Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 265–283 | Cite as

The correlates of spouses' incongruent reports of marital aggression

  • Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling
  • Dina Vivian


Husbands' and wives' reports (n=97 couples) of engaging in or experiencing marital aggression were compared to determine congruence. Congruence was defined as spousal agreement on whether either spouse had been nonviolent, mildly violent, or severely maritally violent within the past year. Whereas approximately equal numbers of clinic couples were incongruent for husband and for wife violence (32% vs. 31%), only incongruence for husband violence (H → W) was found to correlate with reports of affective and relationship functioning. Incongruent H → W wives were more likely to be depressed and angry. H → W incongruent wives were also more negative about the inter-spousal communication and rated the relationship as more unsatisfactory for them than did congruent wives. Incongruent H → W husbands also perceived the relationship more negatively, but their levels of depression and anger did not differ from congruent H → W husbands. These findings were not replicated for spouses who were incongruent for wife violence. Our results support the conclusion that spousal disagreement about H → W violence has a more negative impact than does disagreement about wives' level of aggression.

Key words

congruence marriage violence spouse abuse 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arias, I., and Beach, S. R. H. (1987). Validity of self-reports of marital violence.J. Fam. Viol. 2: 139–149.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, A. T. (1978).The Beck Depression Inventory. Philadelphia: Center for Cognitive Therapy.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., and Garbin, M. G. (1987). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation.Clin. Psychol. Review, 8: 77–100.Google Scholar
  4. Browning, J., and Dutton, D. (1986). Assessment of wife assault with the Conflict Tactics Scale: Using couple data to quantify the differential reporting effect.J. Marr. Fam. 48: 375–379.Google Scholar
  5. Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., and Vivian, D. (1992). Marital Aggression: Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives.Arch. Intern. Med. 152: 1178–1184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen, A., Sullaway, M., and King, C. E. (1983). Systematic error in behavioral reports of dyadic interaction: Egocentric bias and content effects.Behav. Assess. 5: 129–140.Google Scholar
  7. Eddy, J. M., Heyman, R. E., and Weiss, R. L. (1991). An empirical evaluation of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Exploring the differences between marital “satisfaction” and “adjustment.”Behav. Assess. 13: 199–220.Google Scholar
  8. Haynes, S. N., Chavez, R. E., and Samuel, V. (1984). Assessment of marital communication and distress.Behav. Assess. 6: 315–321.Google Scholar
  9. Jouriles, E. N., and O'Leary, K. D. (1985). Interspousal reliability of reports of marital violence.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol., 53: 419–421.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Langhinrichsen, J., Lichtenstein, E., Seeley, J., Hops, H., Ary, D., Tildesley, E., and Andrews, J. (1990). Parent-adolescent congruence for adolescent substance use.J. Youth Adol. 6: 623–635.Google Scholar
  11. O'Leary, K. D. and Arias, I. (1984). Assessing agreement of reports of spouse abuse. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kilpatrick, and M. A. Straus (eds.),New Dimensions in Family Violence Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 218–227.Google Scholar
  12. O'Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., and Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses, A longitudinal analysis.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol., 57: 263–268.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Riggs, D., Murphy, C., and O'Leary, K. D. (1989). Intentional falsification in reports of interpartner aggression.J. Interpers. Viol. 4: 220–232.Google Scholar
  14. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads.J. Marr. Fam. 38: 15–28.Google Scholar
  15. Spanier, G. B. (1989).Dyadic Adjustment Scale Manual, Multi-Health Systems, Inc., North Tonawanda, NY.Google Scholar
  16. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales.J. Marr. Fam. 41: 75–86.Google Scholar
  17. Szinovacz, M. (1983). Using couple data as a methodological tool: The case of marital violence.J. Marr. Fam. 45: 633–644.Google Scholar
  18. Vivian, D. (1990).The Adapted Conflict Tactics Scale, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York, 11794–2500, Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  19. Waltz, J., Babcock, J. C., Jacobson, N. S., and Gottman, J. M. (1991). Husband and wife reports of interspousal violence: Sex differences in minimization,Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavioral Therapy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling
    • 1
  • Dina Vivian
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyState University of New York at Stony BrookStony Brook
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of NebraskaLincoln

Personalised recommendations