; M = .44, SD = .87). When using maximum reports, the overall prevalence of men’s perpetration of sexual coercion was 42.4% (n = 453; M = .79, SD = 1.22). Differences in prevalence rates were also examined in ethnic groups that contained greater than 10 participants. African Americans’ maximum report of sexual coercion was 73.33%, Caucasians report was 37.88%, and Latino/Hispanics’ report was 55.81%. Despite this heterogeneity, we were not able to examine the possible differences among models because of the small number of participants in the African American and Latino/ Hispanic groups (Boomsma, 1983). However, all participants were retained so that the results would be representative of the general population. Although the sexual coercion distribution was negatively skewed, it was assumed to be an appropriate approximation of the population, and therefore adjustments were not made. As noted earlier, there was a very low endorsement for items related to sexual assault or rape; men’s self-reported perpetration rate was 1.5%, and the maximum report of men’s perpetration was 5.3%.

Table 1 presents means and standard deviations of all included variables, and Table 2 presents all correlations. Latent variable analysis was used herein to examine the data. As shown in Figure 1, the initial relationship between the latent variable adjustment problems and sexual coercion showed a good fit, χ²(2, N = 453) = 1.96, p = .38. Additionally, the beta weight of the association between adjustment problems and sexual coercion was significant and positive (β = .24, p < .001). The model also showed a good fit with the addition of the mediator maladaptive relational style, χ²(12, N = 453) = 26.20, p = .01. Although the chi-square was statistically significant, it may be due to the large number of participants. Once this mediator was introduced, the association between adjustment problems and sexual coercion was no longer statistically significant (β = −.14, p = .08). Sobel’s test was conducted to examine the significance of this mediating effect and indicated it was statistically significant (Sobel’s test = 5.06, p < .001). As predicted, there was a strong positive association between adjustment problems and maladaptive relational style (β = .69, p < .001) and a strong positive relationship between maladaptive relational style and sexual coercion (β = .55, p < .001).

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables.

	M	SD	N
Adjustment Problems Variables
Dyadic adjustment^a	107.49	16.90	453
Social support^a	34.00	4.75	453
Stress	24.37	7.14	453
Maladaptive Relational Style Variables
Psychological aggression	0.43	0.80	453
Dominance	1.26	0.30	453
Jealousy	1.39	0.49	453
Sexual coercion (self-report)	0.44	0.87	453
Sexual coercion (maximum report)	0.79	1.22	453

Statistics presented here are not inversely scored as they are in the model.

Table 2.

Correlations Among Study Variables.

	DAS	Social Support	Stress	Psychological Aggression	Dominance	Jealousy	Sexual Coercion
DAS	—	0.419***	0.458***	0.388***	0.551***	0.418***	0.198***
Social support		—	0.342***	0.204***	0.275***	0.269***	0.084^a
Stress			—	0.249***	0.347***	0.266***	0.149**
Psychological aggression				—	0.639***	0.511***	0.403***
Dominance					—	0.682***	0.371***
Jealousy						—	0.361***
Sexual coercion							—

Note: Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) and Social Support are inversely scored.

p = .08.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p <.01.

Figure 1.

Mediation Model for the Relationships Among Adjustment Problems, Maladaptive Relational Style, and Sexual Coercion.

To further investigate goodness-of-fit, we used the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The CFI is a measure of how well the hypothesized model fits the data (Byrne, 2010). It has been advised by Hu and Bentler (1999) that a well-fitting model should have a CFI > .95. The RMSEA asks, “How well would the model, with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values, fit the population covariance matrix if it were available?” (Browne & Cudeck, 1993, pp. 137-138). This measure is sensitive to the complexity of the model; a RMSEA < .08 is considered a reasonable fit, and a RMSEA ≤ .05 is considered a good fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Additionally, it has been suggested that a narrow 90% confidence interval around the RMSEA indicates a more precise RMSEA (Byrne, 2010). Finally, as described by Brown and Cudeck (1993), the PCLOSE is a p-value that measures whether the RMSEA is a good fit within the population with larger values indicating a better overall model fit. This final model showed a strong fit across these indices: CFI = .99 and RMSEA = .05, with the RMSEA 90% confidence interval from .024 to .78, and PCLOSE = .431.

