Skills for Healthy Adult Relationships at the University of Maryland,Baltimore County: Program Development and Preliminary Data

Abstract

The present study examines the development and preliminary pilot findings of Skills for Healthy Adult Relationships at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (SHARe@UMBC)—an intimate partner violence prevention program for college students. SHARe@UMBC is based on an integrative cognitive-behavioral model of communication and emotion regulation in close interpersonal relationships. There were four aims of the present study: first, to describe program development; second, to examine program acceptability and participant satisfaction; third, to examine the extent to which participants acquired relationship skills and their level of confidence in using those skills; and fourth, to examine perpetration and victimization of physical, sexual, and psychological aggression. These aims utilized data collected before program initiation, immediately after program completion, and at a follow-up 9 to 15 months after program completion. Findings from two pilot groups (15 students in total; eight women and seven men) indicated high ratings of program acceptability and satisfaction, reductions in negative communication, improvements in confidence using conflict management strategies with romantic partners and peers, and confidence initiating new romantic relationships. In addition, large effect sizes were observed for confidence providing emotional support to a romantic partner and self-disclosure with peers. Participants reported no incidents of physical, sexual, or psychological aggression perpetration or victimization at follow-up. Pilot implementation and initial uncontrolled results are encouraging and provide support for initiating a more extensive controlled investigation of program efficacy.

Keywords

college intimate partner violence prevention

Relationship violence includes sexual, physical, and psychological abuse, and is a major public health problem warranting extensive and empirically sound prevention strategies. In the United States, more than 5 million individuals annually experience partner violence, with 2 million injured and 550,000 requiring medical attention (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003). In 2010, 10% of U.S. homicide victims were killed by relationship partners—more than 1,300 in total (U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2011). Adverse physical health outcomes of partner violence include contusions, soft tissue injuries, sprains, strains, fractures, maxillofacial injuries, and traumatic brain injuries (Campbell, 2002; Mitchell & Anglin, 2009). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found that survivors of recent partner violence have substantial elevations in new diagnoses of a number of mental health conditions, including alcohol and drug use problems, mood disorders, and anxiety disorders (Black et al., 2011). Negative effects on mental health have been associated not only with severe and injurious forms of partner violence but also with mild-to-moderate forms of physical partner assault as well as emotional and psychological abuse. These findings highlight the need for primary prevention of all forms of partner abuse to promote public health.

Colleges and universities provide an important and highly appropriate context for prevention of relationship violence. First, relationship violence is highly prevalent in this population. On average, 27% of both men and women in college samples report having experienced physical aggression from a relationship partner within the prior year (Desmarais, Reeves, Nicholls, Telford, & Fiebert, 2012). These prevalence rates are higher than those observed in both the general adult population and among high school–aged youth. Second, although these alarming prevalence figures highlight the need for primary prevention with school-age youth, the period of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000) provides new and expanded opportunities for violence prevention that may not exist for younger age cohorts. Whereas dating and romantic relationships during adolescence tend to be transient and tentative, relationships during emerging adulthood tend to focus on deeper aspects of emotional and physical intimacy. This shift provides new opportunities to prevent and disrupt the development of relationship violence as a function of enhanced emotional development, increased capacity for self-control, a greater appreciation of the complexity of romantic relationships, and expanded relationship experiences to draw upon. Third, as a result of prior relationship experiences and their adult status, college students have greater freedom to discuss sensitive topics, such as sexual experiences and personal use of alcohol and drugs, which may be developmentally inappropriate for younger age cohorts or may create legal reporting problems. Research on adult learning strategies identifies a strong and positive impact on skill acquisition when the material is made personally relevant to the learner (Trivette, Dunst, Hamby, & O’Herin, 2009). Together, these developmental changes provide an enhanced context to master self-regulation and relationship skills needed to promote lifelong prevention of partner violence.

It is therefore quite surprising that so little controlled research has examined programs designed to prevent relationship violence among college students using direct efforts to enhance their relationship functioning. A recent state-of-knowledge review examined all controlled empirical studies in English-language journals that focused specifically on the primary prevention of partner violence (Whitaker, Murphy, Eckhardt, Hodges, & Cowart, 2013). Of the 19 studies identified, only one targeted college students (Schwartz, Magee, Griffin, & Dupuis, 2004). In that study, 65 students were randomized to no-treatment control or an intervention consisting of four 1.5-hr group sessions focused on gender role socialization, anger management, and communication skills. Posttest data revealed significant program effects on gender role conflict and one aspect of anger management (use of calming strategies) but no significant effects on anger escalation, negative attributions, and anger self-awareness. Unfortunately, the study provided no follow-up data beyond the end-of-program assessment, no analysis of relationship skill acquisition to test the hypothesized change process, and no outcome data on partner abuse. These design limitations preclude any determination of whether the program had a significant effect in preventing partner violence in college students.

Other recent studies and social policies have focused primarily on bystander interventions. These programs are designed to reduce sexual assault on college campuses by influencing peers to intervene and reducing normative acceptance of violence. A quantitative review revealed promising effects of bystander interventions on efficacy and intentions to help others at risk of violence, with mixed but generally supportive evidence of effects on actual bystander helping behavior and reduction of rape-supportive attitudes (Katz & Moore, 2013). Although evidence of reductions in actual violence exposure is limited, one recent large-scale, multicampus, quasi-experimental investigation found lower rates of overall violence victimization (a composite of unwanted sex, sexual harassment, stalking, and physical and psychological dating abuse) on a campus that had adopted a bystander intervention program as compared with two control campuses without such programs (e.g., Coker et al., 2015). That study found no specific effect of bystander intervention on partner physical assault, but there was some evidence of lower harassment and lower psychological dating abuse on the campus with the bystander program. However, despite efforts to control for population differences across the comparison campuses, substantial differences in survey response rates may have influenced estimates of violence.

