Conﬂict Intensity, Family History, and Physiological Stress...

Human Communication Research ISSN 0360-3989

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Conflict Intensity, Family History,and Physiological Stress Reactions to ConflictWithin Romantic Relationships

Lindsey Susan Aloia1 & Denise Haunani Solomon2

1 Department of Communication, Rollins College, Winter Park, FL 32789, USA2 Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA16802, USA

This study drew upon the physiological model of stress and desensitization processes todeduce hypotheses linking the intensity of conflict communication and exposure to famil-ial verbal aggression in childhood to experiences of conflict within romantic relationships.One hundred college-aged students (50 dating couples) participated in a dyadic interactionin which partners discussed a source of conflict in their romantic relationship. Partici-pants reported childhood exposure to familial verbal aggression, third-party observers ratedthe intensity of conflict communication, and salivary cortisol indexed physiological stressresponses to the conflict interactions. As predicted, results showed a positive associationbetween conflict intensity and cortisol reactivity, and this association was attenuated forindividuals who reported higher, rather than lower, levels of childhood exposure to familialverbal aggression.

Keywords: Interpersonal Conflict, Family History, Verbal Aggression, Stress Response,Cortisol Reactivity.

doi:10.1111/hcre.12049

A large body of research has examined experiences of conflict within an array of inter-personal associations, including roommate relationships and friendships (Bippus &Rollins, 2003; Marek, Wanzer, & Knapp, 2004), romantic and marital relationships(Caughlin, 2002; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002), family relationships (Sillars, Koerner,& Fitzpatrick, 2005), and workplace and student–teacher relationships (Frymier &Houser, 2000; Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006). These studies make clearthat conflict can produce a myriad of negative outcomes. For example, exposure toand participation in conflict interactions has been linked to depression, distress, andanxiety (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997; Sillars, Coletti, Parry, & Rogers, 1982); feelingsof hurt and anger (Fitzpatrick & Winke, 1979; Sereno, Welch, & Braaten, 1987);

Corresponding author: Lindsey Susan Aloia; e-mail: [email protected]

Human Communication Research 41 (2015) 367–389 © 2014 International Communication Association 367

Conflict Within Romantic Relationships L. S. Aloia & D. H. Solomon

relationship dissatisfaction (Guerrero, 1994); and subsequent violence (Infante,Sabourin, Rudd, & Shannon, 1990).

At the same time, conflict experiences can be beneficial, by alleviating tensionand avoiding conflict escalation (Baron & Richardson, 2004; Infante, 1995), reduc-ing communication apprehension and enhancing intersubjectivity (Benjamin, 1990),contributing to the development of closeness within relationships (Siegert & Stamp,1994), and clarifying individual and relational goals (Burgess & Burgess, 1996). Giventhe diversity and the potential severity of outcomes associated with interpersonalconflicts, efforts to understand variation in the negativity of conflict interaction expe-riences are well-placed.

The parameter most frequently tied to experiences of interpersonal conflict is rela-tional distress. Conflict is pervasive in satisfying and dissatisfying relationships, butconflict is more frequent, severe, and stressful in dissatisfying relationships (Lloyd,1990). For example, Sabourin, Infante, and Rudd (1993) found that distressed couplesare more likely than nondistressed couples to reciprocate verbally aggressive behav-ior during a conflict interaction. Within dissatisfied relationships, conflict interac-tions are often characterized by negative and competitive patterns of communica-tion behavior, such as confront–confront, confront–defend, complain–defend, anddefend–complain sequences (Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2006; Ting-Toomey, 1983).

In fact, research has shown that dissatisfied couples, compared to satisfied ones, aremore likely to engage in negative reciprocity (Pike & Sillars, 1985), countercomplain-ing (Alberts, 1988), and demand/withdraw patterns of communication (Gottman &Levenson, 2000; Heavey, Christensen, & Malamuth, 1995). Not surprisingly, then,distressed couples’ communication behaviors are less effective in resolving disagree-ments, produce less satisfaction with conflict interactions, and result in less positiveoutcomes (Billings, 1979; Markman, 1981).

Although prior research provides convincing evidence linking relationship satis-faction to the conduct of interpersonal conflicts, questions remain concerning vari-ation in the distress elicited by conflict episodes. Recent efforts point to the role ofphysiological processes in understanding experiences of interpersonal conflict. Forexample, Robles, Shaffer, Malarkey, and Kiecolt-Glaser (2006) found that the neg-ativity of conflict communication between spouses (indexed by criticism, disagree-ment, denial of responsibility, and interrupting) promotes maladaptive physiologicalresponses to interpersonal conflict. Similarly, Heffner et al. (2006) observed that wifedemand/husband withdraw sequences during conflict are associated with increasesin cortisol levels for wives.

In a study of children’s reactions to interparental conflict, Davies, Struge-Apple,Cicchetti, and Cummings (2007) showed that exposure to interparental hostilityattenuated children’s cortisol reactions to witnessing a simulated phone disagree-ment between parents. In addition, Afifi, Granger, Joseph, Denes, and Aldeis (2014)reported that children were able to down regulate physiological arousal associatedwith a difficult parent–child interaction more quickly when their parents werecommunicatively skilled, rather than unskilled. Taken as a set, these findings suggest

368 Human Communication Research 41 (2015) 367–389 © 2014 International Communication Association

L. S. Aloia & D. H. Solomon Conflict Within Romantic Relationships

that conceptualizing experiences of interpersonal conflict as a stress response canshed light on factors that affect variation in individuals’ experiences of conflict.

Following Cohen, Kessler, and Underwood Gordon’s (1995) physiological modelof stress, we conceptualize stress as an interactive relationship between the exter-nal environment and an individual’s internal state. During a stressful experience, thedemands of the situation prompt an appraisal of the threat imposed by external condi-tions, as well as an assessment of the individual’s internal capacity to adapt to or copewith the situation (Cohen et al., 1995). If an individual evaluates the environmentas threatening, potentially dangerous, or taxing (McNamara, 2000), a physiologicalstress response to the external threat is initiated (Dohrenwend & Shrout, 1985).

Drawing on the physiological model of stress (Cohen et al., 1995) and viewinginterpersonal conflict interactions as potential stressors highlights how experiencesof conflict, as reflected in physiological markers of stress, are shaped by both thedemands that an interaction places on individuals and people’s internal adaptivecapacity. Thus, we focused this investigation on the interaction between communica-tion qualities and personal sensitivities to shed light on people’s experience of conflictinteractions as stressful.

In this study, we examine conflict interaction intensity and childhood exposureto familial verbal aggression as factors that influence physiological stress reactionsto conflict interactions between college-aged romantic partners. We position con-flict intensity as an environmental factor that influences the external demandsimposed by conflict. We also develop a framework emphasizing desensitizationto conflict, due to family history, as a factor contributing to a person’s internalcapacity to cope with those demands. After deriving the hypotheses that focus ourinvestigation, we report a laboratory-based dyadic interaction study that tested ourthinking.

