OBJECTIVE: Psychological aggression is common in intimate relationships, yet only a subset of psychologically aggressive couples also engage in physical violence. We examine two factors proposed to identify which psychologically aggressive couples display physical violence, emphasizing (a) couples' negative and ineffective communication during relationship-focused conversations and (b) the demands imposed upon couples by chronic social and economic disadvantage. METHOD: From 862 spouses (431 couples), we collected self-report data on psychological and physical aggression, observational data capturing the quality of their communication, and self-report data assessing established indicators of socioeconomic vulnerability. Tests of moderation were conducted with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). RESULTS: The association between psychological and physical aggression was stronger among couples who displayed lower-quality communication and among couples facing higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage. The moderating effect of couple communication remained significant after controlling for socioeconomic disadvantage, and the moderating effect of socioeconomic disadvantage remained significant after controlling for communication. All effects remained after controlling for relationship satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Specific communication skills and broad indices of socioeconomic vulnerability make independent contributions to acts of physical aggression among psychologically aggressive couples. Conceptual frameworks are needed to integrate these two levels of analysis, and intervention models are needed that identify at-risk couples and that modify the conditions that heighten their likelihood of physical aggression.
OBJECTIVE: Psychological aggression is common in intimate relationships, yet only a subset of psychologically aggressive couples also engage in physical violence. We examine two factors proposed to identify which psychologically aggressive couples display physical violence, emphasizing (a) couples' negative and ineffective communication during relationship-focused conversations and (b) the demands imposed upon couples by chronic social and economic disadvantage. METHOD: From 862 spouses (431 couples), we collected self-report data on psychological and physical aggression, observational data capturing the quality of their communication, and self-report data assessing established indicators of socioeconomic vulnerability. Tests of moderation were conducted with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). RESULTS: The association between psychological and physical aggression was stronger among couples who displayed lower-quality communication and among couples facing higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage. The moderating effect of couple communication remained significant after controlling for socioeconomic disadvantage, and the moderating effect of socioeconomic disadvantage remained significant after controlling for communication. All effects remained after controlling for relationship satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Specific communication skills and broad indices of socioeconomic vulnerability make independent contributions to acts of physical aggression among psychologically aggressive couples. Conceptual frameworks are needed to integrate these two levels of analysis, and intervention models are needed that identify at-risk couples and that modify the conditions that heighten their likelihood of physical aggression.