Although the initial results are promising overall, we believe that bystander interventions have significant limitations as an approach to partner violence prevention for several reasons. First, bystander interventions focus primarily on sexual assault by acquaintances, whereas partner violence occurs primarily between people in a committed relationship. Second, bystander interventions are geared toward the high-risk social contexts for sexual assaults on college campuses, whereas partner violence often occurs within private spaces and interactional contexts that are less amenable to direct peer intervention. Third, bystander intervention strategies are most relevant to manage acute risk situations, whereas partner violence is characterized by a pattern of coercive interaction and abusive behavior that unfolds, and often escalates, over time. All of these features of partner violence indicate that prevention efforts require change in the relationship behaviors and attitudes of the individuals involved, and that efforts targeting peer (bystander) interventions are unlikely to instill the interpersonal skills necessary for a lifetime of nonviolent relationships.

This article describes the development of a partner violence prevention approach aimed at improving the self-regulation and relationship skills of college students and provides data from an initial uncontrolled investigation of program efficacy. This development effort was informed by empirical research on risk factors for dating violence and draws on prevention approaches that have shown favorable effects with other populations to create a relationship skills program appropriate for emerging adults.

Conceptual and Empirical Foundations of Skills for Healthy Adult Relationships at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (SHARe@UMBC)

SHARe@UMBC is based on the idea that lifelong prevention of partner violence is best accomplished through the promotion of respectful and nonviolent relationships. The intervention targets both men and women and focuses on three areas of personal development: (a) enhancing positive communication skills and reducing negative communication, (b) promoting positive attitudes and beliefs about relationships and relationship partners, and (c) strengthening self-regulation abilities in the context of relationships (e.g., Cordova, Jacobson, Gottman, Rushe, & Cox, 1993; Eckhardt, Samper, Suhr, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2012; Norlander & Eckhardt, 2005). The empirical foundation for this approach derives from prior partner violence prevention research with other populations, research on communication skill deficits in couples experiencing relationship violence, research on the risk factors for partner violence, research on the development of partner violence in college student and newlywed relationships, and research identifying key principles of adult learning and skill acquisition. Support for the program focus and its empirical foundation is reviewed below.

An extensive body of case control and longitudinal research supports the focus on relationship skill development in efforts to prevent partner violence. The first focus is on enhancing positive communication skills and reducing negative communication. Problematic communication, inadequate problem solving, and escalating verbal conflict are key factors in the initiation and maintenance of partner violence (Cordova et al., 1993). Laboratory observational studies of couples engaged in discussions of relationship problems have consistently found that couples who have experienced partner violence, relative to couples who have not, display higher levels of aversive and defensive communication, express more negative emotion and hostility, and are more likely to reciprocate negative communications (Cordova et al., 1993; Margolin, John, & Gleberman, 1988). Longitudinal studies likewise support a conflict escalation model of partner violence. For example, over the first 3 years of marriage, newlywed couples are more likely to engage in physical aggression when they also experience more psychological aggression (Frye & Karney, 2006), and among newlywed couples who reported no previous partner violence, high levels of psychological aggression predict the initiation of physical aggression 6 to 12 months later (Murphy & O’Leary, 1989).

The second key focus of the intervention, promoting positive (and reducing negative) attitudes and negative beliefs about relationships and relationship partners, is likewise grounded in empirical research on partner violence. For example, studies demonstrate that partner violent individuals, in contrast to nonviolent individuals, have more hostile relationship attribution (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe & Hutchinson, 1993), greater cognitive distortions and irrational beliefs in response to difficult relationship scenarios (Eckhardt, Barbour, & Davison, 1998), stronger implicit attitudes linking gender and violence (Eckhardt et al., 2012), and more adversarial gender beliefs (Torres et al., 2012). The program interventions are thus intended to reduce negative valence in social information processing about relationship partners and events.

Finally, the third focus of the program is on strengthening self-regulation abilities to support the development and use of socially competent relationship skills. This focus also emerges from an extensive body of research on the role of emotion dysregulation and emotional insecurity in partner violence. For example, the focus on enhancing anger self-regulation is supported by consistent findings linking perpetration with anger problems (Norlander & Eckhardt, 2005) and anger-mediated distortions in thinking about relationship events (Eckhardt & Jamison, 2002). Likewise, the focus on understanding and managing personal insecurities derives from an extensive body of research highlighting attachment insecurity as a major factor in the development of partner violence (Dutton & White, 2012).

Prevention research with other age groups also provided important insights to inform the development of SHARe@UMBC. The review by Whitaker and collogues (2013), mentioned above, identified 16 controlled studies of primary relationship violence prevention targeting middle and high school–aged youth—three of which reported significant behavioral effects in preventing partner violence (Foshee et al., 2004; Wolfe et al., 2009; Wolfe et al., 2003). The effective programs were relatively intensive (7.5 to 28 hr of intervention), with content focused on altering normative beliefs regarding the acceptability of relationship abuse and enhancing communication and conflict resolution skills. Whereas altering norms regarding gender and dating abuse accounted for significant outcome variance in a universal prevention effort targeting middle school students (Foshee et al., 2005), improvement in active listening skills was a key mediator of prevention effects in an older high-risk sample of youth with histories of maltreatment (Wolfe et al., 2003). Similarly, in premarital prevention research, couples who completed a 15-hr dyadic program to enhance skills such as active listening and problem solving had significantly lower rates of partner violence during a 5-year follow-up than no-intervention controls (Markman, Renick, Floyd, Stanley, & Clements, 1993). Taken in sum, these studies highlight the potential importance of communication and problem-solving skills in partner violence prevention.

