THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEGATIVE EMOTIONS AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION STRATEGIES UPON EXPOSURE TO INTIMATE COUPLE

CONFLICTS: AN INVESTIGATION USING THE ARTICULATED THOUGHTS DURING SIMULATED SITUATIONS PARADIGM

by

JESSICA ALEXANDRA BRODERICK

B.A., University of British Columbia, 2005

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

(Psychology)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

October 2007

© Jessica Alexandra Broderick, 2007

I-

ABSTRACT

Jealousy induces behavioural, cognitive, and emotional responses when a person suspects

that his or her partner is interested in another person. While jealousy is not a new

phenomenon to the 21st century, there is little empirical evidence providing support for a

theoretical model to explain the various ways individuals react when jealous. Most of the

literature on jealousy emotions has focused on anger and its effects; however, jealousy is

a composite of negative emotions. The main emotions associated with jealousy are

anger, anxiety, fear, and sadness; however', the fear, anxiety, and sadness emotions have

not been teased apart from anger and thoroughly studied in regards to jealousy conflicts.

Understanding jealousy is important since it has been found to be a common cause of

conflict among intimate partners in every culture. In this study, we analyzed ninety-six

participants' articulated thoughts of negative emotions and conflict resolution strategies,

in response to two intimate relationship conflicts. Their verbal articulations were coded

for anger, fear/anxiety/sadness, and conflict resolution strategy according to the

Articulated Thoughts during Simulated Situations (ATSS) paradigm and were analyzed.

The ATSS measures the cognitions present in participants during intimate partner

conflicts.

It was found that participants articulated more fear/anxiety/sadness emotions and fewer

conflict resolution strategies in the jealousy condition, compared to the power condition.

There were no differences in anger articulation scores between the two scenarios. In

addition, relationships were found between rational and violent conflict tactics used in the

participant's previous relationships and the ATSS conflict resolution strategy thought

u

articulation. The findings of the present study indicate the potential importance of the

relationship between fear, anxiety, and sadness emotions, and conflict resolution

strategies, more so than anger, in understand jealousy. They also may help to clarify the

relationship between jealousy and aggression.

m

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract . ii

Table of Contents iv

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

Acknowledgments .'...viii

Dedication ix

1. Introduction ....1

1.1 Jealousy, Aggressive Behaviour, and Conflict Resolution Strategies 2

1.2 Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations 4

1.5 Objectives and Hypotheses 7

2. Methods 10

2.1 Participants 10

2.2 Materials '....10

2.2.1 Audiotapes 10

2.3 Measures 13

2.3.1 Conflict Tactics Scale 13

2.3.2 Emotional Quotient Inventory 13

2.3.3 Propensity for Abusiveness Scale : 13

2.3.4 Articulated Thoughts during Simulated Situations Coding .....14

2.4 Procedure 15

2.4.1 Online Survey : 16

2.4.2 Laboratory 17

2.5 Statistical Analysis ...17

3. Results 18

3.1 Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) 18

3.2 Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS) 18

3.3 Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) 18

3.4 CTS and PAS : 19

3.5 CTS and EQ-i 19

3.6 EQ-i and PAS 20

3.7 Articulated Thoughts during Simulated Situations (ATSS) 20

3.4.1 Reliability 20

3.4.2 Jealousy and Power Conditions 20

3.8 Conflict Resolution Strategies and CTS 23

4. Discussion 24

4.1 ATSS 24

4.2 CTS, PAS, and EQ-i 28

4.3 Limitations 28

4.4 Future Directions 29

References 40

Appendices 50

Appendix A ATSS Coding sheet .50

Appendix B UBC Research Ethics Board's Certificates of Approval 51

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for CTS, PAS, EQ-i 32

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for ATSS Variables across

conditions 33

Table 3 Correlations among the ATSS articulated thoughts within the jealousy

condition 34

Table 4 Correlations among the ATSS articulated thoughts within the power

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 ATSS Thought Segments for Anger Articulations during the Jealousy and

Power Conditions : 36

Figure 2 ATSS Thought Segments for Fear/Anxiety/Sadness Articulations during the

Jealousy and Power Conditions 37

Figure 3 ATSS Thought Segments for Conflict Resolution Strategies Articulations

during the Jealousy and Power Conditions 38

Figure 4 ATSS Mean Articulations during the Jealousy and Power Conditions 39

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank all of the participants for taking the time to participate in this

research. I would also like to thank my research assistants - Ashley Henderson, Andrew

Hutchinson, Leanne Hyslop, Shagha Khayam, Tamara Koren, Mark Lam, Christie

Mackie, Miranda Massie, Christie Tetreault, Alanna Thompson, and Emily Walker. -

whose contributions were instrumental in all aspects of this study.

I want to thank my family and friends for their constant love and support through

all the amazing experiences as well as the tough time in life. Mom - thank you for

pushing me all these years to achieve my goals.

I am in gratitude to Dr. Jonathan Schooler and Dr. Jessica Tracy for their time,

guidance, constructive challenges and helpful suggestions as members of my thesis

committee. Last, but not least, I would also like to thank my advisor, committee member,

and mentor, Dr. Donald Dutton, for his on-going encouragement, insight, direction, and

involvement in this project.

via

DEDICATION

To my mom

1 Introduction

Jealousy induces behavioural, cognitive, and emotional responses "to a partner's real,

imagined, or potential attraction for a third person" (Bringle & Buunk, 1986, p. 226;

DeSteno & Salovey, 1995; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989; White & Mullen, 1989). The

prototypical jealousy-inducing situation involves a romantic triad such that an individual

becomes jealous when he or she suspects that his or her partner is interested in another

(Salovey, 1991). While jealousy is not a new phenomenon to the 21st century, there is

little empirical evidence providing support for a theoretical model to explain the various

ways individuals react when jealous. Most of the literature on jealousy emotions has

focused on anger and its effects; however, jealousy is a composite of negative emotions.