Conflict conceptualized as a physiological stressor

The body’s two primary physiological stress response systems are the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary (SAM) axis and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA)axis. The HPA axis, in particular, promotes defense against stressors through theproduction of adrenal steroids and stress hormones; the hormone cortisol is themain product of the HPA axis. Under normal, nonstressful conditions, the HPA axis’scortisol production follows a diurnal pattern of activation, releasing the greatestconcentration of cortisol during the morning, dramatically reducing the productionduring the afternoon, and slowly decreasing the production of cortisol during theevening. Under stressful conditions, defined by threatening external conditionsand insufficient internal capacity to adapt to those demands, additional cortisol isreleased to mobilize energy against the stressor. To the extent that this additionalenergy enhances an individual’s ability to cope with a threat (see Bateup, Booth,Shirtcliff, & Granger, 2002), activation of the HPA axis is a normative and functionalresponse to stressful conditions.



In the following sections, we examine the aspects of the physiological modelof stress (Cohen et al., 1995). Specifically, we consider features of the externalenvironment, or conflict communication interactions, that amplify the demandsplaced on communicators’ internal environments. In addition, we suggest that theprocess of desensitization, due to exposure to family verbal aggression in childhood,influences individual differences in sensitivity to conflict that is reflected in theactivation of the HPA axis.

Conflict behaviors that amplify external demandsThe physiological model of stress (Cohen et al., 1995) implies that the demands thatconflict interactions make on individuals are influenced by the behaviors that occurduring a communication episode. In a systematic analysis of conflict interactions,Resick et al. (1981) concluded that four features influence evaluations of conflict asmild versus intense: volume of speech, presence of critical statements, expressions ofdisagreement, and use of sarcasm. In particular, conflicts characterized by loud voices,frequent criticism, disagreement, and sarcasm are rated as more negative, intense, andsevere (see also, Gottman & Levenson, 2000; Nomura & Barnlund, 1983). Cupach(1982) demonstrated that competitive conflict tactics such as shouting and blamingare viewed more negatively than cooperative approaches to conflict such as seekinginformation. Conversely, indirect conflict communication versus direct communica-tion patterns are evaluated as more agreeable (van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994) andpolite (Goldsmith, 1992).

The incidence of caustic communication can also fuel conflict escalation. Accord-ing to the argumentative skills deficiency model (Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989),the receipt of hostile language serves as a trigger for the receiver and often resultsin an impulsive, aggressive response. In addition, Durbin (2008) found a varietyof utterances that can intensify conflict, including profanity, commands, negativecomparisons, and behavior criticism. A verbal attack that is perceived by the recipientas intentional and illegitimate is especially likely to worsen the conflict interaction(Infante et al., 1989).

Not surprisingly, then, the reciprocation of negative affect, complaints, and othercompetitive acts has been linked to conflict negativity (Alberts, 1988; Billings, 1979;Margolin & Wampold, 1981; Pike & Sillars, 1985). The surreptitious delivery of a sar-castic message also increases the intensity of a conflict and often escalates conflictinteractions (Gordon, 1985; Resick et al., 1981). Moreover, extended chains of nega-tive and competitive messages can create patterns of destructive conflict, exacerbatingthe negative consequences of conflict communication (Gottman, 1994).

These studies suggest that qualities of communication behavior amplify the threatimposed by conflict interactions. When one person’s communication expresses crit-icism, conveys dominance or disagreement, or demands a response, the immediatethreat to the message recipient is increased. When partners reciprocate aggressive tac-tics and a conflict escalates, the interaction as a whole becomes more demanding anddangerous to both participants. For these reasons, qualities of communication are an



inherent driver of variations in the experience of conflict indexed by the physiologicalstress response.

Following this logic, we position the intensity of a conflict interaction as a proximalfactor influencing increases in salivary cortisol as a marker of HPA axis activity. Asdetailed in the following hypothesis, we focus on the effects of the intensity of conflictinteractions after controlling for the well-documented effects of relational distress thatwe reviewed previously:

H1: Controlling for relational distress, conflict intensity is positively associated with theamplitude of stress reactivity to conflict interactions between college-aged datingpartners, as measured by salivary cortisol.

Childhood experiences that attenuate perceived threatThe physiological model of stress (Cohen et al., 1995) further suggests that the per-ceived threat of the external environment depends on the internal adaptive capacityof the individual. Individual differences in reactions to conflict have been linked to avariety of causes, ranging from genetic predispositions (Beatty & McCroskey, 1997)to social learning processes that promote the development of relevant communica-tion skills (Infante, 1987). Evidence also suggests that particular traits, such as per-sonal hostility (Suarez & Williams, 1989) and an insecure attachment style (Powers,Pietromonaco, Gunlicks, & Sayer, 2006) render people more physiologically reactiveto interpersonal conflicts. One individual difference that has been linked to expe-riences of conflict in adulthood is childhood exposure to conflict within the familyenvironment (Dumlao & Botta, 2000; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). In this section,we consider desensitization processes as a framework for explaining how family com-munication experiences in childhood may calibrate individuals’ reactions to conflictinteractions in adulthood.

Desensitization is defined as “the attenuation or elimination of cognitive, emo-tional, and ultimately, behavioral responses to a stimulus” (Rule & Ferguson, 1986,p. 29). Desensitization can be manipulated directly and purposefully. For example,desensitization is a technique used in behavioral therapy to decrease or eliminatecertain emotional responses through exposure to anxiety-inducing stimuli (Wolpe,1973). This process has documented effectiveness in changing children psychologi-cally and behaviorally (Weersing & Weisz, 2002).

In addition, desensitization has been recognized as a key mechanism in determin-ing the psychological effects of exposure to chronic violence. In particular, childrenwho have experienced severe and chronic physical aggression describe violence as away of life, and they report that they no longer feel overwhelmed or upset by violence(Guterman & Cameron, 1997). Using a similar logic, we suggest that desensitizationexplains the association between childhood exposure to familial verbal aggression andphysiological stress responses to conflict in adult romantic relationships.

Research has consistently found that intense, negative marital conflict threatens achild’s sense of security and safety in the home and in the outside world (Gordis, Mar-golin, & John, 2001). For example, Cummings, Goeke-Morey, Papp, and Dukewich



(2002) found that young children respond to adult anger with various negativeemotions, such as distress, fear, sadness, and anger. In turn, children in high-conflicthomes show higher levels of anger and aggression as rated by their peers, teachers,and mothers (Jenkins, 2000). Children who witness competitive conflict duringdevelopment, compared to those who do not, also have more adjustment problems,including internalizing emotions, acting out, behaving in socially incompetent ways,and performing poorly in school (Cummings et al.; Davies, Cicchetti, & Martin,2012; Kelly, 2000).

Although familial conflicts are stressful to children, ongoing exposure to intenseconflict in childhood may attenuate the perceived threat of conflict in adulthood.Huesmann (1998) argued that children who are exposed to violence, either as victimsor witnesses, habituate to it and, consequently, come to experience violence as lessadverse. For children who have experienced high levels of familial conflict, the stressresponse system may be recalibrated, such that the normal physiological responsesto conflict cues are attenuated. In turn, children experience verbal aggression as lessadverse and even normative, increasing their own verbal aggression and tolerance forother’s verbal aggression (Eisenberg, 2000). This desensitization to signals of conflictspares children from immediate distress by attenuating physiological reactions, eventhough it may increase people’s propensity to engage in violence (Garbarino, 1999;Garbarino & Kostelny, 1997; Ng-Mak, Salzinger, Feldman, & Stueve, 2002).