Research to date also highlights the importance of targeting both men and women in partner violence prevention efforts, with the goal of reducing both perpetration and victimization by promoting healthy and respectful relationship behavior. Women more commonly experience the negative effects of partner violence, including physical injury, compared to men (Archer, 2000). However, when behavioral frequencies are measured, men and women engage in roughly similar rates of physically aggressive acts such as slapping, pushing, grabbing, and hitting (Archer, 2000), and are equally likely to report initiating physical aggression (Stets & Straus, 1990). In population studies, the majority of physical partner violence is bidirectional (Langhinrichsen-Rolling, Misra, Selwyn, & Rohling, 2012), and these mutual patterns of violence are associated with higher rates of injury than nonreciprocal (unilateral) perpetration (Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007). In addition, partner violence is prevalent across sexual orientations (Tjaden, Thoennes, & Allison, 1999). Finally, successful prevention efforts that have focused on enhancing relationship skills in younger populations have found reductions in partner violence perpetration and victimization (Foshee et al., 2004; Wolfe et al., 2003).

Development of SHARe@UMBC

The University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) Division of Student Affairs and the University Counseling Center (UCC) partnered with the project investigators to develop SHARe@UMBC. First, a needs assessment of the UMBC community was conducted to inform the development of intervention targets and recruitment strategies. Focus groups were conducted with a total of 40 participants representing student organizations, administrative staff, and faculty. Student organization and department coordinators sent emails to their listservs describing the purpose, time, and location of focus groups. Focus groups were open to all interested individuals. To select topics for session content, a list of relevant content from the reviewed programs was created, and focus group participants ranked the topics from most important to least important for college students specifically. Focus groups then discussed why the issues were more or less relevant. This process revealed interest in an interactive, skills-based program focused on constructive communication, emotion regulation, and problem solving. Participants expressed interest in a program relevant to both single individuals and those in committed relationships, and indicated that such a program was needed and could be beneficial.

Next, the team examined extant relationship skills and partner violence prevention programs to identify appropriate content for a college student population (Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005; Murphy & Scott, 1995; Taft, Murphy, & Creech, 2016; Whitaker et al., 2013). Programs for middle and high school students (e.g., Foshee et al., 2004; Wolfe et al., 2009; Wolfe et al., 2003) had notable limitations arising from the fact that most college students are living away from home, experiencing adult independence, and are involved in sexual relationships that may include cohabitation with romantic partners. Issues of sexual expectations and safety, in particular, were often missing from programs intended for younger audiences. Prevention programs for adult populations, in contrast, almost exclusively target intact couples and contain substantial content that is not readily adapted to the needs of individuals who are not in a romantic relationship at the time of program delivery (Stanley et al., 2001). Additional considerations were as follows: college students are expected to vary in their current desire for committed relationships, some are expected to terminate relationships or begin new relationships during the course of the prevention program, some may be sustaining long-distance relationships, and most are expected to communicate extensively via electronic means including texting and social media. None of these considerations was sufficiently addressed in existing programs for intact adult couples.

After the needs assessment and review of available prevention materials and programs, the decision was made to adapt skills training material on healthy communication and self-regulation drawn from work on cognitive-behavioral therapies for partner violence perpetrators (e.g., Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005; Murphy & Scott, 1995; Taft et al., 2016). These intervention strategies focus on relationship skill alternatives to abuse and violence, were specifically created for work with individuals rather than couples, were designed to be delivered in a group context, and were tailored to address concerns that are common among men and women who have been violent in relationships. Prior research indicates that individuals who engage in greater efforts to learn and implement these skills have lower levels of abusive behavior after intervention (Taft, Murphy, King, Musser, & DeDeyn, 2003). Specific skill training modules were selected and modified with new content added to create a program tailored for college students.

Overview of Prevention Approach

SHARe@UMBC is based on an integrative cognitive-behavioral model of communication, emotion regulation, and coping in close interpersonal relationships. In this model, partner violence results from a complex set of influences involving (a) personal vulnerabilities (e.g., negative emotionality, jealousy, emotional insecurity), (b) skill and knowledge deficits (e.g., poor communication, problems in emotion regulation, limited awareness of destructive relationship patterns), and (c) individual and dyadic stressors (e.g., unresolved conflicts, infidelity, differences in beliefs and values). Individuals with personal vulnerabilities and limited relationship skills have difficulty coping with relationship problems, and respond in ways that escalate interpersonal conflict and heighten risk for violence (e.g., Capaldi, Shortt, & Kim, 2005; Langer, Lawrence, & Barry, 2008; O’Leary, Smith Slep, & O’Leary, 2007). The working hypothesis is that partner violence prevention will be accomplished by enhancing emotion regulation and relationship skills needed to cope effectively with personal vulnerabilities, stress, and relationship challenges.