The main emotions associated with jealousy are anger, anxiety, fear, and sadness (Buck,

1999; Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997; White & Mullen, 1989). However, the fear,

anxiety, and sadness emotions have not been teased apart from anger and thoroughly

studied in relation to jealousy conflicts. Understanding jealousy is important since it has

been found to be a common cause of conflict among intimate partners (Daly & Wilson,

1988; Straus, Gelies, & Steinmetz, 1980) in every culture (Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst,

1982). In this study, we analyzed participants' articulated thoughts of negative emotions

and conflict resolution strategies, in response to two intimate relationship conflicts, in

order to investigate the relationship between them using the Articulated Thoughts during

Simulated Situations paradigm.

1

1.1 Jealousy, Aggressive Behaviour, and Conflict Resolution Strategies

Jealousy can lead to abusive behaviour and violence between romantic partners (De

Weerth & Kalma, 1993; Mullen, 1995; Mullen, 1996; Paul, Foss, & Galloway, 1993;

White, 1991). Numerous studies on domestic violence have found jealousy to be a

precipitant of violence (Brisson, 1983; Daly & Wilson, 1988; Dobash & Dobash, 1980;

Gayford, 1975; Gayford, 1979; Hilberman & Manson, 1977; Rounsaville, 1978). Mullen

and Martin (1994) found that 15% of their community sample of men and women had

been physically assaulted as a result of a partner's jealousy. In a study of forty-four

women in a battered women's shelter, 55% reported that jealousy was the key motive

behind their husband's abusive behaviour (Miller, 1980). One explanation of the

relationship between jealousy and aggressive behaviours is anger. Anger has been linked

to verbally and physically abusive behaviours in intimate relationships (Sugarman &

Hotaling, 1989). However, some researchers argue that anger, itself, does not necessarily

lead to violence (Canary, Spitzberg, & Semic, 1998).

Another explanation of the relationship between jealousy and aggressive behaviours is

that jealous individuals who do not have effective conflict resolution strategies, which are

necessary to solve arguments peacefully, will resort to physical aggression when

confronted with a conflict. Conflict resolution strategies are crucial to healthy

relationships. Gottman (1994) has consistently found that without effective conflict

resolution strategies, relationships are more likely to end. Conflict responses are methods

of handling the conflict of interest. There are three broad categories of conflict responses

identified in the literature: verbal aggression, avoidance/withdraw, and problem solving

2

(Christensen & Sullaway, 1984; Lloyd, 1987). Research on verbal aggression has found

that maritally violent individuals, compared to nonviolent individuals, had: (1) a greater

frequency of verbal aggression between the partners; and (2) stronger and longer lasting

feelings of anger, contempt, and frustration during arguments (Jacobson, Gottman, Waltz,

Rushe, Babcock, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1994; Feldman & Ridley, 2000; Sabourin, 1995;

Sabourin, Infante, & Rudd, 1993). When investigating withdraw responses, it was found

that withdraw responses among violent/distressed were significantly higher than the

nonvidlent/non-distressed couples (Berns, Jacobson, & Gottman, 1999; Feldman &

Ridley, 2000; Lloyd, 1990). The empirical literature on the association between problem

solving and domestic violence is sparse. Research has shown that both violent/distressed

couples reported significantly less conflict resolutions/compromises than nonviolent/non-

distressed couples (Feldman & Ridley, 2000; Gottman, 1994; Lloyd, 1990) found; Tilley

& Brackley, 2005). This is demonstrated in studies that found maritally violent men have

social and communication skill deficits in the context of intimate relationships

(Holtzworth-Munroe, 1992; Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smulzler, & Sandin, 1997).

These deficits may result in lower conflict resolution strategies, and as a consequence,

lead to violence during a conflict because they do not have the ability to think of peaceful

alternatives when enraged.

A third explanation of why jealousy may lead to aggressive behaviour encompasses both

previous explanations using negative emotions and conflict resolution strategies. Some

researchers postulate that the probability of using aggressive conflict-resolution tactics is

increased with heightened anger (Eckhardt, Barbour, & Davidson, 1998; Dodge, Petit,

3

Bates, & Valente, 1995; Konecni, 1975; Rule & Nesdale, 1976). Dutton and Strachan

(1987) found that abusive males have fewer conflict resolution tactics and respond with

increased anger when observing male-female conflict scenarios. Thus, strong emotional

reactions may inhibit one's ability to use a variety of conflict-resolution strategies

(Novaco, 1976). Unfortunately, the only emotion studied in this context was anger, and

therefore, the relationship between the jealousy emotions (anger, fear, anxiety, sadness),

conflict resolution strategies, and aggressive behaviour has not yet been fully studied.

1.4 Articulated Thoughts during Simulated Situations

The Articulated Thoughts during Simulated Situations (ATSS) paradigm was used to

measure the jealousy emotions and conflict resolution strategies. It utilizes a think-aloud

cognitive assessment technique to measure people's thoughts during emotional arousal

that was developed by Davison and colleagues (Davison, Feldman, & Osborh, 1984;

Davison, Robins, & Johnson, 1983) as an alternative to paper-and-pencil assessments. It

asks participants to listen to an emotion-eliciting audiotaped scenario and tune into their

thoughts and feelings. Throughout each scenario at several crucial junction points, the

conflict stops and the participant verbalizes his or her thoughts and feelings for 30

seconds. After this pause, the scenario resumes. The recorded open-ended thoughts and •

feelings are transcribed and coded for specific emotional thought articulations. A coding

manual is developed specifically for each study using the ATSS coding manual blueprint.

This paradigm is unlike paper-and-pencil cognitive assessments, which assess

participants either before and/or after the experiment but fail to provide information about

4

automatic cognitive activity that occurs, without conscious filtering, during the

experiment.