Drawing from this desensitization framework, we predict that childhood exposureto familial verbal aggression moderates the relationship between conflict intensity andcortisol reactivity specified in H1. Children who have experienced intense and fre-quent exposure to family conflict may adapt to it and evaluate conflict as normal,typical, or expected. Because these experiences increase a person’s internal abilityto adapt to conflict, desensitization is reflected in a diminished physiological reac-tion to conflict interactions. Accordingly, we predict that the association betweenconflict intensity and stress reactivity to conflict interactions in romantic relation-ships is attenuated for individuals who have experienced a history of familial conflict.Specifically:

H2: Controlling for relational distress, a history of exposure to familial verbal aggressionduring childhood moderates the association between conflict intensity and theamplitude of stress reactivity to conflict interactions between college-aged datingpartners, as measured by salivary cortisol, such that the magnitude of the positiveassociation between conflict intensity and stress reactivity is reduced when a history ofexposure to familial verbal aggression during childhood is high, rather than low.

Method

We used a dyadic interaction design to examine the influence of the intensity ofconflict interaction and childhood exposure to familial verbal aggression on physio-logical stress responses to conflicts between dating partners. Although staging conflictinteractions within a laboratory sacrifices external validity, it allowed us to observe



and record the conflict interactions and physiological reactions to them as theyoccurred.

ParticipantsIndividuals were recruited from a general education communication course at a largeEastern university; participants completed the study (or a nonresearch alternative) tofulfill a research participation requirement in the course. The sample included indi-viduals who reported being involved with a current romantic partner for longer than3 months. In addition, all participants stated that their partners were geographicallyclose to the university and willing to participate. Students who reported any instancesof physical aggression in their romantic relationship were excluded, per InstitutionalReview Board requirements. Participants who were recruited from the general edu-cation course received 2% credit for completion of the study; their partners werecompensated $10.00 for their participation.

The sample for the study was composed of 100 participants (50 females, 50 males).Participants’ ages ranged from 18- to 31-years old (M = 20.93, SD= 0.99), and themajority of the sample identified as White (81.73%; Asian, 6.73%; Black, 4.81%; His-panic, 4.81%; other, 1.92%). Individuals reported being romantically involved withtheir partner for a range of 3 months to 8 years (M = 1.28 years, SD= 1.42 years).

ProceduresPrior to participation, individuals received an e-mail describing the purpose andprocedures of the study. Individuals were told that they would be providing threesaliva samples during their participation and, accordingly, they were asked toreschedule their participation if they had dental work performed 48 hours priorto coming to the lab; to avoid consuming alcohol, dairy, sugar, caffeine, nicotine,or any medication 1 hour prior to participation; and to refrain from exercising orbrushing their teeth 45 minutes before participating. Each couple reported to the labbetween 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to minimize the impact of the diurnal variation incortisol.

Upon arrival, partners were separated within the lab and administered informedconsent forms. The consent forms clarified that participation would include inter-acting with the partner, that those conversations would be videotaped, and that thevideos would be used to further analyze their participation after their session. Partici-pants then provided their first saliva sample using oral swabs; all samples were frozenimmediately after collection. Next, participants were asked to identify and describethe three most stressful areas of conflict in their relationship. Finally, participantscompleted an online questionnaire which collected demographic information, activ-ity, and food consumption prior to arriving at the lab, and measures to capture thevariables of interest.

Partners were then asked to sit together within the laboratory for the interaction.At this point in their participation, the participants had spent approximately 30 min-utes in the lab. Given the length of the procedures and the period of time that the



participants already had to adjust to the lab setting, we did not perceive a need tofurther acclimate participants prior to the conflict discussion. We instructed the dyadto discuss a particular area of conflict; the most distressing conflict reported by eitherpartner served as the stimuli for the interaction. The couple was left alone in the lab todiscuss that topic of conflict. The interaction was videotaped using unobtrusive ceil-ing mounted cameras with internal microphones. After 10 minutes, we re-entered thelab and relocated the participants to separate areas within the lab.

Following the interactions, participants sat quietly for 15 minutes and then pro-vided a second saliva sample. Participants relaxed for 5 additional minutes before wecollected a third saliva sample. According to Powers et al. (2006), it takes between15–20 minutes for cortisol to enter the saliva after being secreted in response to astressor. Accordingly, we collected saliva samples 15 minutes and 20 minutes after thestressor to ensure a more valid and reliable measure of the body’s physiological reac-tion to the stress of a conflict interaction with a romantic partner. Because cortisolcollection occurred 15 and 20 minutes after the end of the conflict interaction, thesemethods index stress reactions in response to the conflict interaction as it occurred.

To conclude the study, participants completed a postinteraction questionnaire.Finally, the couple was reunited and debriefed on their participation in the researchstudy. During the debriefing session, we reviewed the purpose and procedures of thestudy with the couple, allowed the participants to ask any questions that they had, andmade certain that the couple was not upset as a result of their participation.

MeasuresHistory of familial verbal aggressionA history of familial verbal aggression was measured using 20 items drawn fromthe three most widely used measures of verbal aggression: the Verbal Aggressive-ness Scale (Infante & Wigley, 1986), the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby,Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), and the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry,1992). We worded the items to focus on family members’ use of verbally aggressivecommunication behaviors toward the participant (e.g., “attacked my intelligence,”“insulted me”); benevolent items and items that discussed physical assault, sexualcoercion, or injury were excluded. Participants responded using an 8-point scaleto indicate the frequency of specific experiences during their childhood (0=Thishas never happened, 1=Not within a year, but it did happen before, 2=Once a year,3=Twice a year, 4= 3–5 times a year, 5= 6–10 times a year, 6= 11–20 times a year,7=More than 20 times a year; Straus et al., 1996).

We asked participants to focus on their experiences during middle childhood (i.e.,third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade). This period of life was chosen because the devel-opment of cognitive abilities, such as concentration and memory, render experiencesduring middle childhood easier to recall than experiences in early childhood (BurnettHeyes, Zokaei, van der Staaij, Bays, & Husain, 2012). The confirmatory factor analysis(CFA) results indicated that a composite scale, computed as the average of responsesto the 20 items, was unidimensional (M = 3.25, SD= 1.16, α= .94).



Conflict intensity

To operationalize conflict intensity, trained judges rated the communication of eachparticipant during the 10-minute conflict interactions. All conflict interaction videoswere first transcribed, and judges used both the transcripts and videos to rate theintensity of the conflict interactions. Next, judges participated in training sessionstogether; we discussed the content of each code, practiced the rating task on a vari-ety of interactions, and discussed interactions with low agreement on the rating scale.Judges then rated a small portion of the sample independently. Training continueduntil reliability was achieved on all of the judgments (α> .85). When adequate relia-bility was achieved, judges completed 20 videos per week. Each week, reliability wasreassessed until all five of the judges completed rating the entire sample on each of thecodes.