SHARe@UMBC provides participants with a focused set of skills to address challenges and difficulties in romantic relationships along with guidance to improve interpersonal functioning in nonromantic relationships, for example, with roommates, friends, or parents. The applicability of the program to relationships in general facilitates the involvement of participants who are not currently in romantic relationships, and provides increased opportunities to practice and generalize interpersonal skills acquired in the program. Treatment targets are interrelated and include improvements in communication, problem-solving, and emotion regulation skills in close relationships.

Pilot Study of SHARe@UMBC

In an uncontrolled pilot study, we gathered preliminary outcome data on SHARe@UMBC. There were four aims of the present study. The first aim was to describe program development. The second aim was to examine participant satisfaction and program acceptability, including the extent to which participants attended sessions. The third aim was to assess whether students acquired targeted relationship skills and experienced increased confidence in using relationship skills from before to after program participation. We expected that students would show an increase in positive communication, including active listening and problem solving, and a decrease in negative communication, including withdrawal, negative escalation, and invalidation. In addition, we expected that participants would show an increase in confidence using relationship skills during interactions with peers and romantic partners. Areas of relationship skill confidence included (a) ability to initiate new relationships, (b) ability to assert oneself appropriately, (c) comfort with self-disclosure, (d) providing emotional support, and (e) conflict management. For the fourth aim, we expected to find preliminary data on primary prevention of partner violence. Specifically, at follow-up, 9 to 15 months after program completion, we expected that students would indicate no victimization or perpetration of any form of sexual, physical, or psychological aggression since completing SHARe@UMBC.

Method

Participants

Pilot testing of SHARe@UMBC occurred during the fall and spring semesters of the 2013-2014 academic year. Fall 2013 participants were recruited from a university setting through announcements in undergraduate classes and self-referral via flyers posted on campus. Announcements were made in classes with more than 50 students and were made across departments (e.g., psychology, physics, biology). In addition, more than 200 flyers were posted around campus. Fifteen students indicated interest, and six undergraduates (four women and two men) enrolled in the program. No active recruitment was done for the second (spring 2014) group because a waiting list of interested students had accumulated over the fall semester. For the second group, the first 12 students from the waiting list were invited to participate. Three students were unable to participate due to scheduling conflicts; nine students (four women and five men) enrolled in the spring 2014 group. There were no exclusion criteria for these first two pilot groups.

Participants from the two groups ranged in age from 18 to 39 years (M = 24) and included freshman through seniors. Six (40%) self-identified as Caucasian/non-Hispanic, five (33%) as African American, two (13%) as Asian American, and two (13%) as multiracial. Regarding income, 58.3% of the sample reported an annual personal income less than US$10,000, 33.3% of individuals earned between US$10,001 and US$20,000, and 8.3% earned between US$50,001 and US$60,000. At pretest, seven students (47%) were in romantic relationships, five (33%) reported past romantic relationships, and three (20%) had never been in a romantic relationship.

Measures

Program satisfaction and acceptability was measured with seven questions. Five questions were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely) and included the following: (a) I felt the program was overall helpful to me, (b) I felt this program was well organized, (c) I learned a lot from this program, (d) the program was informative, and (e) the group facilitator was well prepared. Two open-ended questions included the following: (a) “What was most beneficial about the program?” and (b) “What would you say to other students who were interested in taking the program?”

Communication skills were measured at baseline and postintervention with the 32-item Communication Skills Test (CST; Saiz & Jenkins, 1995), which contains an 18-item Negative Communication Subscale assessing maladaptive behaviors such as withdrawal, negative escalation, and invalidation and a 14-item Positive Communication Subscale assessing adaptive behaviors such as active listening and problem solving. Participants were instructed to indicate “How often each item is true for your communication.” Participants reported on interactions with their romantic partner (if in a romantic relationship) and on interactions with friends and other important people (if not in a relationship). Items are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 7 (almost always). The CST has good psychometric properties and has been used to examine the efficacy of relationship enhancement programs (Stanley et al., 2001). In the current sample, internal consistency alphas were .92 for positive communication and .83 to .86 for negative communication.

Relationship skill confidence was measured at baseline and postintervention with the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ; Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988). The ICQ is a 40-item self-report measure developed to assess confidence in five areas: initiation (eight items; introducing yourself to someone you might like to get to know [or date]), assertion (eight items; standing up for your rights when a companion is neglecting you or being inconsiderate), self-disclosure (eight items; telling a close companion about the things that secretly make you feel anxious or afraid), providing emotional support (eight items; being able to say and do things to support a close companion when he or she is feeling down), and conflict management (eight items; when angry with a companion, being able to accept that he or she has a valid point of view even if you do not agree with that view). Participants were asked to indicate (a) how they would act with a friend/peer and (b) how they would act with a romantic partner or romantic interest. Each of the items was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (I’m poor at this; I’d feel so unable to handle this situation; I’d avoid it if possible) to 5 (I’m extremely good at this; I’d feel very comfortable and could handle this situation very well). The scale has demonstrated good validity and high internal consistency (Buhrmester et al., 1988). Internal consistency alphas ranged from .91 for initiation, .84 to .94 for assertion, .82 to .92 for self-disclosure, .86 to .92 for emotional support, and .83 to .88 for conflict management in the current sample.