The validity of the ATSS procedure has been demonstrated using various populations,

including college students (Dye & Eckhardt, 2000; Eckhardt, Jamison, & Watts, 2002),

maritally violent men (Eckhardt, Barbour, & Davison, 1998; Eckhardt & Kassinove,

1998), socially anxious participants (Bates, Campbell, & Burgess, 1990), among others

(Davison, Feldman, & Osborn, 1984; Davison, Navarre, & Vogel, 1995; Davison, Vogel,

& Coffman, 1997). Eckhardt, Barbour, and Davison, (1998) studied a community sample

of married men to assess for anger-related cognitive distortions in response to marital

conflict scenarios. Participants were divided up into three groups based upon the

completion of a variety of scales: (1) maritally violent; (2) maritally distressed-

nonviolent; and (3) maritally satisfied-nonviolent. They found that all three groups of

men reported significant increases in anger after listening to the anger-arousing scenarios.

However, maritally violent husbands articulated more cognitive distortions and cognitive

deficiencies compared with the other two groups. Maritally satisfied-nonviolent

husbands articulated more anger-controlling statements than the other two groups,

consistent with Dutton and Browning's findings (1988). Therefore, they suggested that

the combination of distortions in information processing and the inability to generate

conflict resolution strategies increases the likelihood of aggression in an intimate

relationship. These findings were replicated in a study assessing the articulated anger

thoughts of male undergraduate psychology students currently in dating relationships

(Eckhardt, Jamison, & Watts, 2002). The participants were broken into two groups based

5

upon the completion of a variety of scales: (1) men who reported committing at least one

incident of physical aggression against their current girlfriend within the past 12 months;

and (2) men who reported committing no incidents of physical aggression in the

relationship. They found that men who had been violent towards their girlfriends had

more irrational beliefs and fewer articulated anger control tactics than men who had not.

Dye and Eckhardt (2000) also found that violent individuals have trouble controlling their

anger, which leads to an increase in the likelihood of aggressive anger expression

strategies. Therefore, if heightened emotional responses occur among men and women

who display intimate abusive behaviour while engaging in conflict (due to lowered

conflict resolution strategies), it may be possible to elicit these same reactions while

listening to recorded conflict scenarios, and study their cognition during this time.

The benefit of using the ATSS paradigm is that it measures automatic cognitive activity

that occurs, without conscious filtering, during the experiment. This addresses several of

the main problems in past jealousy research. It is inherently challenging to invoke

authentic feelings of jealousy within the laboratory. In an effort to overcome this

problem, much of the previous research has relied on participant's predictions of how

they would feel if their partner were to hypothetically behave in a jealousy-invoking

manner regarding the frequency and intensity of emotions (DeSteno, 2004; Salovey,

1991). Unfortunately, forecasts of emotional intensity resulting from hypothetical events

have been shown to be inaccurate (Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, & Wheatley, 1998;

Wilson, Wheatley, Meyers, Gilbert, & Axom, 2000). Participant's predictions of how

they will feel do not necessarily reflect how they would feel in reality because of the

6

unlikelihood of fully inducing jealousy based upon hypothetical situations. As a result,

researchers have looked to retrospective reports. Unfortunately, these have been shown

to be problematic due to memory biases, such as under- or over-reporting the intensity of

jealousy felt during past jealousy-inducing situation (DeSteno, Valdesolo, & Barlett,

2006). While these previous studies may facilitate some understanding of jealousy, they

do not tell us what the participants were thinking and feeling during the conflict.

Therefore, focusing the research on participants' thoughts during a conflict is crucial to

understanding jealousy.

1.3 Objectives and Hypotheses

The main objectives of the present study were to examine the relationships between the

jealousy emotions (anger, fear, anxiety, sadness), and conflict resolution strategies upon

exposure to jealousy and power conflict scenarios involving a romantic dyad using the

ATSS paradigm. The jealousy emotions were divided into two groups: (1) anger; and (2)

fear, anxiety, and sadness. The purpose of measuring anger separately from

fear/anxiety/sadness was to assess if and how anger, the most studied jealousy emotion,

differed from fear/anxiety/sadness. The jealousy and power scenarios were used because

the literature has shown that both are extremely common emotion-inducing conflicts in

relationships. The ATSS was used to measure participants' articulated thoughts and

feelings while they listened to the intimate conflicts. If cognitions are consistent across

different situations, it can be assumed that those individuals who experience increased

emotional arousal in their lives will also experience increased emotional arousal within

the laboratory setting. Their verbal articulations were coded and analyzed for anger,

fear/anxiety/sadness, and conflict resolution strategies.

The Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS; Dutton, 1995) and the Emotional Quotient

Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) have been shown to correlate with abusiveness in college

dating populations (the PAS: Dutton, Landolt, Starzomski & Bodnarchuk, 2001; Dutton,

1995; and EQ-I: Bar-On, 1997; Winters, Clift, & Dutton, 2004) and appear to have a

theoretical relationship to the ATSS. The PAS assesses an individuals' proclivity to

become abusive in intimate relationships. It has been found that domestically violent

individuals score higher on the propensity for abusiveness. The EQ-i assesses emotional

intelligence and provides a global appraisal of social functioning, such as problem

solving abilities. It has been found that domestically violent men score lower on

emotional intelligence. A significant negative correlation has been found between the

EQ-I and PAS. Therefore, individuals with a greater propensity for abusiveness have

lower emotional intelligence. We attempted to determine if an individuals' propensity for

abusiveness (Propensity for Abusiveness Scale; Dutton, 1995) and their emotional

intelligence (Emotional Quotient Inventory: Bar-On, 1997) were related to the ATSS

variables.

Four primary hypotheses were tested. First, we predicted that individuals would

articulate more anger thoughts during the jealousy condition compared with the power

condition. Second, we expected that individuals who articulated more anger thoughts

would articulate fewer conflict resolution strategies. Third, we hypothesized that

individuals with more anger and fear/anxiety/sadness, and fewer conflict resolution

8

strategy thought articulations in response to the conflict scenarios would have a higher

propensity for abusiveness and a lower emotional intelligence. Finally, we predicted that

individuals who articulated fewer conflict resolution strategies would report more violent

and less rational discussion tactics used in their previous relationship.