It should be noted here that a second model controlling for systematic measurement covariance was also examined. Here, the error variances of jealousy and dominance were allowed to correlate, as they are both from the Psychological Maltreatment of Women scale (PMW), and the error variances of psychological aggression and sexual coercion were also allowed to correlate, as they are both from the CTS-II. In this model, the fit indices are as follows: χ²(12, N = 453) = 14.62, p = .15, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .03, 90% Confidence Interval from .00 to .065, and PCLOSE = .79.

Discussion

As was the case in two previous studies on sexual coercion, in newlyweds (Panuzio & DiLillo, 2010) and in a marital clinic sample (Meyer et al., 1998), the sexual coercion found in this randomly recruited sample was almost solely psychological coercion. Alternatively stated, only 5% of men used physical force to engage partners in sexual activity, despite the fact that 34.9% of the sample reported men’s perpetration of physical aggression (O’Leary et al., 2007). The data support the hypothesis that maladaptive relational style in the form of a composite measure of psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy is a significant mediator of the relationship between adjustment problems and sexual coercion. As hypothesized, the unmediated relationship between adjustment problems and sexual coercion showed a significant positive association. Specifically, the frequency of perpetration of sexual coercion was higher when men reported greater adjustment problems, with more marital discord, moreperceived stress, and lower social support. However, once maladaptive relational style was introduced into the model, the relationship between adjustment problems and sexual coercion was no longer statistically significant. Hypotheses pertaining to the mediation model were supported; adjustment problems were positively associated with maladaptive relational style, and maladaptive relational style was positively associated with sexual coercion. Accordingly, greater marital discord and stress, and lower social support were associated with higher psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy. Higher psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy were associated with greater frequency of men’s sexual coercion perpetration within the relationship.

These data are in accord with past research that shows the association of adjustment problems and partner conflict (Bodenmann et al., 2007; Davila & Kashy, 2009; Dehle et al., 2001; Neff & Karney, 2004). Our data also corroborate research on maladaptive relational style and the perpetration of various forms of partner control and aggression (DeGue & DiLillo, 2005; Dutton et al., 1996; Fleischmann et al., 2005; Goetz & Shackelford, 2009). For example, Goetz and Shackelford (2009) found that in couples, men’s sexual coercion was consistently predicted by both women’s infidelity and men’s controlling behavior. However, the majority of past studies on sexual coercion have been done neither with couples nor in random community samples. This research is the first to provide a model of sexual coercion within a couple relationship based on salient life context and relationship variables. This model of sexual coercion also addresses areas in which past models of sexual coercion focusing on rape fall short; namely, how to apply the research clinically. The researchers address this issue by formulating a theory of sexual coercion that is not only existent within a couple context but also utilizes basic life, relationship, and personality variables to predict sexual coercion perpetration.

Although a fair amount of research exists describing couples therapy with physically and/or verbally abusive couples (e.g., O’Leary, Heyman, & Neidig, 1999; O’Leary & Woodin, 2009), there is a shortage of treatment literature with couples concerning sexual abuse and sexual coercion. Past work on sexual coercion and abuse predominantly details specific personality characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors, such as sexual narcissism (Widman & McNulty, 2010) and paternal uncertainty (Goetz et al., 2008), which may be less amenable to change than adjustment problems such as stress and social support. Although the research herein does not provide direct answers for treating couples where sexual coercion exists, it can give clinicians and researchers insight into avenues for change for the perpetrator. Stress may be improved through interventions such as mindfulness, either individually (Chang et al., 2004; Chiesa & Serretti, 2009) or in a couple context (Gambrel & Keeling, 2010), and lack of social support may be improved by increasing social skills (Riggio, Watring, & Throckmorton, 1992). Past research also shows increased nonspousal social support may increase effectiveness of intimate partner violence interventions (Mburia-Mwalili et al., 2010). Couple’s therapy targeting jealousy may assist with a person’s maladaptive relational style (Cano & O’Leary, 1997) or using therapeutic modalities such as cognitive behavioral therapy, which improve impulse control and dysfunctional thought patterns (Grant & Potenza, 2007).