Relationship abuse was assessed at follow-up—9 to 15 months after program completion—using one item each from the Psychological and Sexual Abuse subscales and the two-item subscales of Physical and Injurious Abuse from the Conflict Tactics Scales Short Form (CTS-2S; Straus & Douglas, 2004). The CTS-2S items assessed participants’ perpetration and victimization. Psychological Abuse was measured with “I (my partner) destroyed something belonging to my partner (me) or threatened to hit my partner (me).” Physical Abuse was measured with “I (my partner) pushed, shoved, or slapped my partner (me)” and “I (my partner) punched or kicked or beat up my partner (me).” Sexual Abuse was measured with “I (my partner) used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon) to make my partner (me) have sex.” Injurious Abuse was measured with “I (my partner) had a sprain, bruise, or small cut, or felt pain the next day because of a fight with my partner (me)” and “I (my partner) went to see a doctor (MD) or needed to see a doctor because of a fight with my partner (me).” Each of the items was measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (has not happened since completing SHARe@UMBC) to 6 (more than 20 times since completing the program). If participants were not in a romantic relationship, they were instructed to “answer the questions based on dating experiences since completing the program.” Internal consistency was 1.00 in the current sample.

Procedure

SHARe@UMBC took place in an informal classroom setting on a university campus following procedures that were approved by the UMBC Institutional Review Board (IRB). Prior to engaging in program material, the facilitator completed informed consent procedures with all participants. Baseline and postintervention questionnaires were completed as pen-and-paper assessments. Partner violence follow-up data were collected through an online survey. No compensation was provided for completing assessments.

Intervention

SHARe@UMBC was delivered in mixed-gender groups with 6 to 10 students and one trained group facilitator. Based on adult learning principles, we believed that mixed-gender groups provide advantages over single gender groups such as hearing the perspectives of another gender and practicing communication skills in that context (Trivette et al., 2009). The facilitator was an advanced graduate student who had previous experience conducting partner violence intervention groups, couples therapy, and related academic research. For the current study, the group facilitator attended weekly supervision with a licensed psychologist.

The program consists of 8 weekly 1.5-hr sessions. Each session includes the following: (a) didactic portions where the facilitator presents information of relevance to the session topic, (b) in-session discussion to identify and highlight the personal relevance of material and exercises aimed at skill practice and acquisition, and (c) homework assignments and homework review. The length and format of sessions, and strategies included in the program, are consistent with adult learning methods shown to produce optimal skill acquisition (Trivette et al., 2009). Although new topics are presented each week, previous topics are revisited and woven into ongoing content to provide continuity in learning and skill acquisition. The program is meant to be applicable to and inclusive of all students including sexual, gender, and racial minority students. For example, video content includes a lesbian couple modeling passive, aggressive, and assertive communication, a biracial couple modeling active listening, and a Caucasian heterosexual couple modeling destructive communication patterns. In-session content and homework include sexual, gender, and racial minorities as well as heteronormative illustrations. In addition to having inclusive content, each session allows participants to discuss the personal relevance of material, including minority status. All participants from both groups completed the program.

Session 1: The Importance of Communication. After initial introductions, the facilitator reviews group guidelines regarding confidentiality and mutual respect as well as program goals and session structure. Didactic information focuses on the effects of adaptive and maladaptive communication styles and destructive communication patterns. Participants engage in self-assessment to raise awareness of their communication styles, and alternative communication strategies are presented and practiced.

Session 2: Skills to Counter Destructive Communication Patterns. Didactic information focuses on anger arousal, including how context and mood contributes to anger, and skills to halt destructive communication patterns. Skills include negotiation of time-outs and relaxation training. Participants practice relaxation techniques, role-play strategies to negotiate time-outs, and discuss and troubleshoot barriers to the use of these techniques.

Session 3: Active Listening Skills. Didactic information focuses on the importance of active listening in close relationships, common misconceptions about listening (e.g., listening implies agreement), and common barriers to active listening. Participants discuss challenges to active listening (e.g., negative emotional arousal and defensiveness), and role-play active listening skills (e.g., paraphrasing and validating) and speaker–listener techniques.

Session 4: Emotional Expression Skills. Didactic information focuses on effective expression of emotions and personal needs, including taking responsibility for one’s emotional reactions and desires, reducing the tendency to blame others, editing tone of voice to reduce hostility and criticism, and making requests rather than demands. Participants discuss personal examples of ineffective emotional expression (e.g., mind reading, blaming, and demanding) and role-play more effective strategies to express desires, complaints, and emotions.

Session 5: Expectations and Assertiveness. Didactic content focuses on the role of expectations and appropriate assertiveness in close relationships. Participants provide personal experiences of passive, aggressive, and assertive communication. They discuss expectations in peer, family, and romantic relationships, including expectations about sexual activity and gender roles, where these expectations and beliefs come from (e.g., family, media, friends), and how expectations and beliefs influence interpersonal functioning. Participants practice active listening skills and assertiveness regarding expectations in relationships.

Session 6: Negotiation, Compromise, and Problem Solving. Didactic content focuses on the influence of beliefs regarding power and control in relationships, the need for compromise, and common elements of productive problem solving. Participants provide examples of problems experienced in close relationships and role-play interactions using active listening, assertiveness, negotiation, compromise, and problem-solving skills.

Session 7: Managing Stress. Didactic content focuses on defining stress, identifying common sources of stress, and recognizing the impact of stress on individual and relationship well-being. Participants discuss cognitions (e.g., interpretations, expectations, beliefs, and attitudes) that influence the appraisal of stress and stress reactions. They provide examples of adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies, complete a self-assessment of personal coping styles, provide examples of current stressors, and discuss adaptive coping strategies to build resilience.