9

2 Methods

2.1 Participants

An advertisement was placed on the University of British Columbia's Psychology

Human Subject Pool website that contained all the current Psychology experiments that

needed participants. Ninety-six undergraduate psychology students (43 male, 53 female)

participated in the study in exchange for course credit. Ninety-eight percent of the

participants were heterosexual, and 89% ranged in age from 18-22. Participants

identified themselves ethnically as Asian (45%), Caucasian/White (37%), East Indian

(8%), Hispanic (1%), and other (9%). Forty percent identified themselves as Christian

and 41% reported no religious affiliation. The majority of the participants' parents were

married or common law (84%). Most of the participants have had a romantic

relationship longer than one month (76%). There was no significant difference between

participants who had prior relationship experience and participants who had no romantic

relationships lasting longer than one month. Therefore, participants with no relationship

experience were not excluded from the analyses. The majority of participants were

currently in a relationship (51%).

2.2 Materials

2.2.1 Audiotapes

Audio was chosen over a video format since research has suggested that audio generates

more emotional responses (Franche, 1987). The audio clips featured professional actors

engaged in two different arguments between dating heterosexual couples. The

experimenter created the scenarios specifically for the current study. The actors were

10

given descriptions of the scenarios and character sketches. The actors were instructed to

begin each scenario by discussing the issue in calm voices. As the discussion quickly

proceeded to a heated argument, the actors were asked to increase the intensity of it by

raising their voices and becoming verbally abusive, if necessary. The actors practiced

these scenarios together in order to keep the emotional intensity the same between the

male and female actors and the two conditions, as well as, conflict content the same

between the two conditions.

The audio clips were sex-specific in order to increase the participants' identification with

the initiator of the argument, which would generate more authentic emotional arousal.

Therefore, female participants listened to scenarios where the girlfriend initiated the

argument, and the males listened to scenarios where the boyfriend initiated the argument.

Abusive males have been found to become angrier, in comparison to non-abusive

controls, when the conflict's theme involved the abandonment of the male at the end of

the scenario (Browning & Dutton, 1986). Therefore, at the end of each scenario in the

present study, the actor who did not initiate the argument left and slammed the door

behind him or her.

The experimental condition was a jealousy-inducing situation. The actors were instructed

to discuss what had occurred during a party the night before. The female participants

listened to a scenario in which the girlfriend confronted her boyfriend regarding his

flirtatious behaviour with another woman at the party. The male participants listened to

the same argument, except the boyfriend was jealous of the girlfriends' behaviour.

11

The control condition's central theme was a power struggle between the partners. The

actors were instructed to discuss the plans for that evening, which developed into a

heated argument regarding who makes the ultimate decisions in the relationship. The

female participants listened to an argument in which the girlfriend wanted to go out to see

a movie and her boyfriend wanted to stay, home and watch a hockey game. The male

participants listened to the same argument in which the boyfriend initiated the argument.

This scenario was used as a control because it was equally as intense as the jealousy .

scenario, thereby, inducing emotional reactions; however, these emotions would

theoretically be different. Therefore, we could compare emotionally arousing conflicts

for anger, and fear/anxiety/sadness, and their effect on conflict resolution strategies.

After the conflicts were recorded, the audio files were divided into six approximately

equal segments (-35 seconds each). A tone cued the beginning and ending of each 30-

second thought articulation pause in which the participant spoke into the microphone

connected to the digital recorder. These blank intervals were directly inserted into the

audio clips so the participants would not need to turn the CD player on or off. A CD

contained the two conflict scenarios, including the blank intervals, and a 30 second blank

space between the two scenarios. Four CD's were created: (1) jealousy condition then

power condition for female participants; (2) power condition then jealousy condition for

female participants; (3) jealousy condition then power condition for male participants;

and (4) power condition then jealousy condition for male participants.

12

2.3 Measures

2.3.1 Conflict Tactics Scale

The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979; Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz, 1980) is a

standardized scale used to measure the frequency and intensity of 19 conflict-resolution

tactics. The scale includes rational resolution tactics, verbal aggression, and physical

violence strategies. Participants reported both their own use and their partners use of the

conflict resolution tactics within their past relationship. It has good psychometric

properties.

2.3.2 Emotional Quotient Inventory

The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i: Bar-On, 1997) assesses a person's emotional

intelligence. It yields a total emotional intelligence score and five subscale scores

(Intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management, and general mood). It was

created based on 17 years of data collection. It has good psychometric properties with a

Cronbach's alpha of .76.

2.3.3 Propensity for Abusiveness Scale

The Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS; Dutton, 1995) assesses a person's proclivity

to become abusive in intimate relationships. The scale was constructed by selecting

items from different existing scales that significantly correlated with spousal abuse

reports. These scales were the Multidimensional Anger Inventory (MAI; Seigel, 1986),

the Trauma Symptom Checklist (TSC-33; Briere & Runtz, 1989), the Egna Minnen

Betraffande Uppfostran (EMBU; Perris, Jacobsson, Lindstrom, von Knorring, & Perris,

13

1980), the Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994), and

the Borderline Personality Organization scale (BPO; Oldham et a., 1985). The validity of

the PAS procedure has been demonstrated using various populations (Dutton, Landolt,

Starzomski, & Bodnarchuk, 2001; Thomas & Dutton, 2004) It has good psychometric

properties with a Cronbach's alpha of .91.

2.3.4 Articulated Thoughts during Simulated Situations Coding

Scoring System. Each subject provided twelve articulated thoughts: six in response to the

experimental condition, and six in response to the control condition. Undergraduate

research assistants, according to the constructed transcribing manual, transcribed all

segments. The raters received training according to our modified ATSS coding manual

based upon the coding manual developed by Eckhardt. After the training, the raters read

the transcriptions of the participants' thoughts while listening to the audio recording and

scoring each segment for the presence of specific variables on a specialized coding sheet

(Appendix A).

Ratings for each segment were made in three variable categories: anger,

fear/anxiety/sadness, and conflict resolution strategies. Each was rated on a 5-point

Likert scale (0 not present- 4 extremely present) that assessed the degree to which each

variable was present in each segment regardless of the actual length of the segment. If a

segment is very short with only one or two articulated thought(s), scores will be higher

because the entire segment has a higher degree of one or more variable(s). Likewise, if

the segment is very long with only one or two articulated thought(s), scores will be lower

14

because the entire segment has a lower degree of one or more variable(s). Therefore, the

entire segment is considered, not just each individual thought. Scores were calculated by

averaging the two raters' ratings on each variable for each segment.