Limitations and Future Research

Although this research fills a gap in the sexual coercion literature, it is not without limitations. Primarily, because other measures of sexual coercion did not exist within the data set, the sexual coercion measure consisted of only four items (two from perpetrator report and two from victim report) from the CTS-II (Straus et al., 1996). In the future, it may be advisable to replicate this model using a more inclusive measure of sexual coercion, such as the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale (Shackelford & Goetz, 2004). Additionally, future research could examine this model in a more variable sample. Although this model of sexual coercion can be generalized to parents of young children, the implications for couples without children and/or homosexual couples are unknown.

Agreement between partners in the current sample was also much greater for psychological and physical aggression than it was for sexual coercion; percent agreement was 91% for psychological aggression, 78% for physical aggression, and 61% for sexual coercion (O’Leary & Williams, 2006). In intimate relationships, perception of coercion is one potential issue, as partners appear to misperceive actions of the other regarding sexual behavior more than they do of other behaviors. Disagreement about sexual relations is a prominent piece of both narcissistic reactance theory and evolutionary and infidelity-related theories (Baumeister et al., 2002; Kaighobadi et al., 2009). Research has also related sexual problems to physical and psychological aggression within dating relationships (Feiring, Simon, & Cleland, 2009). Because of the nature of the data collected, we were unable to examine the relationships between intimacy disagreements and the other variables in the mediation model.

Although past research has shown that early marital dissatisfaction may lead to later partner aggression (O’Leary, Malone, & Tyree, 1994), we cannot conclude that the same pathway is acting within this current model. Furthermore, it is very possible our model of sexual coercion may be recursive, such that although adjustment problems and a maladaptive relational style may lead to increased frequency of sexual coercion, increases in sexual coercion also lead to greater adjustment and relational problems.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Jessica Salwen is a graduate of Hamilton College and has completed her master’s thesis at Stony Brook University, which is the focus of this article. In general, her research focuses on looking at predictors and effect of abuse across a lifespan. She is currently working on several manuscripts, including psychological aggression as a predictor of physical aggression and the effects of early abuse on presentation for bariatric surgery, among others. In addition to her research, she is also involved in teaching and clinical activities. She recently finished teaching a course on research and writing in psychology and sees clients with a wide range of psychiatric diagnoses. Her areas of clinical specialty include obesity and binge-eating disorder, anxiety disorders, and marital conflict.

K. Daniel O’Leary is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology, past Director of Clinical Training, and past Department Chair at Stony Brook University, State University of New York. He was among the top 100 cited psychologists in the English-speaking world (American Psychologist, December 1978). He received the Distinguished Scientist Award from the clinical division of the American Psychological Association in 1985, and he was installed to the National Academies of Practice of Psychology in 1986. He has over 240 publications, and he is the author or co-author of 13 books. The most recent include Psychological Abuse in Violent Domestic Relations (with R. D. Maiuro, 2001), Understanding Psychological and Physical Aggression in Couples: Existing Evidence and Clinical Implications (with Erica Woodin, 2009), and The Couples Psychotherapy Treatment Planner (with R. E. Heyman and A. E. Jongsma, 2001). His research focuses on the etiology and treatment of partner aggression, with special emphasis on the role of alcohol abuse and intermittent explosive personality disorder, and the marital discord–depression link.

References

Baumeister

R. F.

Cantanese

K. R.

Wallace

H. M.

(2002). Conquest by force: A narcissistic reactance theory of rape and sexual coercion. Review of General Psychology, 6, 92-135.

Bodenmann

Lederman

Bradbury

T. N.

(2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 551-569.

Boomsma

(1983). On the robustness of LISREL (maximum likelihood estimation) against small sample size and nonnormality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen. Available at http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/gmw/1983/a.boomsma/

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Byrne

B. M.

(2010). Testing for the factorial validity of a theoretical construct. In Byrne

B. M.

(Ed.), Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed., pp. 53-96). New York: Routledge.

