Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 379–389 | Cite as

Memory Ability is Associated With Disagreement About the Most Recent Conflict in Polysubstance Abusing Couples

  • Krista Lisdahl Medina
  • John Schafer
  • Paula K. Shear
  • Tisha Gangopadhyay Armstrong
Article

Abstract

There is strong evidence that men and women do not agree about the occurrence of intimate partner violence (IPV). However, few studies to date have attempted to test explanatory models of violence concordance. One possible mechanism underlying disagreement is cognitive impairment, specifically, memory dysfunction. The principal goal of this study is to test whether memory ability and overall cognitive functioning is related to disagreement about the most recent occurrence of IPV within the dyad. Data were collected from both partners of cohabiting or married couples. The male partners were polysubstance abusers within their first year of abstinence. Results indicate that the men and women’s memory ability, problem solving, disinhibition, and verbal ability are significantly related to disagreement about the most recent IPV episode. Thus, cognitive ability, particularly memory ability, of the participants should be considered when assessing the accuracy of measuring IPV among individuals diagnosed with polysubstance abuse. Other implications are discussed.

KEY WORDS:

memory ability neuropsychology intimate partner violence (IPV) disagreement polysubstance abuse domestic violence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn., American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Amir, T., and Bahri, T. (1994). Effects of substance abuse on visuographic function. Percept. Mot. Skills 78: 235–241.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches. J. Marriage Fam. 59: 655–669.Google Scholar
  4. Arias, L., and Beach, S. (1987). Validity of self-reports of marital violence. J. Fam. Violence 2: 139–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armstrong, T. G, Heideman, G., Corcoran, K., Fisher, B., Medina, K. L., and Schafer, J. (2001). Disagreement about the occurrence of male-to-female intimate partner violence: A qualitative study. J. Fam. Community Health 24(1): 55–72.Google Scholar
  6. Army Individual Test Battery. (1944). Manual of Directions and Scoring, War Department.Google Scholar
  7. Benton, A. L. (1974). Revised Visual Retention Test, Psychological, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Bondi, M. W., Drake, A. I., and Grant, I. (1998). Verbal learning and memory in alcohol abusers and polysubstance abusers with concurrent alcohol abuse. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 4: 319–328.Google Scholar
  9. Browning, J., and Dutton, D. (1986). Assessment of wife assault with the Conflict Tactics Scale: Using couple data to quantify the differential reporting effect. Violence Vict. 10(2): 133–141.Google Scholar
  10. Defillippis, N. A., McCampbell, E., and Rogers, P. (1979). Development of a booklet form of the category test: Normative and validity data. J. Clin. Neuropsychol. 1: 339–342.Google Scholar
  11. Delis, D. C., Kramer, J. H., Kaplan, E., and Ober, B. A. (1987). California Verbal Learning Test, The Psychological, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  12. Denison, M. E., Paredes, A., and Booth, J. B. (1997). Alcohol and cocaine interactions and aggressive behaviors. Recent Dev. Alcohol. Alcohol Violence Epidemiol. Neurobiol. Psychol. Fam. Issues 13: 283–303.Google Scholar
  13. Endelson, J. L., and Brygger, M. P. (1986). Gender differences in reporting of battering incidences. Fam. Relat. 35: 377–382.Google Scholar
  14. Fals-Stewart, W., Schafer, J., Lucente, S., Rustine T., and Brown, L. (1994). Neurobehavioral consequences of prolonged alcohol and substance abuse: A review of findings and treatment implications. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 14(8): 755–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. P., and Shaw, E. C. (1995). Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychol. Bull. 118(3): 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grant, I., Adams, K. M., Carlin, A. S., Rennick, P. M., Judd, L. L., and Schooff, K. (1978). The collaborative neuropsychological study of polydrug users. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 35: 1063–1074.Google Scholar
  17. Grant, I., Mohns, L., Miller, M., and Reitan, R. M. (1976). A neuropsychological study of polydrug users. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 33: 973–978.Google Scholar