Conflict intensity was defined as the extent to which the individual displayedincompatible activity. Although conflict can be manifested in a variety of ways,the judges were asked to focus on verbalized conflict, which is also referred to asexpressed disagreement or arguing. Verbalized conflict can include—but is not lim-ited to—yelling, insulting the partner, criticizing the partner, accusing the partner,offending the partner, screaming, swearing, threatening the partner, and being crueltoward the partner (Buss & Perry, 1992; Infante & Wigley, 1986; Resick et al., 1981;Straus et al., 1996).

Judges used a 5-point Likert scale, in which three points were labeled, to eval-uate the intensity of the conflict (1=No conflict at all, 3=Moderately intense con-flict, 5=Extremely intense conflict) in all of the videotaped interactions (Beutell &Greenhaus, 1983; Waln, 1982; Yau & Smetana, 1996). Although raters evaluated theintensity of each partner’s conflict communication separately, ratings within dyadswere highly correlated, r = .83, p> .001. Therefore, we created a composite variableto index the intensity of conflict communication within the dyad. The intraclass cor-relation coefficient measuring consistency indicated that the five judges’ ratings werereliable (ρ= .92, M = 3.01, SD= .64).

After all of the videos were rated for conflict intensity, judges then rated eachvideo for the four discriminators of conflict intensity identified by Resick et al.(1981). We used these measures to provide more precise indices of conflict com-munication behaviors to assess the validity of the global evaluation of conflictintensity. Specifically, judges indicated how loud, critical, disagreeable, and sarcasticeach participant’s communication was during the conflict interaction (1= Soft,5= Loud; 1= Supportive, 5=Critical; 1=Cooperative, 5=Disagreeable; 1= Sincere,5= Sarcastic). Once again, we found high correlations between partners’ ratings(loudness, r = .80, p< .001; criticism, r = .83, p< .001; disagreement, r = .86, p< .001;sarcasm, r = .70, p< .001), and we created composite measures of each variable forthe dyads. The intraclass correlation coefficients measuring consistency indicated thatthe five judges’ evaluations were reliable on all four indicators: soft to loud (ρ= .95,M = 2.87, SD= .79), supportive to critical (ρ= .94, M = 2.91, SD= .96), cooperative



to disagreeable (ρ= .92, M = 3.01, SD= .87), sincere to sarcastic (ρ= .87, M = 2.67,SD= 1.21).

Cortisol reactivityTo measure the participants’ stress responses to conflict interactions with romanticrelationship partners, three salivary cortisol samples were collected from each par-ticipant. Sample 1 was collected 10 minutes into the data collection session, after allconsent forms were completed (M = .12, SD= .63). Sample 2 was collected 15 min-utes after the completion of the conflict interaction task (M = .28, SD= .76). The finalsample was collected 20 minutes after the completion of the conflict interaction task(M = .33, SD= .97).

Relational distressBecause relational distress influences conflict interactions, we specified it as a covari-ate within our hypotheses. We operationalized relational distress using the DyadicAdjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), a frequently used instrument for measuringdisorder in relationships (e.g., Baxter & Bullis, 1986; Dindia, Fitzpatrick, & Kenny,1997; Ting-Toomey, 1983). Participants reported on the amount of agreement ordisagreement (5=Always agree, 4=Almost always agree, 3=Occasionally disagree,2= Frequently disagree, 1=Almost always disagree, 0=Always disagree) that existedwithin the relationship for a variety of topics, including matters of recreation, reli-gious matters, sexual intimacy, and career decisions. The CFA results indicated thatthe 13 items formed a unidimensional composite scale (M = 3.75, SD= .45, α= .76).

RealismIn the postinteraction questionnaire, participants indicated how typical the conflictinteraction was compared to other conflicts that they had experienced with theirromantic partner (e.g., “This conversation was realistic in my relationship”; Knobloch& Solomon, 2003). Participants responded to these statements using a 5-pointLikert-type scale where higher numbers reflected more agreement (1= Stronglydisagree, 5= Strongly agree). The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results indicatedthat a composite scale of realism was unidimensional (M = 4.12, SD= .87, α= .96).

Results

We first report preliminary analyses that evaluated the validity of our data. Then, afterdescribing our analytical strategy, we report tests of our hypotheses.

Preliminary analysesFirst, we evaluated the realism of the conflict interaction for participants in the study.On average, participants perceived the interactions as moderately realistic (M = 4.12,SD= .87), and a one-sample t-test revealed that the mean realism score was signifi-cantly greater than the scale’s midpoint, t(99)= 16.60, p< .001. These results suggestthat the laboratory interactions were realistic to participants. As a further check of the



impact of potential artificiality in the method, we also evaluated realism as a covariatein our hypotheses tests.

Second, we examined potential sources of error in the cortisol samples. One par-ticipant was an extreme outlier for the first measure of cortisol (M = .17, SD= .10,outlier= .58), and one participant was an extreme outlier for the third measure ofcortisol (M = .37, SD= .11, outlier= .74). We excluded data from these participantsand their partners from the analyses.

We also examined behavior one hour prior to the research session based on thescreening question responses. Four participants reported eating a meal within 1 hourof saliva collection, 20 participants stated that they had taken prescription medicationprior to saliva collection, and 27 participants reported using hormone contracep-tives. To evaluate the impact of these behaviors, we compared the cortisol samplesfrom the participants who reported engaging in the behavior to the cortisol samplesfrom the participants who did not. Consistent with previous research (Seltzer et al.,2010; Kirschbaum & Hellhammer, 1989; Kirschbaum, Klauer, Filipp, & Hellhammer,1995; Mommersteeg, Keijsers, Heijnen, Verbraak, & van Doomen, 2006; Nicoloson,1992), none of these tests revealed a significant impact on any of the cortisol samples,t (98)<±1.90, ns. Following the example provided by these studies, we retained theseparticipants in the sample. To evaluate whether engaging in these activities affectedthe trajectory of cortisol change, we also evaluated them as covariates in our hypothe-ses tests (Seltzer et al., 2010).

Finally, we examined the correlations between the conflict intensity variable andthe four discriminators of conflict. Conflict intensity was significantly and positivelycorrelated with loudness (r = .65, p< .001), criticism (r = .72, p< .001), disagreement(r = .74, p< .001), and sarcasm (r = .60, p< .001). These patterns speak to the validityof the conflict intensity measure.

Analytical strategyBecause our data included multiple cortisol measures from individuals anddependence between partners in dyads, we required an analytical method thataccommodated correlated errors. Multilevel modeling provides a method to assessrates of change in cortisol within individuals and also variables that affect rates ofchange, while accounting for covariance between interaction partners. In particular,we used a two-level hierarchical linear growth model (HLM 6.0) that specified anintercept for each member of the dyad (see Gunlick-Stoessel & Power, 2009). Becauseall of our couples were heterosexual, we distinguished individuals in relationships asmale or female.

The Level-1 model, which represented the change in cortisol levels over time foreach participant within the dyad, was represented by the following equation:

Yij =βf 1j(

female intercept)

ij + βm2j(

male intercept)

ij + βf 3j (female linear trend)ij

+ βm4j (male linear trend)ij + eij,



where Yij is the cortisol score i for couple j, with i= 1, … , 6 data points and j= 1, … ,50 couples. For female participants, βf1j is the model intercept representing the pre-dicted baseline cortisol level; for male participants, βm2j is the model intercept. βf3j andβm4j are the linear growth trajectories for female and male participants, respectively.These values denote the relationship between the linear effect of time and cortisolreactivity. Finally, eij represents the residual component of the model.