Session 8: Filters, Personal Styles, Acceptance, and Change. Participants discuss how external and internal filters can disrupt effective communication, including cultural messages (e.g., television, movies, and pornography), communication media (e.g., cell phones and social media), and modern distractions (e.g., video games and Internet), and how these factors intersect with stress, life pressures, and relationship expectations and beliefs. Participants discuss and plan strategies to counteract the effects of distraction, negative emotional states, and other impediments to effective interpersonal functioning in light of personal styles, appreciation of differences, and the role of acceptance and change in healthy relationships. Participants review progress made over the course of the program and set goals for continued growth in interpersonal functioning.

Statistical Analysis

Paired-sample t tests were used to assess change from pretreatment to posttreatment in relationship skill acquisition (CST; Saiz & Jenkins, 1995) and confidence in using relationship skills in romantic and peer relationships (ICQ; Buhrmester et al., 1988). Effect sizes (d) were calculated and are qualitatively described according to conventional standards (Cohen, 1992). CTS data were examined for frequency of abuse occurring since completing SHARe@UMBC.

Results

The first aim was to describe the development of SHARe@UMBC. The second aim was to examine participant satisfaction and program acceptability, including the extent to which participants attended sessions. Regarding attendance, no students dropped out of the program, and overall attendance was 96% on average. On average, students felt that the program was extremely helpful (M = 4.40), well organized (M = 4.60), and informative (M = 5.00). Students reported learning a lot from the program (M = 4.40) and felt that the group facilitator was well prepared (M = 4.80). In response to open-ended questions (direct quotes appear in parentheses), participants reported valuing the opportunities for open discussion and the chance to learn about themselves and how their behavior “may come across to others.” They provided favorable appraisals of the content focus on communication skills, destructive communication patterns, and “different strategies for approaching problem solving.”

Our third aim was to assess whether students acquired targeted relationship skills and experienced increased confidence in using relationship skills from before to after program completion. We expected that students would show an increase in positive communication and a decrease in negative communication. In addition, we expected that participants would show an increase in confidence using relationship skills (i.e., increases in ability to initiate new relationships, assertiveness, self-disclosure, provision of emotional support, and conflict management) during interactions with peers and romantic partners. Results of paired-sample t tests comparing pretest with posttest on each measure are reported in Table 1. Results revealed significant decreases in negative communication and significant increases in confidence utilizing conflict management strategies with peers and romantic partners and initiating new romantic relationships. There were moderate-to-large effects (i.e., Cohen’s d = .50-.80) for confidence initiating new romantic relationships, self-disclosure to peers, providing emotional support to romantic partners, and confidence using conflict management strategies with romantic partners and peers.

Table 1.

Pre- and Postassessment Data for SHARe@UMBC (N = 15 Participants).

	Pretest		Posttest		t(14)	p Level	d
	M	SD	M	SD	t(14)	p Level	d
ICQ
Initiation
Romantic partner	2.91	1.02	3.61	0.98	−2.56	.02	.66
Peer	3.34	0.78	3.78	0.88	−1.74	.10	.44
Assertiveness
Romantic partner	3.14	1.11	3.41	1.11	−1.03	.32	.27
Peer	3.10	0.85	3.30	1.10	−0.74	.47	.19
Disclosure
Romantic partner	3.04	1.01	3.38	1.00	−1.60	.13	.40
Peer	2.98	0.78	3.38	0.86	−2.01	.06	.52
Emotional support
Romantic partner	4.05	0.72	4.35	0.62	−1.93	.07	.50
Peer	4.11	0.55	4.34	0.50	−1.47	.16	.37
Conflict management
Romantic partner	3.52	0.85	4.00	0.61	−2.63	.02	.68
Peer	3.63	0.75	4.06	0.60	−2.46	.03	.64
	Pretest		Posttest		t(12)	p Level	d
	M	SD	M	SD	t(12)	p Level	d
CST
Negative communication	3.31	0.95	2.87	0.95	2.69	.02	.77
Positive communication	4.64	1.21	5.04	1.20	−1.32	.21	.38

Note. SHARe@UMBC = Skills for Healthy Adult Relationships at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; ICQ = Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire; CST = Communication Skills Test.

For our fourth aim, we expected to find preliminary data on primary prevention of IPV. Specifically, at follow-up, 9 to 15 months after program completion, we expected that students would indicate that they had not been victimized or engaged in any form of sexual, physical, or psychological aggression since completing SHARe@UMBC. A total of 15 participants completed the online follow-up assessment. Participants reported no incidents of physical, sexual, or psychological aggression perpetration or victimization since program completion. Although null results must be interpreted with caution, the results are consistent with our primary prevention focus.

Discussion

The present study examines the development and preliminary investigation of SHARe@UMBC, a program specifically designed for college students, which aims to improve relationship skills and emotion regulation to prevent relationship violence. Participants demonstrated a high level of attendance to program meetings and perceived learning and benefiting great deal from the program. As hypothesized, participants showed improvement from before to after the program in several key areas of relationship skill acquisition and confidence. In addition, participants reported no evidence of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse perpetration or victimization at 9 to 15 months after program completion. Due to the preliminary nature of this research, we have chosen to keep the discussion of findings brief. Drawing strong claims from this research may be overly confident. However, given the very promising preliminary findings, further research is warranted.

