Physiological, affective, and behavioral responses to interpersonal conflict among males from families with different levels of cohesion and adaptability

  • Kevin T. Larkin
  • Nicole L. Frazer
  • Elizabeth M. Semenchuk


To examine the relation between characteristics of a person's family of origin and cardiovascular, behavioral, cognitive, and affective response to interpersonal conflict, responses of 15 young males from families rated as extreme (EXT) on scales of cohesion (enmeshed or disengaged) or adaptability (chaotic or rigid) were compared to those of 25 young males from families rated as balanced (BAL) on measures of cohesion and adaptability. Subjects participated in two interpersonal role-play conflict situations, one with a male confederate and the other with a female confederate. Measures of heart rate (HR), blood pressure, and indices of both positive and negative verbal and nonverbal behaviors were obtained during each scenario and self-reported measures of positive and negative cognitive self-statements and affective response were obtained following each conflict scene. Results showed that, in contrast to BAL males, EXT males exhibited more negative verbal and nonverbal behavior, less positive nonverbal behavior, higher ratings of state anxiousness during conflict, and higher HR responses during the interaction with the male confederate than the female confederate. These findings suggest that exposure to a family environment with extreme levels of cohesion and adaptability impacts how an individual responds to interpersonal conflict in young adulthood.

Key words

family environment cardiovascular response to stress interpersonal conflict behavioral response to stress family cohesion family adaptability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baer, P. E., Reed, J., Bartlett, P. C., Vincent, J. P., Williams, B. J., & Bourianoff, G. G. (1983). Studies of gaze aversion during induced conflict in families with a hypertensive father.Psychosomatic Medicine, 45, 233–242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beavers, W. R., Hampson, R. B., & Hulgas, Y. (1985). Commentary: The Beavers Systems approach to family assessment.Family Process, 24, 398–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burman, B., John, R. S., & Margolin, G. (1992). Observed patterns of conflict in violent, nonviolent, and nondistressed couples.Behavioral Assessment, 14, 15–37.Google Scholar
  4. Edguer, N., & Janisse, M. P. (1994). Type A behavior and aggression: Provocation, conflict and cardiovascular responsivity in the Buss teacher-learner paradigm.Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ewart, C. K., Burnett, K. F., & Taylor, C. B. (1983). Communication behaviors that affect blood pressure: An A-B-A-B analysis of marital interaction.Behavior Modification, 7, 331–344.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Franklin, C., & Street, C. L. (1993). Validity of the 3-D Circumplex Model for family assessment.Research on Social Work Practice, 3, 258–275.Google Scholar
  7. Glass, C. R., Merluzzi, T. V., Biever, J. L., & Larsen, K. H. (1982). Cognitive assessment of social anxiety: Development and validation of a self-statement questionnaire.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gottman, J. M., Jacobson, N. S., Rushe, R. H., & Short, J. W. (1995). The relationship between heart rate reactivity, emotionally aggressive behavior, and general violence in batterers.Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 277–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Green, R. G., Harris, R. N., Forte, J. A., & Robinson, M. (1991). Evaluating FACES III and the Circumplex Model: 2,440 families.Family Process, 30, 55–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Henggeler, S. W., Burr-Harris, A. W., Borduin, C. M., & McCallum, G. (1991). Use of Family Adaptability and Cohension Evaluation Scales in child clinical research.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 53–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hops, H., Mills, T. A., Patterson, G. R., & Weiss, R. L. (1972).Marital Interaction Coding System. Eugene: Oregon Research Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Lassner, J. B., Matthews, K. A., & Stoney, C. M. (1994). Are cardiovascular reactors to asocial stress also reactors to social stress.Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 66, 69–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Manuck, S. B. (1994). Cardiovascular reactivity in cardiovascular disease: Once more unto the breach.International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1, 4–31.Google Scholar
  14. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1996).Family Environment Scale manual, 2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.Google Scholar
  15. Olson, D. H. (1985). Family measurement techniques.American Journal of Family Therapy, 13, 76–78.Google Scholar
  16. Olson, D. H. (1986). Circumplex Model VII: Validation studies and FACES III.Family Process, 25, 337–351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Olson, D. H. (1991). Commentary: Three-dimensional (3-D) circumplex model and revised scoring of FACES III.Family Process, 30, 74–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Olson, D. H. (1992). Personal Communication. In Franklin, C. & Street, C. L. (1993). Validity of the 3-D circumplex model for family assessment.Research on Social Work Practice, 3, 258–275.Google Scholar
  19. Olson, D. H., & Killorin, E. (1984).Clinical rating scale for Circumplex Model. St. Paul: Department of Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  20. Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Bell, R. (1982).FACES II: Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scales. St. Paul: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  21. Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985).FACES III, St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  22. Olson, D. H., Russell, C., & Sprenkle, D. (1989).Faces III manual. St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  23. Roderick, J. D., Henggeler, S. W., & Hanson, C. I. (1986). An evaluation of family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales (FACES) and the circumplex model.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 77–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Russell, C. (1980). A methodological study of family cohesion and adaptability.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 6, 459–470.Google Scholar
  25. Semenchuk, E. M., & Larkin, K. T. (1993). Behavioral and cardiovascular responses to interpersonal challenges among male offspring of essential hypertensives.Health Psychology, 12, 416–419.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Shapiro, D., Jamner, L. D., Lane, J. D., Light, K. C., Myrtek, M., Sawada, Y., & Steptoe, A. (1996). Blood pressure publication guidelines.Psychophysiology, 33, 1–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Spielberger, C. D. (1988).State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  28. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. (1970).State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  29. Stoney, C. M. (1992). The role of reproductive hormones in cardiovascular and neuroendocrine function during behavioral stress. In J. R. Turner, A. Sherwood, & K. C. Light (Eds.),Individual differences in cardiovascular response to stress (pp. 147–163). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  30. Vandvik, I. H., & Eckblad, G. F. (1993). FACES III and the Kveback Family Sculpture Technique as measures of cohesion and closeness.Family Process, 32, 221–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Woodall, K. L., & Matthews, K. A. (1989). Familial environment associated with Type A behaviors and psychophysiological responses to stress in children.Health Psychology, 8, 403–426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wright, L. B., Treiber, F. A. Davis, H., Strong, W. B., Levy, M., Van Huss, E., & Batchelor, C. (1993). Relationship between family environment and children's hemodynamic response to stress: A longitudinal evaluation.Behavioral Medicine, 19, 115–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin T. Larkin
    • 1
  • Nicole L. Frazer
    • 1
  • Elizabeth M. Semenchuk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantown

Personalised recommendations