The Level-2 model included predictors to explain the variance in the Level 1 coef-ficients. The Level-2 equations treat the intercepts and the linear growth trajectoriesfrom the Level-1 equation as outcome variables. We were interested in testing theeffect of a history of familial verbal aggression and conflict intensity on cortisol reac-tivity; therefore, we added variables to the Level-2 model to predict differences in thechange in cortisol over time. In the Level-2 models, we included the following con-trol variables: each participants’ perceived realism of the conflict interaction, potentialsources of error in the cortisol sample (i.e., eating a meal within one hour of saliva col-lection, taking prescription medication prior to saliva collection, and using hormonecontraceptives), and each participants’ relational distress.

Coefficients for perceived realism and potential sources of error in the cortisolsample were nonsignificant, p> .10. Hence, they were removed from the analysis.Coefficients indexing variance explained by male and female relational distress scoreswere significant in the multilevel model, so we retained them in the analysis.

In the final Level-2 models, the γ parameters reference participants’ relational dis-tress (γ*1), participants’ childhood exposure to familial verbal aggression (γ*2), thedyad’s rated level of conflict intensity (γ*3), and the interaction between exposureto family verbal aggression and conflict intensity (computed as the product of thosetwo variables; ν*j). Specifically, the Level-2 models were represented by the followingequations:

βf 1j =γ10 + γ11 + γ12 + γ13 + ν1j

βf 2j =γ20 + γ21 + γ22 + γ23 + ν2j

βm3j =γ30 + γ31 + γ32 + γ33 + ν3j

βm4j =γ40 + γ41 + γ42 + γ43 + ν4j

Before testing the hypotheses, we fit an unconditional HLM model with no pre-dictors at Level-2. This test was conducted to determine if there was variance acrossindividuals in the coefficients defining cortisol trajectories unexplained by the Level-1model. We found significant individual variation in the levels of cortisol at the inter-cept and linear growth trajectory for both males and females. This significant variationmeans that participants did not all respond to the conflict interactions in the samemanner, and that it is useful to examine if conflict intensity, a history of exposure tofamilial verbal aggression, and their interaction might explain a significant proportionof variance in the participants’ stress trajectories.



Tests of hypothesesResults for the multilevel model are reported in Table 1. The first panel in Table 1shows the association between variables in the model and the value of the equation’sintercept for female participants, and the second panel shows corresponding resultsfor the intercept for males. We observed a positive association between females’ base-line cortisol levels and both male and female reports of relational distress. In addition,females’ reported history of family verbal aggression was positively associated withbaseline cortisol. For males, the associations between baseline cortisol and males’ rela-tional distress and males’ reported history of family verbal aggression were significant.

Tests of the hypothesized associations are provided in the third and fourth panelsof Table 1. For both females and males, the rate of increase in cortisol was signifi-cantly accelerated as a function of males’ and females’ relational distress. In addition,we found that females’ history of family verbal aggression and males’ history of familyverbal aggression were significantly associated with, respectively, females’ and males’cortisol reactivity. As predicted by H1, conflict intensity was positively associated withthe amplitude of stress reactivity to conflict interactions for both males and females.As per H2, the interaction between females’ history of verbal aggression and con-flict intensity was significantly associated with females’ cortisol reactivity, and theinteraction between males’ history of verbal aggression and conflict intensity was sig-nificantly associated with males’ cortisol reactivity.

Figures 1 and 2 depict the trajectories of cortisol across the three time points forfemales and males, respectively, as a function of conflict intensity and childhood expo-sure to family aggression. As illustrated in Figure 1, cortisol levels increased mostrapidly and to the highest level when the conflict interaction was rated as relativelyintense and the female participant’s childhood exposure to familial verbal aggressionwas relatively low; these findings are mirrored in the results for males depicted inFigure 2. Both figures also clarify that, within high or low levels of childhood expo-sure to familial verbal aggression, high intensity conflicts produce a greater cortisolresponse than low intensity conflicts. Thus, H1 was supported.

Consistent with H2, results indicate that the difference in cortisol reactivity associ-ated with low versus high intensity conflicts depends of childhood exposure to familialverbal aggression. For both males and females, the difference between the trajectoriesfor low versus high intensity conflict is greater when childhood exposure to famil-ial verbal aggression is low rather than high. More specifically, the amplitude of theeffect associated with conflict intensity is attenuated for individual who report beingexposed to relatively high levels of familial verbal aggression in childhood.

Discussion

The conflict interactions in this study occurred in a laboratory setting and were lim-ited to 10 minutes; nonetheless, these experiences were sufficient to evoke a stressresponse. Moreover, conflict intensity was positively associated with the amplitudeof cortisol reactivity to conflict interactions for both male and female participants.



Table 1 Final Estimation of Level-2 Predictors on Participants’ Cortisol Reactivity

Unstandardized Estimate SE p

Female interceptIntercept .245 .013 .000

Control variablesMale relational distress .049 .014 .012Female relational distress .038 .013 .029

PredictorsMale familial verbal aggression (VA) – .031 .018 .254Female familial verbal aggression (VA) – .051 .014 .048Conflict intensity .038 .019 .165Male familial VA × conflict intensity .061 .015 .179Female familial VA × conflict intensity .066 .020 .299

Male interceptIntercept .121 .014 .000


PredictorsMale familial verbal aggression – .059 .015 .039Female familial verbal aggression .021 .018 .218Conflict intensity .039 .014 .121Male familial VA × conflict intensity .028 .013 .105Female familial VA × conflict intensity .021 .020 .215

Female linear growth trajectoryIntercept .274 .015 .00


PredictorsMale familial verbal aggression .014 .021 .224Female familial verbal aggression – .193 .020 .002Conflict intensity .187 .018 .005Male familial VA × conflict intensity .022 .020 .125Female familial VA × conflict intensity .218 .021 .004

Male linear growth trajectoryIntercept .178 .019 .000


PredictorsMale familial verbal aggression – .289 .019 .002Female familial verbal aggression – .022 .017 .287Conflict intensity .195 .021 .009Male familial VA × conflict intensity .186 .022 .011Female familial VA × conflict intensity .051 .021 .198



0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

1 2 3

Cor

tisol

rea

ctiv

ity

Time

Low CI, Low familial VA

Low CI, High familial VA

High CI, Low familial VA

High CI, High familial VA

Figure 1 Conflict intensity (CI) as a predictor of female stress reactivity by female familialverbal aggression (VA).

These findings speak to the validity of our procedures and the assumption that thestress response system is reactive to variation in the intensity of the threat caused byinterpersonal conflict environments.