Angry verbalizations: responses that refer to intense levels of anger. Examples of these

anger-related emotion words were: angry, enraged, pissed off, mad, furious, upset,

fuming, etcetera.

Fear/Anxiety/Sadness: responses that refer to these emotions, as well as, jealousy.

Jealousy is a combination of these emotions, excluding anger, (Buck, 1999; Sharpsteen &

Kirkpatrick, 1997), and therefore, all jealous statements were coded in this section.

Conflict Resolution Strategies: responses that could decrease anger, annoyance, other

negative emotions, or resolve the conflict. These are positive statements with a temporal

component about how to resolve the conflict presently or in the future. Examples of

these conflict resolution strategy words were: should, have to, ought, must, etcetera.

2.4 Procedure

In the advertisement, participants were informed that participation in the study would last

approximately one hour in total and would be rewarded with a credit towards an

undergraduate Psychology course. Participation involved two parts; (1) completing a 30-

minute survey online, and (2) coming to the laboratory in order to listen and articulate

their thoughts regarding two taped conflict scenarios while being recorded (30 minutes).

15

Participants came to the laboratory approximately a week after they had completed the

survey.

2.4.1 Online Survey

Four questionnaires were completed online using an online survey website •

(http://www.surveymonkey.com/). These four questionnaires were a demographics form,

the CTS, the PAS, and the EQ-i. For a variety of reasons, the online survey method was

used: (1) participants would only have to come to the lab once compared to twice (pick

up the questionnaires and complete the lab component), therefore, reducing the attrition

rate; (2) reducing data entry errors; and (3) prevention of missing data. Missing data is a

problem in survey research and there is no one agreed upon method to deal with the

missing items. Therefore, rather than dealing with this problem post hoc, precautions

were implemented to eliminate it. The questionnaires were set up so the participants

would have to answer everything on the page before continuing to the next questionnaire.

Items were included, such as Not Applicable or Never, to give the participants the option

if the question did not apply to them.

The online survey included a cover letter that gave a brief description of the study. The

potential risk of experiencing negative emotions that may be uncomfortable or painful

was explained. It was explained in the cover letter that by completing the questionnaires,

participants had given their consent.

16

2.4.2 Laboratory

Upon entering the laboratory, participants signed a consent form and were taken to a

private room to encourage open and honest thought responses. Participants were

randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. In the first group, participants listened to

the jealousy audio clip first (time 1), followed by the power audio clip (time 2). In the

second group, the order was counter-balanced to control for potential order effects. The

experimenter explained that they were going to be listening to real conflicts between

couples that were recorded during therapy sessions. The experimenter left the room,

which was locked on the outside, until the end of the ATSS procedure to give the

participant privacy. The participant put on the large cup headphones and pressed play on

the CD player. In order to heighten arousal, the volume was set at approximately 3A of

the maximum. The first conflict scenario started. When prompted by a tone, the

participants reported their current thoughts and feelings out loud into a microphone

connected to a digital recorder. After 30 seconds, another tone sounded indicating the

resumption of the conflict. At the end, the participants were given an oral and written

debriefing, and the experimenter answered any questions regarding the study.

2.5 Statistical Analysis

Pearson's r was used to examine bivariate correlations among the study variables

and questionnaires. A series of analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests and /-tests were

conducted to assess group differences.

17

3 Results

3.1 Conflict Tactics Scale

The participant's conflict tactics used in their past relationship were assessed. The CTS

discussion subscale (M= 8.04 SD = 6.13), CTS verbal aggression subscale (M= 5.51 SD

= 6.66), and CTS violence subscale (M= .89 SD = 3.08), scores were consistent with

normative data. The CTS, PAS, and EQ-i scores are also shown in Table 1.

3.2 Propensity for Abusiveness Scale

The participant's propensity for abusiveness was assessed. The mean PAS score (A/ =

50.36 SD = 12.27) was consistent with normative data. Cronbach's alpha was .60.

Next, participants reporting a greater propensity for abusiveness were compared to

participants reporting a lesser propensity for abusiveness. Participants were divided into

high and low groups based on a median split of the PAS scores. The mean scores for the

high and low PAS groups were significantly different (high, M= 60.60 SD = 7.83; low,

M= 40.13 SD = 5.37; r(94) = -14.94; p < .001). The high PAS groups mean score was

consistent with domestically abusive populations.

3.3 Emotional Quotient Inventory

The participant's emotional intelligence was assessed. The mean EQ-i score (M= 88.82

SD = 13.52) was consistent with normative data. Cronbach's alpha was .84.

18

Next, participants with a higher emotional intelligence were compared to participants

with a lower intelligence. Participants were divided into high and low groups based on a

median split of their EQ-i total score. The mean scores for the high and low EQ-i groups

were significantly different (high, M= 99.31 SD = 8.98; low, M= 78.33 SD = 7.99;

r(94) = -12.09; p < .001). The low EQ-i groups' mean score was consistent with

domestically abusive populations.

3.4 Conflict Tactics Scale and Propensity for Abusiveness Scale

The relationship between past use of conflict tactics and the propensity for abusiveness

was assessed. Significant positive correlations with the PAS score were observed in the

CTS verbal aggression subscale (r = .23, p = .03) and the CTS violence subscale (r = .21,

p = .04). There were no significant correlations or significant differences between the

PAS high or low groups and the CTS subscales.

3.5 Conflict Tactics Scale and Emotional Quotient Inventory

The relationship between past use of conflict tactics and emotional intelligence was

assessed. A significant negative correlation with the CTS verbal aggression subscale

score and EQ-i score (r = -.20, p = .05) was observed. In addition, the low EQ-i group

reported significantly more violent conflict tactics on the CTS violence subscale than the

high group (low, M= 1.50 SD = 4.0; high, M= .29 SD = 1.0;7(94) = 2.2; p = .05).