Strengths and Limitations

SHARe@UMBC has several important strengths and provides important innovations in relationship violence prevention. First, the prevention program is based on a strong empirical foundation of risk research that points to deficits in self-regulation and relationship skills in the development of partner violence. Second, the program content and delivery format were designed to be highly relevant to contemporary college students. For example, content was modified to include destructive communication patterns that may occur through texting and online platforms, such as Facebook. Program content was delivered using interactive videos utilizing college students and college-age scenarios. Third, the content was appropriate for all participating genders and was successfully delivered to mixed-gender groups. Participants reported that hearing the perspectives and experiences of another gender was valuable and provided insights that might otherwise have been missed if the groups had been separated according to gender. Fourth, the groups were racially diverse with approximately equal representation of Caucasian and African American participants and 13% Asian American and multiracial students. There were no significant differences between races in program satisfaction, relationship skill acquisition, confidence in using skills, or follow-up reports of relationship abuse. Therefore, preliminarily findings suggest that the program is beneficial for students similar to those represented in this study. Fifth, the session structure, session length, and overall program duration are firmly grounded in empirical principles of adult learning and skill acquisition. Sixth, the researchers have developed a detailed program manual and accompanying power points, videos, handouts, and homework assignments. Therefore, the program could be easily replicated.

The present study also has several weaknesses. First, the small sample size limits confidence in the generalizability of results. Second, the self-selected sample may have been strongly predisposed to respond well to this program because of their interest in the topic or related issues. Third, although participants were assigned a code number and responses were collected anonymously, social desirability may have influenced ratings of program satisfaction and outcome. Fourth, this pilot study did not utilize a control group, and therefore, we cannot rule out alternative explanations for findings such as naturally occurring improvement in relationship skills across time. Fifth, partner violence was not assessed at pretest. Given that SHARe@UMBC is a primary prevention model, participants were not expected to have experienced relationship violence before the program. Therefore, our goal was to show that violent interactions had not occurred at follow-up rather than showing a reduction in violence over time. Future studies may utilize preintervention data on partner violence to select participants for this program. Sixth, we collected information about participant income rather than parental income. Students’ personal income may not be an accurate measure of their socioeconomic status. Lastly, we did not examine all change targets of the prevention model, including anger-mediated distortions in thinking about relationship events (Eckhardt et al., 1998) and hostile attributional biases for partner behavior (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe & Hutchinson, 1993). Because this was a small-scale pilot study, and participants were not compensated for completing study assessments, we attempted to keep assessments brief, which precluded evaluation of some intervention targets.

Goals for future research on the program include obtaining larger samples, using appropriate (wait-list, no-treatment, or alternate treatment) control groups, assessing additional change targets included in the prevention model, targeting the program toward students at high risk for partner violence, and evaluating program impact as a secondary prevention approach to reduce partner violence. As with other violence prevention programs, scalability, access, and context are also key considerations (Banyard, 2013). Future work is needed to develop strategies to engage a larger number of students in relationship skill groups, to integrate and connect programs like SHARe@UMBC with other antiviolence initiatives (both within and outside the college context), and to determine the level of training and education needed to successfully facilitate these groups.

Future Directions and Conclusions

SHARe@UMBC prevention model is based on extensive bodies of research, theory, and practice that converge on four intersecting themes: (a) The vast majority of partner violence results from escalating relationship conflict; (b) partner violent individuals have a deficient set of self-regulation and relationship skills, including inadequate anger regulation strategies, problems managing personal insecurities (i.e., lack of confidence in relationship settings), poor communication skills, hostile relationship attributions, and negatively distorted relationship beliefs; (c) the best way to disrupt the development of partner violence is through a positive, strengths-based approach focused on enhancement of core interpersonal skills that are highly valuable to emerging adults; and (d) preventive interventions should be firmly grounded in the principles of adult learning and skill acquisition. These intersecting themes were used to design an intervention program to promote interpersonal competencies needed to prevent IPV across the life span. Pilot implementation and initial uncontrolled results are encouraging, and provide support for initiating a more extensive controlled investigation of program efficacy.

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: Financial support for this research was provided by Hopeline by Verizon and the Verizon Foundation.

Author Biographies

Chandra E. Khalifian, MA, is a doctoral candidate in clinical psychology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC). Her research focuses on promoting positive engagement in interpersonal relationships in order to improve mental and physical health.

Christopher M. Murphy, PhD, is professor of psychology at UMBC. His research focuses on intervention and prevention services to reduce intimate partner abuse using motivational and cognitive-behavioral strategies.

Robin A. Barry, PhD, is assistant professor of psychology at UMBC. Her research focuses on romantic relationship processes that contribute to individual and relationship well-being and distress, with an emphasis on couple communication and avoidant/disengaged behavior.

Bruce Herman, PhD, is executive director of Health and Counseling at UMBC. He is invested in implementing, developing, and evaluating interventions to improve student mental health and wellness.

References

Archer

(2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Banyard

V. L.

(2013). Go big or go home: Reaching for a more integrated view of violence prevention. Psychology of Violence, 3, 115-120.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

. . . Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Buhrmester

Furman

Wittenberg

M. T.

Reis

H. T.

(1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 991-1008.

Campbell

J. C.

(2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331-1336.

Capaldi

D. M.

Shortt

J. W.

Kim

H. K.

(2005). A life span developmental systems perspective on aggression toward a partner. In Pinsof

W. M.

Lebow

(Eds.), Family psychology: The art of the science (pp. 141-167). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Costs of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.

10.

Coker

A. L.

Fisher

B. S.

Bush

H. M.

Swan

S. C.

Williams

C. M.

Clear

E. R.

DeGue

(2015). Evaluation of the Green Dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence Against Women, 21, 1507-1527.