More importantly, the results of this investigation highlight the utility of drawingupon the physiological model of stress to advance theory about people’s experienceof interpersonal communication. Floyd and his colleagues (Floyd, 2006; Floyd et al.,2007; Floyd & Riforgiate, 2008) have demonstrated that expressing affectionate mes-sages is associated with the body’s ability to handle stress. Johnson (2009) observedthat the explicitness, immediacy, and elaboration of support messages received from aromantic partner accelerated people’s recovery from a stressful experience, as indexedby cortisol levels. Priem, McLaren, and Solomon (2010) found that the relationalmeanings attached to hurtful messages and feelings of hurt predicted increases in cor-tisol in response to hurtful interactions. Considered alongside these studies, our find-ings underscore the close connection between qualities of communication episodesand the physiological imprint of interpersonal interactions.

Although this study found that qualities of conflict interactions map onto thephysiological stress response, the magnitude of that reaction varied as a function ofreported exposure to family verbal aggression in childhood. Specifically, the ampli-tude of stress reactivity was attenuated for individuals who reported comparativelyhigh levels of familial verbal aggression, and the association between conflict inten-sity and cortisol reactivity was especially pronounced among people who reportedlimited exposure to familial verbal aggression during childhood.



0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

1 2 3

Cor

tisol

rea

ctiv

ity

Time

Low CI, Low familial VA

Low CI, High familial VA

High CI, Low familial VA

High CI, High familial VA

Figure 2 Conflict intensity (CI) as a predictor of male stress reactivity by male familial verbalaggression (VA).

The physiological model of stress suggests that whether a stress response occursdepends on the individual’s internal adaptive capacity to cope with those demands.Our results imply that coping capacity can develop from a history of exposure to apotential stressor that proves surmountable. In this way, children who are exposed tonoxious family communication may become desensitized to it (Huesmann, 1998). Inother words, surviving the threats of verbally aggressive communication in childhoodmay render adults more capable of weathering intense conflicts in adulthood.

Evidence that childhood experiences can desensitize people to conflict in adult-hood has important implications. Desensitization processes shed light on people’sability to become resilient in the face of adversity, and they may point to avenuesfor helping victims of traumatic experiences. In fact, desensitization has been usedstrategically and intentionally to help people manage sources of stress (Weersing &Weisz, 2002; Wolpe, 1973). At the same time, desensitization to conflict appears torecalibrate the physiological systems that inform and constrain a person’s own behav-ior during conflict. More specifically, individuals who are less affected by the negativeconsequences of intense conflict behavior may be more likely to behave aggressivelythemselves (cf. Ng-Mak et al., 2002).

These observations highlight how desensitization has both advantages and dis-advantages. Through exposure to conflict in childhood, people can learn to engagedisagreements without being physiologically overwhelmed; consequently, experi-ences of family conflict may be an important foundation for effective conflict man-agement in adulthood. Gross insensitivity to the threats imposed by intense conflict,



however, may result in unconstrained aggressive behavior. Although speculative, wewonder if children benefit most from exposure to family conflicts that illustrate thenonthreatening nature of ethical and responsible disagreement, as well as the dangersof intense conflict.

This study also offers suggestions for addressing problematic conflict behaviorin adulthood. By recognizing that some individuals have pronounced physiologicalreactions to conflicts in romantic associations, practitioners might offer conflict skillstraining that emphasizes stress management and relaxation techniques to preventemotional flooding—a condition that causes an individual to be overwhelmed withemotion and unable to process information effectively (Gottman, 1994). In addition,interventions could help people decrease the intensity of the conflict experience byreducing competitive or distributive conflict management techniques (e.g., Canary,Cupach, & Serpe, 2001).

For those individuals desensitized to the negativity of conflict experiences, pro-moting the ability to perceive indicators of conflict escalation and patterns of negativereciprocity (e.g., Sabourin et al., 1993) might offset the lack of internal physiologicalinformation available to these individuals. By teaching these individuals to recognizesigns of escalatory communication behavior that they might not experience physio-logically, intense conflicts that grow into aggressive episodes might be averted.

The present investigation complements a previous study (Aloia & Solomon, inpress), which found that childhood exposure to family aggression corresponded withthe emotions people associated with expressing versus suppressing a verbally aggres-sive response to provocation, as well as their reported recovery from the interactionepisode. We are encouraged that these two studies can inform the development of atheory that integrates subjective experiences of conflict communication and physio-logical processes, while also recognizing the role of family communication history incalibrating those experiences.

Although the claim that childhood experiences predict the conduct of adult rela-tionships is not novel (e.g., Collishaw et al., 2007; Colman & Widom, 2004; Daneseet al., 2009), we seek to link childhood communication experiences more precisely toemotional, physiological, and cognitive aspects of adults’ interpersonal interactions.Because emotional and physiological processes are often primary and nonconsciousreactions to stimuli, they may play a critical role in framing higher-order cognitiveassessments of communication episodes.

Thus, we are working toward a theoretical model that illustrates the impact of fam-ily history on physiological and emotional systems, which in turn inform secondarycognitive appraisals and frame communicative action in high stakes episodes, such asinterpersonal conflict. To this end, we see value in efforts to further clarify the rele-vance of childhood experiences to adult conflict management, as well as other stressfulinterpersonal interaction episodes, and to evaluate emotional experiences, physiolog-ical processes, and cognitive appraisals as mechanisms within that theoretical model.

As a final point, we note that the patterns observed in this study were apparentafter controlling for the well documented effects of relational distress on conflicts



in personal relationships. As anticipated by prior research, we found that femalerelational distress scores were significantly associated with female baseline cortisol,female cortisol reactivity, and male cortisol reactivity. In addition, male relational dis-tress scores were significantly associated with baseline cortisol and cortisol reactivityfor both male and female participants. These patterns remind us that the climateof the couple’s relationship is important to understanding the dyad’s experience ofconflict, and that conflict experiences both arise from and serve to reinforce relationaldistress.

At the same time, the results of this study show that knowing relationship qual-ity offers only general insight into partners’ experiences of conflict. The individualcommunication histories that partners bring to the dyad and the qualities of the com-munication episode that they experience explain variance in physiological outcomesover and above the predictive ability of relationship distress. Thus, these results serveas evidence that communication experiences, both past and present and with nuancedappreciation for the tenor of interactions, need to be incorporated into research seek-ing to illuminate the foundations of relationship well-being.

Of course, the conclusions we offer are qualified by limitations and the need forfurther research. For example, the self-report and retrospective nature of the mea-sure of family communication history poses a threat to internal validity in this study.Accordingly, we are currently conducting research to compare self-reports providedby siblings as an index of the validity of this measure. Longitudinal data linking child-hood exposure to conflict and adult outcomes would provide more definitive insightinto the developmental patterns at the core of our thinking.

We also see a need to tease out the mutually influential association betweenconflict escalation and physiological arousal. In this study, we positioned conflictintensity as a causal factor that resulted in greater physiological reactivity; thisreasoning follows directly from the physiological model of stress. Within ongoingand dynamic interaction, however, physiological states may shape communicationbehaviors in ways that affect the course of a conflict. Teasing out the interplay ofphysiological and emotional states with regard to an unfolding interaction remainsan ambitious agenda for future research. Finally, we see utility in future work thatevaluates both desensitization and sensitization as interventions to help individualsdevelop more accurate assessments of conflict-related threats and, correspondingly,the communication skills to manage those threats effectively.

