Insecure Attachment Behavior and Partner Violence: Incorporating Couple Perceptions of Insecure Attachment and Relational Aggression

Abstract

Intimate partner violence and insecure attachment are therapeutically relevant concepts when working with couples. The link between attachment and intimate partner violence has been examined in the literature, but an area of aggression that often goes unexamined is relational aggression, or using third parties as a means of being aggressive toward a partner. We asked how participants' attachment behaviors were related to their own and partners' relational and physical aggression. We used structural equation modeling to estimate actor-partner interdependence among these relationships in 644 heterosexual couples. Results indicated significant partner paths from attachment to relational aggression, as well as significant actor paths between relational aggression and physical aggression. Implications were discussed. Data for this study were collected from the RELATE assessment.

Using Difference Scores to Inform Therapy Practice: Differences in Perceptions of Attachment Behaviors between Partners in a Clinical Sample

“…Engagement has been described as the connecting or bonding moments that occur when one partner reaches out for closeness and the other responds in nurturing and healing ways (Johnson, 2004). A number of studies have shown attachment behaviors are an important mechanism through which aversive experiences (family of origin problems, relational aggression) are associated with relational quality (Oka et al, 2014;Knapp, Sandberg, Novak, & Larson, 2015), through which relationship satisfaction is associated with depression (Novak, Sandberg, & Davis, 2017), and an important construct related to health behaviors (Davis, Sandberg, Bradford, & Larson, 2016). Finally, recent research even suggests that a partner's perception of the others' attachment behaviors is a stronger predictor of one's relationship satisfaction than one's perception of his or her own attachment behaviors (Bradford, Novak, & Sandberg, under review).…”

A Time to Reflect on JMFT

“…Good examples of professional development articles on research methods in JMFT include those by Seedall and Wampler (); Wittenborn, Dolbin‐MacNab, and Keiley (); Oka and Whiting (); and Gambrel and Butler (). Also, a good illustrative mix of quantitative methods can be seen in the work of Cornett and Bratton (); Christenson, Crane, Bell, Beer, and Hillin (); Guo and Slesnick (); and Oka, Sandberg, Bradford, and Brown (). Likewise, good qualitative research can be both sophisticated and important, as illustrated in the work of Gerlock, Grimesey, and Sayre () and Richardson, Davey, and Swint ().…”

On Maps, Shapeshifting, and My Syllabus: Family Therapies Today

“…One way I suppose I could update my syllabus is to organize it not just in terms of theory, but by the increasing literature on family therapies for specific presenting problems such as interpersonal violence (Oka, Sandberg, Bradford, & Brown, ; Schneider & Brimhall, ), homelessness (Harris‐McKoy, Woods, Brantley, & Farineau, ), childhood mood disorders (MacPherson, Leffler, & Fristad, ), cyber issues (Blumer, Hertlein, Allen, & Smith, ) or on specific populations such as male adolescents who sexually offend (Keiley, Zaremba‐Morgan, Datubo‐Brown, Pyle, & Cox, ). Context is another possible organizing principle that includes international and cross‐cultural initiatives (Parra‐Cardona, Aguilar, Wieling, Domenech Rodríguez, & Fitzgerald, ; Seponski, Bermudez, & Lewis, ), medical family therapy (Falke & D'Arrigo‐Patrick, ; Hernandez & Thomas, ), and issues of acculturation (Maciel & Knudson‐Martin, ).…”