Cano

O’Leary

K. D.

(1997). Romantic jealousy and affairs: Research and implications for couple therapy. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 23, 249-275.

Chang

V. Y.

Palesh

Caldwell

Glasgow

Abramson

Luskin

Gill

Burke

Koopman

(2004). The effects of a mindfulness-based stress reduction program on stress, mindfulness, self-efficacy, and positive states of mind. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 20, 141-147.

Chiesa

Serretti

(2009). Mindfulness-based-stress reduction for stress management in healthy people: A review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Alternative and Contemporary Medicine, 15, 593-600.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.

10.

Cohen

Mermelstein

R. J.

Kamarck

Hoberman

H. M.

(1985). Measuring the functional components of social support. In Sarason

Sarason

(Eds.), Social support: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 73-94). The Hague, the Netherlands: Martinus Niijhoff.

11.

Davila

Kashy

D. A.

(2009). Secure base processes in couples: Daily associations between support experiences and attachment security. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 76-88.

12.

DeGue

DiLillo

(2005). “You would if you loved me”: Toward an improved conceptual and etiology understanding of nonphysical male sexual coercion. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 513-532.

13.

Dehle

Larsen

Landers

J. E.

(2001). Social support in marriage. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 307-324.

14.

Dutton

D. G.

van Ginkel

Landolt

M. A.

(1996). Jealousy, intimate abusiveness, and intrusiveness. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 411-423.

15.

Feiring

Simon

V. A.

Cleland

C. M.

(2009). Childhood sexual abuse, stigmatization, internalizing symptoms, and the development of sexual difficulties and dating aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 127-137.

16.

Finkelhor

Yllo

(1985). License to Rape: Sexual Violence Against Wives. New York: Holt Rinehart.

17.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice and Statistics, and Department of Justice.

18.

Fleischmann

A. A.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Andersen

P. A.

Roesch

S. C.

(2005). Tickling the monster: Jealousy induction in relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 49-73.

19.

Gambrel

L. E.

Keeling

M. L.

(2010). Relational aspects of mindfulness: Implications for the practice or marriage and family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 32, 412-426.

20.

Goetz

A. T.

Shackelford

T. K.

(2009). Sexual coercion in intimate relationships: A comparative analysis of the effects of women’s infidelity and men’s dominance and control. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 226-234.

21.

Goetz

A. T.

Shackelford

T. K.

Romero

G. A.

Kaighobadi

Miner

E. J.

(2008). Punishment, proprietariness, and paternity: Men’s violence against women from an evolutionary perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 481-489.

22.

Grant

J. E.

Potenza

M. N.

(2007). Treatments for pathological gambling and other impulse control disorders. In Nathan

P. E.

Gorman

J. M.

(Ed.), A guide to treatments that work (3rd ed., pp. 561-578). New York: Oxford University Press.

23.

Hines

D. A.

Saudino

K. J.

(2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised conflict tactics scales. Violence and Victims, 18, 197-217. Available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/2003/00000018/00000002/art00006

24.

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.

25.

Kaighobadi

Shackelford

T. K.

Goetz

A. T.

(2009). From mate retention to murder: Evolutionary psychological perspectives on men’s partner-directed violence. Review of General Psychology, 13, 327-334.

26.

Kasain

Painter

S. L.

(1992). Frequency and severity of psychological abuse in a dating population. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 350-364.

27.

Katz

Carino

Hilton

(2002). Perceived verbal conflict behaviors associated with physical aggression and sexual coercion in dating relationships: A gender-sensitive analysis. Violence and Victims, 17, 93-109. Available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/2002/00000017/00000001/art00008

28.

Malamuth

N. M.

Sockloskie

Koss

M. P.

Tanaka

(1991). The characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 670-681. doi: 10.1037/0022-06X.59.5.670

29.

Malamuth

N. M.

Linz

Heavey

C. L.

Barnes

Acker

(1995). Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 353-369.

30.

Marshall

A. D.

Holtzworth-Munroe

(2002). Varying forms of husband sexual aggression: Predictors and subgroup differences. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 286-296.