To summarize, this study suggests that physiological stress reactions to conflictbetween college-aged romantic partners are influenced by conflict intensity, whichindexes the environmental threat posed by the conflict, and childhood exposure tofamilial verbal aggression, as a factor influencing the individual’s internal capacity tocope with those demands. Our conclusions are limited by the self-report retrospectivemeasure of childhood experiences, our reliance on conflict interactions staged withina laboratory setting, and the particular characteristics of our sample. Nonetheless, weare encouraged that this study contributes to efforts aimed at understanding variationin the negativity of the outcomes associated with interpersonal conflicts.



ReferencesAfifi, T. D., Granger, D. A., Joseph, A., Denes, A., & Aldeis, D. (2014). The influence of

divorce and parents’ communication skills on adolescents’ and young adults’ stressreactivity and recovery. Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650213509665

Alberts, J. K. (1988). An analysis of couples’ conversational complaints. CommunicationMonographs, 55, 184–197.

Aloia, L. S., & Solomon, D. H. (in press). Emotions associated with verbal aggressionexpression and suppression. Western Journal of Communication.

Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (2004). Human aggression. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Bateup, H. S., Booth, A., Shirtcliff, E. A., & Granger, D. A. (2002). Testosterone, cortisol, and

women’s competition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 181–192.Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships.

Human Communication Research, 12(4), 469–493.Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). It’s in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as

temperamental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45, 446–460.Benjamin, J. (1990). An outline of intersubjectivity: The development of recognition.

Psychoanalytic Psychology, 7, 33–46.Beutell, N. J., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1983). Integration of home and nonhome roles: Women’s

conflict and coping behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(1), 43–48.Billings, A. (1979). Conflict resolution in distressed and nondistressed married couples.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 368–376.Bippus, A. M., & Rollins, E. (2003). Attachment style differences in relational maintenance

and conflict behaviors: Friends’ perceptions. Communication Reports, 16(2), 113–123.Burgess, H., & Burgess, G. (1996). Constructive confrontation: A transformative approach to

intractable conflict. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 13(4), 305–322.Burnett Heyes, S., Zokaei, N., van der Staaij, I., Bays, P. M., & Husain, M. (2012).

Development of visual working memory precision in childhood. Developmental Science,15(4), 528–539.

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 63, 452–459.

Canary, D. J., Cupach, W. R., & Serpe, R. T. (2001). A competence-based approach toexamining interpersonal conflict. Communication Research, 18(1), 79–104.

Caughlin, J. P. (2002). The demand/withdraw pattern of communication as a predictor ofmarital satisfaction over time. Human Communication Research, 28(1), 49–85.

Caughlin, J. P., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2006). Conflict in dating and romantic relationships. In J.Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp.129–157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen, S., Kessler, R., & Underwood Gordon, L. (1995). Strategies for measuring stress instudies of psychiatric and physical disorders. In S. Cohen, R. Kessler & L. UnderwoodGordon (Eds.), Measuring stress: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 3–26). NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.

Collishaw, S., Pickles, A., Messer, J., Rutter, M., Shearer, C., & Maughan, B. (2007). Resilienceto adult psychopathology following childhood maltreatment: Evidence from acommunity sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(3), 211–229.

Colman, R. A., & Widom, C. S. (2004). Childhood abuse and neglect and adult intimaterelationships: A prospective study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(11), 1133–1151.



Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Papp, L. M., & Dukewich, T. L. (2002). Children’sresponses to mothers’ and fathers’ emotionality and tactics in marital conflict in thehome. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(4), 478–492.

Cupach, W. R. (1982). Communication satisfaction and interpersonal solidarity as outcomes ofconflict message strategy use. Paper presented at the 32nd annual conference of theInternational Communication Association, Boston, MA.

Danese, A., Moffitt, T. E., Harrington, H. L., Milne, B. J., Polanczyk, G., Pariante, C. M., ...Caspi, A. (2009). Adverse childhood experiences and adult risk factors for age-relateddisease. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 163(12), 1135–1143.

Davies, P. T., Cicchetti, D., & Martin, M. J. (2012). Toward greater specificity in identifyingassociations among interparental aggression, child emotional reactivity to conflict, andchild problems. Child Development, 83(5), 1789–1804.

Davies, P. T., Struge-Apple, M. L., Cicchetti, D., & Cummings, E. M. (2007). The role of childadrenocortical functioning in pathways between interparental conflict and childmaladjustment. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 918–930.

Dindia, K., Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1997). Self-disclosure in spouse and strangerinteraction: A social relations analysis. Human Communication Research, 23(3), 388–412.

Dohrenwend, B. P., & Shrout, P. E. (1985). “Hassles” in the conceptualization andmeasurement of life stress variables. American Psychologist, 40, 780–785.

Dumlao, R., & Botta, R. A. (2000). Family communication patterns and the conflict stylesyoung adults use with their fathers. Communication Quarterly, 48(2), 174–189.

Durbin, J. M. (2008). Toward the development of a taxonomy of verbal trigger events(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Akron, Akron, OH.

Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion regulation and moral development. Annual Review ofPsychology, 51, 665–697.

Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Winke, J. (1979). You always hurt the one you love: Strategies and tacticsin interpersonal conflict. Communication Quarterly, 27, 3–11.

Floyd, K. A. (2006). Human affection exchange: XII. Affectionate communication isassociated with diurnal variation in salivary free cortisol. Western Journal ofCommunication, 70(1), 47–63.

Floyd, K. A., Mikkelson, A. C., Tafoya, M. A., Farinelli, L., LaValley, A. G., Judd, J., ... Wilson,J. (2007). Human affection exchange: XIII. Affectionate communication acceleratesneuroendocrine stress recovery. Health Communication, 22(2), 123–132.

Floyd, K. A., & Riforgiate, S. (2008). Affectionate communication received from spousespredicts stress hormone levels in healthy adult. Communication Monographs, 75(4),351–368.

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonalrelationships. Communication Education, 49(3), 207–219.

Garbarino, J. (1999). Lost boys. Why our sons turn violent and how we can save them. NewYork, NY: Free Press.

Garbarino, J., & Kostelny, K. (1997). What children can tell us about living in a war zone.In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Children in a violent society (pp. 31–42). New York, NY: GuilfordPress.

Goldsmith, D. (1992). Managing conflicting goals in supportive interaction: An integrativetheoretical framework. Communication Research, 19(2), 264–286.



Gordis, E. B., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (2001). Parents’ hostility in dyadic marital andtriadic family settings and children’s behavior problems. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 69(4), 727–734.

Gordon, S. L. (1985). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion, by James R. Averill.Symbolic Interaction, 8(2), 314–317.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes andmarital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couplewill divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 737–745.

Guerrero, L. K. (1994). “I’m so mad I could scream”: The effects of anger expression onrelational satisfaction and communication competence. Southern CommunicationJournal, 59(2), 125–141.

Gunlick-Stoessel, M. L., & Power, S. I. (2009). Romantic partners’ coping strategies andpatterns of cortisol reactivity and recovery in response to relationship conflict. Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, 28(5), 630–649.

Guterman, N. B., & Cameron, M. (1997). Assessing the impact of community violence onchildren and youths. Social Work, 42, 495–505.