  18. Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., and Gottemoeller, M. (1999). Ending Violence Against Women, Population Reports, Series L, No. 11, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Population Information Program, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  19. Heyman, R. E., and Schlee, K. A. (1997). Toward a better estimate of the prevalence of partner abuse: Adjusting rates based on the sensitivity of the Conflict Tactics Scale. J. Fam. Psychol. 11(3): 332–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jouriles, E. N., and O’Leary, K. D. (1985). Interpersonal reliability of reports of marital violence. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 53(3): 419–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kantor, G. K., and Straus, M. A. (1989). Substance abuse as a precipitant of wife abuse victimizations. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse 15(2): 173–189Google Scholar
  22. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., and Vivian, D. (1994). The correlates of spouses’ incongruent reports of marital aggression. J. Fam. Violence 9(4): 265–283.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, W. V., Gottheil, E., Sterling, R. C., Weinstein, S. P., and Serota, R. D. (1997). Characteristics of cocaine-addicted individuals who abuse their partners. J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 14(4): 367–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological Assessment, 3rd edn., Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, B. A. (1990). The interrelationships between alcohol and drugs and family. In National Institute on Drug Abuse: Research Monograph Series, NIDA, Washington, DC, pp. 177–207.Google Scholar
  26. Moffit, T. E., Caspi, A., Krueger, R., Magdol, L., Margolin, G., Silva, P., and Sydney, R. (1997). Do partners agree about abuse in the relationship? A psychometric evaluation of interpartner agreement. Psychol. Assess. 9(1): 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Leary, K. D., and Arias, I. (1988). Assessing agreement of reports of spouse abuse. In Hotaling, G. T., et al. (eds.), Family Abuse and Its’ Consequences: New Directions in Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 223–256.Google Scholar
  28. Robins, L. N., Helzer, J. E., Przybeck, T. R., and Regier, D. A. (1988). Alcohol disorders in the community: A report from the epidemiologic catchment area. In Rose, R. M. (ed.), Alcoholism: Origins and Outcomes, Raven Press, New York, pp. 15–29.Google Scholar
  29. Schafer, J., Birchler, G. R., and Fals-Stewart, W. (1994). Cognitive, affective, and marital functioning of recovering male polysubstance abusers. Neuropsychology 8(1): 100–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schafer, J., Caetano, R., and Clark, C. (1998). Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States. Am. J. Public Health 88: 1702–1704.Google Scholar
  31. Schwartz, M. D. (2000). Methodological issues in the use of survey data for measuring and characterizing violence against woman Violence Against Woman. 6(8): 815–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Selby, M. J., and Azrin, R. L. (1998). Neuropsychological functioning in drug abusers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 50: 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sobell, L. C., Maisto, S. A., Sobell, M. B., and Cooper, A. M. (1979). Reliability of alcohol abusers’ self-reports of drinking behavior. Behav. Res. Ther. 17(2): 157–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Straus, M. A. (1990). The conflict tactics scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and reliability. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ, Ch. 4.Google Scholar
  35. Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  36. Straus, M. A., Hamby S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., and Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. J. Fam. Issues 88: 1702–1704.Google Scholar
  37. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J. Exp. Psychol. 18: 643–662.Google Scholar
  38. Szinovacz, M. E., and Egley, L. C. (1995). Comparing one-partner and couple data on sensitive marital behaviors: The case of marital violence. J. Marriage Fam. 57: 995–1010.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, S. P., and Chermack, S. T. (1993). Alcohol, drugs and human physical aggression. J. Stud. Alcohol. 11: 78–88.Google Scholar
  40. Tjaden, P., and Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  41. Trennery, M. R., Crosson, B., DeBoe, J., and Leber, W. R. (1989). The Stroop Neuropsychological Screening Test, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.Google Scholar
  42. Wechsler, D. (1981). WAIS-R Manual, Psychological, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krista Lisdahl Medina
    • 1
    • 2
  • John Schafer
    • 1
  • Paula K. Shear
    • 1
  • Tisha Gangopadhyay Armstrong
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnati
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnati

Personalised recommendations