31.

Mburia-Mwalili

Clements-Nolle

Lee

Shadley

Yang

(2010). Intimate partner violence and depression in a population-based sample of women: Can social support help? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2258-2278.

32.

Meyer

Vivian

O’Leary

K. D.

(1998). Men’s sexual aggression in marriage: Couples’ report. Violence Against Women, 4, 415-435.

33.

Monson

C. M.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Taft

C. T.

(2009). Sexual aggression in intimate relationships. In O’Leary

K. D.

Woodin

E. M.

(Eds.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions (pp. 37-58). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

34.

Muñoz-Rivera

M. J.

Graña

J. L.

O’Leary

K. D.

Gonzalez

M. P.

(2009). Prevalence and predictors of sexual aggression in dating relationships of adolescents and young adults. Psicothema, 21, 234-240.

35.

Neff

L. A.

Karney

B. R.

(2004). Gender differences in social support: A question of skill or responsiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 79-90.

36.

O’Leary

K. D.

Heyman

R. E.

Neidig

P. H.

(1999). Treatment of wife abuse: A comparison of gender specific and conjoint approaches. Behavior Therapy, 30, 475-505.

37.

O’Leary

K. D.

Malone

Tyree

(1994). Physical aggression in early marriage: Prerelationship and relationship effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 594-602.

38.

O’Leary

K. D.

Smith Slep

A. M.

O’Leary

S. G.

(2007). Multivariate models of men’s and women’s partner aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 752-764.

39.

O’Leary

K. D.

Tintle

Bromet

E. J.

Gluzman

S. F.

(2008). Descriptive epidemiology of intimate partner aggression in Ukraine. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 43, 619-626. doi: 10.1007/s00127-008-0339-8

40.

O’Leary

K. D.

Williams

(2006). Agreement about acts of aggression in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 656-662.

41.

O’Leary

K. D.

Woodin

E. M.

(2009). Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

42.

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.

43.

Riggio

R. E.

Watring

K. P.

Throckmorton

(1992). Social skills, social support, and psychosocial adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 275-280.

44.

Russell

D. E. H.

(1990). Rape in Marriage. New York, NY: MacMillan.

45.

Schatzel-Murphy

E. A.

Harris

D. A.

Knight

R. A.

Milburn

M. A.

(2009). Sexual coercion in men and women: Similar behaviors, different predictors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 974-986. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9481-y

46.

Riggs

D. S.

O’Leary

K. D.

(1996). Association between heterosexual dating partners: An examination of a causal model of courtship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 519-540. doi: 10.1177/088626096011004005

47.

Shackelford

T. K.

Goetz

A. T.

(2004). Men’s sexual coercion in intimate relationships: Development and Initial validation of the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale. Violence and Victims, 19, 541-556. doi: 10.1891/vivi.19.5.541.63681

48.

Slep

A. M.

O’Leary

S. G.

(2005). Parent and partner violence in families with young children: Rates, patterns and connections. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 435-444.

49.

Spanier

(1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-26.

50.

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.

51.

Sullivan

K. T.

Pasch

L. A.

Johnson

M. D.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2010). Social support, problem solving, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 631-644.

52.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). Consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

53.

Tolman

R. M.

(1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4, 159-177. Available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/1989/00000004/00000003/art00002

54.

Widman

McNulty

J. K.

(2010). Sexual narcissism and the perpetration of sexual aggression. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 926-939.

Adjustment Problems and Maladaptive Relational Style

Abstract

Keywords

Current Understanding of Sexual Coercion

Theories on Sexual Coercion and Aggression

Studies Addressing Specific Variables Used Herein as Predictors of Sexual Coercion

Current Study 1

Method

Participants

Procedure

Measures

Adjustment problems measures

Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)

Interpersonal Support Evaluation List

Perceived Stress Scale

Maladaptive relational style measures

Psychological aggression

Dominance

Jealousy

Sexual Coercion Measure

Results

Discussion

Limitations and Future Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

Author Biographies

References

Current Study¹