11.

Cordova

J. V.

Jacobson

N. S.

Gottman

J. M.

Rushe

Cox

(1993). Negative reciprocity and communication in couples with a violent husband. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 559-564.

12.

Desmarais

S. L.

Reeves

K. A.

Nicholls

T. L.

Telford

R. P.

Fiebert

M. S.

(2012). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, part 1: Rates of male and female victimization. Partner Abuse, 3, 140-169.

13.

Dutton

D. G.

White

K. R.

(2012). Attachment insecurity and intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 475-481.

14.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Barbour

K. A.

Davison

G. C.

(1998). Articulated thoughts of maritally violent and nonviolent men during anger arousal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 259-269.

15.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Jamison

T. R.

(2002). Articulated thoughts of male dating violence perpetrators during anger arousal. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 289-308.

16.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Samper

Suhr

Holtzworth-Munroe

(2012). Implicit attitudes toward violence among male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 471-491.

17.

Foshee

V. A.

Bauman

K. E.

Ennett

S. T.

Linder

G. F.

Benefield

Suchindran

(2004). Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 619-624.

18.

Foshee

V. A.

Bauman

K. E.

Ennett

S. T.

Suchindran

Benefield

Linder

G. F.

(2005). Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program “Safe Dates” using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6, 245-258.

19.

Frye

N. E.

Karney

B. R.

(2006). The context of aggressive behavior in marriage: A longitudinal study of newlyweds. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 12-20. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.12

20.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Hutchinson

(1993). Attributing negative intent to wife behavior: The attributions of maritally violent versus nonviolent men. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 206-211.

21.

Katz

Moore

(2013). Bystander education training for campus sexual assault prevention: An initial meta-analysis. Violence and Victims, 28, 1054-1067.

22.

Langer

Lawrence

Barry

(2008). Using a vulnerability-stress-adaptation framework to predict physical aggression trajectories in newlywed marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 756-768.

23.

Langhinrichsen-Rolling

Misra

T. A.

Selwyn

Rohling

M. L.

(2012). Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Violence, 3, 199-230.

24.

Margolin

John

R. S.

Gleberman

(1988). Affective responses to conflictual discussions in violent and nonviolent couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 24-33.

25.

Markman

H. J.

Renick

Floyd

F. J.

Stanley

S. M.

Clements

(1993). Preventing marital distress through communication and conflict management training: A 4- and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 70-77.

26.

Mitchell

Anglin

(Eds.). (2009). Intimate partner violence: A health-based perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

27.

Murphy

C. M.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2005). Treating the abusive partner: An individualized, cognitive-behavioral approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

28.

Murphy

C. M.

O’Leary

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

29.

Murphy

C. M.

Scott

(1995). Cognitive behavior therapy for domestically assaultive individuals: A treatment manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

30.

Norlander

Eckhardt

(2005). Anger, hostility, and male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 119-152.

31.

O’Leary

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.

32.

Saiz

C. C.

Jenkins

(1995). The Communication Skills Test (Unpublished measure, University of Denver, CO, USA).

33.

Schwartz

J. P.

Magee

M. M.

Griffin

L. D.

Dupuis

C. W.

(2004). Effects of a group preventive intervention on risk and protective factors related to dating violence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 221-231.

34.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

Prado

L. M.

Olmos-Gallo

Tonelli

St. Peters

Whitton

S. W.

(2001). Community-based premarital prevention: Clergy and lay leaders on the front lines. Family Relations, 67, 67-76.

35.

Stets

J. E.

Straus

M. A.

(1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

(Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 151-165). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.

36.

Straus

M. A.

Douglas

E. M.

(2004). A short form of the revised conflict tactics scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507-520.

37.

Taft

C. T.

Murphy

C. M.

Creech

S. K.

(2016). Trauma-informed treatment and prevention of intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

38.

Taft

C. T.

Murphy

C. M.

King

D. W.

Musser

P. H.

DeDeyn

J. M.

(2003). Process and treatment adherence factors in group cognitive-behavioral therapy for partner violent men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 812-820.

39.

Tjaden

Thoennes

Allison

(1999). Comparing violence over the life span in samples of same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants. Violence and Victims, 14, 413-425.

40.

Torres

J. G.

Schumm

J. A.

Weatherill

R. P.

Taft

C. T.

Cunningham

K. C.

Murphy

C. M.

(2012). Attitudinal correlates of physical and psychological aggression perpetration and victimization in dating relationships. Partner Abuse, 3, 76-88.

41.

Trivette

C. M.

Dunst

C. J.

Hamby

D. W.

O’Herin

C. E.

(2009). Characteristics and consequences of adult learning methods and strategies (Winterberry Research Syntheses, Vol. 2, No. 2). Asheville, NC: Winterberry Press.

42.

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Crime in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports.

43.

Whitaker

D. J.

Haileyesus

Swahn

Saltzman

L. S.

(2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941-947.

44.

Whitaker

D. J.

Murphy

C. M.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Hodges

A. E.

Cowart

(2013). Effectiveness of primary prevention efforts for intimate partner violence: A report for the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project. Partner Abuse: New Directions in Research, Intervention, and Policy, 4, 175-195.

45.

Wolfe

D. A.

Crooks

Jaffee

Chiodo

Hughes

Ellis

(2009). A school based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 163, 692-699.

46.

Wolfe

D. A.

Wekerle

Scott

Straatman

Grasley

Reitzel-Jaffe

(2003). Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 279-291.