Heavey, C. L., Christensen, A., & Malamuth, N. M. (1995). The longitudinal impact ofdemand and withdrawal during marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 65(5), 797–801.

Heffner, K. L., Loving, T. J., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Himawan, L. K., Glaser, R., & Malarkey, W.B. (2006). Older spouses’ cortisol responses to marital conflict: Associations withdemand/withdraw communication patterns. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29(4),317–325.

Huesmann, L. R. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive schema inthe acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior. In R. G. Green & E.Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for socialpolicy (pp. 73–109). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality andinterpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Infante, D. A. (1995). Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression.Communication Education, 44(1), 51–63.

Infante, D. A., Chandler, T. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1989). Test of an argumentative skills deficiencymodel of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs, 56, 163–177.

Infante, D. A., Sabourin, T. C., Rudd, J. E., & Shannon, E. A. (1990). Verbal aggression inviolent and nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38, 361–371.

Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model andmeasure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69.

Jenkins, J. M. (2000). Marital conflict and children’s emotions: The development of an angerorganization. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 723–736.

Johnson, J. S. (2009). The illocutionary force of hurt and support in young adult romanticrelationships: Message feature rating, message perceptions, and physiological stress(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.

Kelly, J. B. (2000). Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriage and divorce: A decade reviewof research. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(8),963–973.



Kirschbaum, C., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1989). Salivary cortisol in psychobiological research:An overview. Neuropsychobiology, 22, 150–169.

Kirschbaum, C., Klauer, T., Filipp, S., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1995). Sex-specific effects ofsocial support on cortisol and subjective responses to acute psychological stress.Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 23–31.

Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2003). Manifestations of relationship conceptualizationsin conversation. Human Communication Research, 29(4), 482–515.

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1997). Family type and conflict: The impact ofconversation orientation and conformity orientation on conflict in the family.Communication Studies, 48(1), 59–75.

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). You never leave your family in a fight: The impactof family of origin on conflict-behavior in romantic relationship. Communication Studies,53(3), 234–251.

Lloyd, S. A. (1990). Conflict in premarital relationships: Differential perceptions of males andfemales. Family Relations, 38, 290–294.

Marek, C. I., Wanzer, M. B., & Knapp, J. L. (2004). An exploratory investigation ofrelationship between roommates’ first impressions and subsequent communicationpatterns. Communication Research Reports, 21(2), 210–220.

Margolin, G., & Wampold, B. E. (1981). Sequential analysis of conflict and accord indistressed and nondistressed marital partners. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 49, 554–567.

Markman, H. J. (1981). Prediction of marital distress: A 5-year follow-up. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 760–762.

McNamara, S. (2000). Stress in young people. New York, NY: Continuum.Mommersteeg, P. M. C., Keijsers, G. P. J., Heijnen, C. J., Verbraak, M. J. P. M., & van Doomen,

L. J. P. (2006). Cortisol deviations in people with burnout before and after psychotherapy:A pilot study. Health Psychology, 25(2), 243–248.

Ng-Mak, D. S., Salzinger, S., Feldman, R., & Stueve, A. (2002). Normalization of violenceamong inner-city youth: A formulation for research. American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 72, 92–101.

Nicoloson, N. A. (1992). Stress, coping and cortisol dynamics in daily life. In M. deVries(Ed.), The experience of psychopathology (pp. 219–232). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Nomura, N., & Barnlund, D. (1983). Patterns of interpersonal criticism in Japan and UnitedStates. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7(1), 1–18.

Pike, G. R., & Sillars, A. L. (1985). Reciprocity of marital communication. Journal of Socialand Personal Relationships, 2, 303–332.

Powers, S. I., Pietromonaco, P. R., Gunlicks, M., & Sayer, A. (2006). Dating couples’attachment styles and patterns of cortisol reactivity and recovery in response to arelationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 613–628.

Priem, J. S., McLaren, R. M., & Solomon, D. H. (2010). Relational messages, perceptions ofhurt, and biological stress reactions to a disconfirming interaction. CommunicationResearch, 37(1), 48–72.

Resick, P. A., Barr, P. K., Sweet, J. J., Kieffer, D. M., Ruby, N. L., & Spiegel, D. K. (1981).Perceived and actual discriminators of conflict from accord in marital communication.American Journal of Family Therapy, 9(1), 58–68.



Robles, T. F., Shaffer, V. A., Malarkey, W. B., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2006). Positive behaviorsduring marital conflict: Influences on stress hormones. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 23(2), 305–325.

Rule, B. K., & Ferguson, T. J. (1986). The effects of media violence on attitudes, emotions, andcognitions. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 29–50.

Sabourin, T. C., Infante, D. A., & Rudd, J. (1993). Verbal aggression in marriages:A comparison of violent, distressed but nonviolent, and nondistressed couples. HumanCommunication Research, 20(2), 245–267.

Seltzer, M. M., Greenberg, J. S., Hong, J., Smith, L. E., Almeida, D. M., Coe, C., & Stawski, R.S. (2010). Maternal cortisol levels and behavior problems in adolescents and adults withASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 457–469.

Sereno, K. K., Welch, M., & Braaten, D. (1987). Interpersonal conflict: Effects of variations inmanner of expressing anger and justification for anger upon perceptions ofappropriateness, competence, and satisfaction. Journal of Applied CommunicationResearch, 15(1-2), 128–143.

Siegert, J. R., & Stamp, G. H. (1994). “Our first big fight” as a milestone in the development ofclose relationships. Communication Monographs, 61(4), 345–360.

Sillars, A. L., Coletti, S. F., Parry, D., & Rogers, M. A. (1982). Coding verbal conflict tactics:Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the “avoidance-distributive-integrative”distinction. Human Communication Research, 9, 83–95.

Sillars, A. L., Koerner, A., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2005). Communication and understanding inparent-adolescent relationships. Human Communication Research, 31(1), 102–128.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality ofmarriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflicttactics scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of FamilyIssues, 17(3), 283–316.

Suarez, E. C., & Williams, R. B. (1989). Situational determinants of cardiovascular andemotional reactivity in high and low hostile men. Psychosomatic Medicine, 51(4),404–418.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1983). An analysis of verbal communication in high and low maritaladjustment groups. Human Communication Research, 9, 306–319.

Tracy, S. J., Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Alberts, J. K. (2006). Nightmares, demons, and slaves:Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management CommunicationQuarterly, 20(2), 148–185.

van de Vliert, E., & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as components ofconflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 674–687.

Waln, V. A. (1982). Interpersonal conflict interaction: An examination of verbal defense ofself. Central States Speech Journal, 33(4), 557–566.

Weersing, V. R., & Weisz, J. R. (2002). Mechanisms of action in youth psychotherapy. Journalof Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 3–29.

Wolpe, J. (1973). The practice of behavior therapy. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Yau, J., & Smetana, J. G. (1996). Adolescent-parent conflict among Chinese adolescents in

Hong Kong. Child Development, 67(3), 1262–1275.


Conﬂict Intensity, Family History, and Physiological Stress...

Documents

Transcript of Conﬂict Intensity, Family History, and Physiological Stress...