19

3.6 Emotional Quotient Inventory and Propensity for Abusiveness Scale

The relationship between emotional intelligence and propensity for abusiveness was

assessed. A significant negative correlation with the PAS score was observed in the EQ-i

score (r = -.62, p < .001). When the high/low groups on the EQ-I were compared to the

high/low groups on the PAS, a significant negative correlation was found (r = -.54,

p < .001). The low EQ-i group scored significantly higher on the PAS (high, M= 43.92

SD = 10.51; low, M= 56.81 SD = 10.44; /(94) = 6.03; p < .001) and the high PAS group

scored significantly lower on the EQ-i (high, M= 81.25SD = 10.92; low, M= 96.40

SD= 11.53; /(94) = 6.61;/?<.001).

3.7 Articulated Thoughts during Simulated Scenarios

3.7.1 Reliability

A statistical test was used to determine inter-rater reliability. The raw scores from the

three raters were correlated, yielding a Pearson rxy = +.89. Cronbach's alphas assessing

the internal consistency for the six thought segments composing the ATSS articulated

thought variables were: anger (experimental, .65; control, .70); fear/anxiety/sadness

(experimental, .79; control, .81); and conflict resolution strategies (experimental, .54;

control, .55).

3.7.2 Jealousy and Power Conditions

The six thought segments for each ATSS articulated thought variables for the jealousy

and power conditions are shown in Figure 1 (anger), Figure 2 (fear/anxiety/sadness), and

Figure 3 (conflict resolution strategies). The overall means combining all six thought

20

segments for the ATSS articulated thought variable for the jealousy and power conditions

are shown in Figure 4. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for the

average score for each ATSS variable in each condition. Table 3 presents the

correlations for the ATSS articulated thoughts within the jealousy condition and Table 4

presents the correlations for the ATSS articulated thoughts within the power condition.

Time 1 scores were compared to time 2 scores for each condition to assess for order

effect. The articulated thought variable scores in each of the six thought segments for the

jealousy scenario during time 1 were compared to the jealousy scenario scores during

time 2. The same was done for the power scenario on time 1 versus time 2. There were

no significant differences between them. Since there were no significant differences

between time 1 and 2 for the different conditions (no order effects), the scores for time 1

and 2 were compiled into a single score for each of the scenarios.

A within-subjects factors ANOVA was performed to compare the experimental condition

scores for each of the four ATSS articulated thought variables to the control condition

scores as shown in Figure 4.

Anger. On the anger variable, the ANOVA indicated no significant effects for the

scenario main effect, F(\, 92) = 15.93,/? < .001.

Fear/Anxiety/Sadness. The ANOVA indicated a significant scenario main effect for

articulations of fear/anxiety/sadness, F(l, 92) = 69.69, p < .001, such that participants

21

articulated more fear/anxiety/sadness during the jealousy scenario than the power

scenario (control, M= 3.82 SD = 4.19; experimental, M= 7.55 SD = 4.86). Females

reported more fear/anxiety/sadness during the power condition compared to males

(female, M= 4.68, SD = 4.20; male, M= 2.77, SD = 3.98; F(l, 95) = 5.15,p = .03.

Conflict resolution strategies. The ANOVA indicated a significant scenario main effect,

F(l, 92) = 37.99,/? < .001, such that more conflict resolution strategies were articulated

during the power scenario than the jealousy scenario (control, M= 8.40 SD = 4.92';

experimental, M= 5.31 SD = 4.15).

Further analyses were performed on the fear/anxiety/sadness and conflict resolution

strategies. The relationship between the fear/anxiety/sadness and conflict resolution

strategies regarding the change between the jealousy and power conditions was

investigated. The average score for the .conflict resolution strategies power condition was

subtracted from the jealousy condition (difference score) and, the average score for the

fear/anxiety/sadness power condition was subtracted from the jealousy condition

(difference score). These scores represent the change from the jealousy condition to the

control condition. A significant negative correlation was found between the conflict

resolution strategies and the other negative emotions difference scores (r = -.23, p = .02).

There were no significant correlations between the PAS and ATSS or the EQ-i and

ATSS.

22

3.8 Conflict'Resolution Strategies and Conflict Tactics Scale

The relationship between the ATSS conflict resolution strategies variable in the jealousy

condition and the past use of conflict tactics was examined. High and low conflict

resolution strategy groups within the jealousy condition were created with a median split.

It was found that individuals who articulated more conflict resolution strategies (high

group) reported significantly more rational discussion tactics on the CTS (high, M = 9.27

SD = 6.24; low, M= 6.81 SD = 5.83; /(94) = -2.0;p = .05). In addition, it was found that

individuals who articulated fewer conflict resolution strategies (low group) reported

significantly more violence tactics on the CTS (low, M= 1.59 SD = 4.0; high, M= .35 SD

= 1.17;/(94) = 1.9;/? = .05). .

The same procedure was used to examine ATSS conflict resolution strategies variable in

the power condition and the CTS. There was no significant difference.

23

4 Discussion

The present study assessed the relationship between anger, fear/anxiety/sadness, and

conflict resolution strategies upon exposure to jealousy and power conflicts among

intimate partners. The ATSS paradigm measured automatic cognitive activity that

occurred, without conscious filtering, during the experiment. The study showed that the

jealousy conflict, compared to the power conflict, led to an increase in

fear/anxiety/sadness emotions, and a decrease in conflict resolution strategies, but no

difference in the anger emotion. There was also a significant relationship found between

conflict resolution strategies and conflict tactics used in a previous relationship. By

teasing apart anger from fear/anxiety/sadness, we found that anger may not be the main

emotion that effecting aggressive behaviour. The findings of the present study indicate

the potential importance of the relationship between fear/anxiety/sadness emotions and

conflict resolution strategies, more so than the anger emotion, during jealousy conflicts in

explaining the association between jealousy and aggression.

4.1 ATSS

Interestingly, our first hypothesis that anger articulations would differ between the

jealousy and power conditions was not supported by the data. There was no significant

difference between them. Anger was present in equal amounts indicating that there was

no direct relationship between anger "and the increase or decrease in conflict resolution

strategies in response to the two conflict scenarios. However, there was a significant

increase in anger in both scenarios indicating that both conflicts angered the participants.

The majority of empirical literature has focused on anger leading to aggression.

24

Husbands who possess little or no anger coping skills have been found to have a greater

likelihood of becoming abusive when angry (Purdy & Nickle, 1981; Sonkin, Martin, &

Walker, 1985). Furthermore, Barbour, Eckhardt, Davison, and Kassinove (1998) found

maritally violent men scored significantly lower on the Anger Control Scale than

nonviolent men. However, some research has not supported the anger-leads-to-

aggression theory. Self-reported measures of anger between maritally violent and

nonviolent men have not been significantly different (Barbour, Eckhardt, Davison, &

Kassinove, 1998; Boyle & Vivian, 1996; Hasting & Hamberger, 1988; Maiuro, Cahn,

Vitaliano, Wagner, & Zegree, 1988). These discrepancies could be due to anger not

being the determining factor of whether or not someone will become violent during a

conflict. The determining factor could be other emotions, such as fear/anxiety/sadness,

influencing the person's conflict resolution skills, which enable them to deal with the

conflict. These emotions are difficult to tease apart. Therefore, while it is true that

angrier people may be more aggressive, it may not be the anger emotion that causes

people to become violent, rather it may be other emotions that impair effective conflict

resolution strategies, which increases aggression.

One alternative possibility to explain the lack of significant differences in anger scores

between conditions could be that individuals who have ineffective conflict resolution

strategies also lack the ability to assert their angry feelings. As a result of their inability

to articulate their emotions, they resort to aggressive forms of anger expression (Boyle &

Vivian, 1996), which could not be measured during the ATSS technique.

25

The second hypothesis was not supported by the data. Surprisingly, it was found that

individuals who articulated more fear/anxiety/sadness thoughts articulated fewer conflict

resolution strategies. In the jealousy scenario, we found that the conflict resolution

strategy score was significantly lower than the fear/anxiety/sadness score. In the power

scenario, we found that the conflict resolution strategy score was significantly higher than

the fear/anxiety/sadness score. The disparity between the two conditions on conflict

resolution strategies and fear/anxiety/sadness was measured. There was a significant

negative correlation between the change in the jealousy to power condition for conflict

resolution strategies and the change in jealousy to power condition for the

fear/anxiety/sadness. This indicated that, in the jealousy condition, individuals who

articulated a lower amount of conflict resolution strategies, articulated more

fear/anxiety/sadness.

The third hypothesis that individuals who articulated more angerand

fear/anxiety/sadness, and fewer conflict resolution strategies would have a higher

propensity for abusiveness and a lower intelligence was not supported by the data. There'

were no significant correlations found between the ATSS scores and the PAS or EQ-I

scores. The lack of a relationship between the ATSS and paper-and-pencil measures of

cognitive constructs is consistent with other studies findings (Davison et al., 1997;

Eckhardt et al., 1998, Eckhardt, Jamison, & Watts, 2002). This does not necessary reflect

a flaw in the ATSS paradigm, but instead, demonstrates that different methods can ;

provide diverse information about the same construct (Davison et al., 1998).

26

And finally, the hypothesis that individuals with fewer conflict resolution strategy

thought articulations would report more violent and less rational conflict tactics used in

their previous relationship was supported. It was also found that individuals with more

conflict resolution strategy thought articulations reported significantly more rational

conflict tactics.

Much of the previous research on jealousy among intimate partners has focused on sex

differences. Researchers have alleged that men are primarily jealous in regards to a

partner's sexual infidelity, and women are primarily jealous when a partner was

emotionally unfaithful (Buss, 2007; Guerreri, Spitzberg, & Yoshimura, 2004;. Harris,

2003; Nelson, 2004; Russell & Harton, 2005; Shackelford, Voracek, Schmitt, Buss,

Weekes-Shackelford, & Michalski, 2004). These sex differences have been discovered

across different cultures (Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996; Buunk & Hupka,

1987; Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982). While men and women may differ regarding

the trigger of their jealousy, emotional versus sexual infidelity, one aspect remains the

same; both sexes become jealous to either a perceived or actual threat of infidelity. The

likelihood, frequency, and intensity of reported jealousy between men and women were

found to be equal (Geary, Rumsey, Bow-Thomas, & Hoard, 1995; Pines & Friedman,

1998; White, 1981). White and Mullen (1989, p. 127) stated that "most research has

reported no gender differences in the level of reported jealousy, and those studies finding

a difference are not consistent in finding one gender to be more jealous than the other."

This is consistent with our findings. There were no significant gender differences within

the ATSS thought articulations. This could have been due to the jealousy conflict

2 7

suggesting both sexual and emotional infidelity thereby eliciting emotions from both

and women.

4.2 CTS, PAS, and EQ-i

It was found that individuals who were more likely to be abusive, as indicated by their

higher PAS score, used significantly more verbally aggressive and violent conflict tactics

in their past relationship. Individuals with lower emotional intelligence, as indicated by

their lower EQ-i score, reported significantly more violent conflict tactics in their past

relationships. Finally, it was found that those individuals who were more likely to be

abusive had lower emotional intelligence.

4.3 Limitations

The main limitation in the current study is that participants' emotional reactions were in

response to observed conflicts between a couple unknown to them. They were not

participating in the conflicts with their own romantic partner. Due to the decrease or lack

of emotional investment in the conflicts, participants may not have become as emotional

as they would during an actual argument. Therefore, the scores obtained during the

ATSS would be lower. In addition, the participants may have never experienced these

types of conflicts in their own relationships. It is also uncertain whether the statements

made during the ATSS would be similar to what they may say during a similar .conflict

outside the laboratory.

28

Finally, since the majority of our participants had been in a current dating relationship for

one year or less, they may not be as emotionally attached to their partner and therefore

show lower levels of emotional, cognitive, and behavioural factors related to jealousy.

4.4 Future Directions

At the beginning of this paper, we noted the disparate jealousy literature with respect to a

broad theoretical model. Presently, speculations on jealousy's causal processes have

depended on sex-specific components (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992;

Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996), idiographic traits (Bringle, 1991), adult

attachment correlates (Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997), and culturally-specific

components (Hupka, 1991; Hupka & Ryan, 1990). In considering a theoretical model of

jealousy, we must not underestimate the power of individual differences. Consequently,

this model must have a high degree of flexibility. Individuals have multiple relationships

with different people, such as lovers, family, friends, or coworkers, and these individuals

interact is various ways. Sometimes these interactions evoke jealousy; sometimes they

do not. Furthermore, some individuals are more prone to reacting jealously. Specific

events or behaviours that cause jealousy among members of one culture are of no concern

to other cultures. Therefore, although jealousy's purpose is to protect the integrity of a

relationship from potential or actual rivals, many other factors mediate the outcome and

should be studied.

Research has shown that attachment styles are correlated with jealousy (Buunk, 1997;

Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997). Individuals with insecure attachment styles exhibit

29

more intense and frequent jealousy (Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997), lowered self-

esteem (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), fewer conflict resolution strategies (Kobak &

Hazan, 1991), more verbal aggression and withdrawal (Senchak & Leonard, 1992), and

increased aggressive behaviour towards partners (Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski, &

Bartholomew, 1994). Individuals who have more anxious attachment styles may be more

likely to believe that given interactions between their partner and a potential rival signal

more sexual and/or emotional interest than actually present. In Marchand's (2004) study,

participants who reported more anxiety also reported more attacking behaviours and

fewer compromising behaviours. It is recommended that future researchers continue to

study the effect of attachment styles on jealousy.

The development of more accurate measures of jealousy intensity and duration are

important for future research. In the present case, we relied on self-report thought

articulation measures of emotion. Although the ATSS has been demonstrated to be a

beneficial tool, it is still not completely void of problems. In the present case,

participants may not have fully articulated all the thoughts on their mind, leading to

under-reporting of certain emotions they experience. One cause may have been that they

wanted to positively portray themselves and thus not want to express as many negative

emotions as they actually felt.

When jealousy is better understand and a solid theoretical model has been created, the

various individual responses can be more thoroughly and accurately studied. This will

lead to a better understanding of the relationship between the jealousy emotions and

30

conflict resolution strategies, and finally, the link between jealousy and aggression. Only

through this further investigation into what jealousy is and its causes and effects, will it

be possible to develop better treatments for those individuals with destructive jealousy

reactions.

31

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for the CTS, PAS, EQ-i

Mean Standard Deviation

CTS - Discussion subscale 8.04 6.13

CTS - Verbal Aggression subscale 5.51 6.66

CTS - Violence subscale .89 3.08

PAS score 50.36 12.27

PAS - High PAS group 60.60 7.83

PAS - Low PAS group 40.13 5.37

EQ-i score 88.82 13.52

EQ-i - High EQ-i group 99.31 8.98

EQ-i - Low EQ-i group 78.33 7.99

NOTE: CTS = Conflict Tactics Scale. PAS = Propensity for Abusiveness EQ-i = Emotional Quotient Inventory

32

Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations for the ATSS Variables across scenarios

Jealousy Power

M SD M SD t

Anger 4.03 3.40 4.06 3.29

Fear/Anxiety/Sadness 7.55 4.86 3.82 4.19 7.91*

Conflict Resolution

Strategies 5.31 4.15 8.40 4.92 -6.31*

NOTE: ATSS. = Articulated Thoughts during Simulated Situations.

*/? < .001

Table 3

Correlations among the ATSS articulated thoughts within the jealousy condition

Anger

Fear/

Anxiety/

Sadness

Conflict

Resolution

Strategies

Anger 1.0 .53* .08

Fear/Anxiety/Sadness 1.0 .04

Conflict Resolution Strategies 1.0

NOTE: ATSS = Articulated Thoughts during Simulated Situations.

*p< .001

34

Table 4

Correlations among the ATSS articulated thoughts within the control condition

•

Anger

Fear/

Anxiety/

Sadness

Conflict

Resolution

Strategies

Anger 1.0 .31* -.09

Fear/Anxiety/Sadness 1.0 -.14

Conflict Resolution Strategies 1.0

NOTE: ATSS = Articulated Thoughts during Simulated Situations.

* /? < .001

Figure 1: ATSS Thought Segments for Anger Articulations during the Jealousy and

Power Conditions

1.8 1.6 1.4

1 2 3 4 5 6

• J ea lousy • P o w e r

36

Figure 2: ATSS Thought Segments for Fear/Anxiety/Sadness Articulations during

the Jealousy and Power Conditions

1 2 3 4 5

• J ea lousy • P o w e r

37

Figure 3: ATSS Thought Segments for Conflict Resolution Strategy Articulations

during the Jealousy and Power Conditions

38

Figure 4: ATSS Mean Articulations during the Jealousy and Power Conditions

Anger Fear/ Anxiety/ Sadness Conflict Resolution Strategies

• J ea lousy H P o w e r

39

References

Barbour, K.A., Eckhardt, C.I., Davison, G.C, & Kassinove, H. (1998). The experience and expression of anger in martially violent and martially discordant-nonviolent men. Behavior Therapy, 29, 173-191.

Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar On Emotional Quotient Inventory: User's manual. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems Inc.

Baron, R.A. (1971). Aggression as a function of magnitude of victim's pain cues, level of prior anger arousal, and aggressor-victim similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 48-54.

Baron, R.A., & Richardson, D.R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum.

Bates, G.W., Campbell, I.M., & Burgess, P.M. (1990). Assessment of articulated thoughts in social anxiety: Modification of the ATSS procedure. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 91 -98.

Berns, S.B., Jacobson, N.S., & Gottman, J.M. (1999). Demand-withdraw interaction in couples with a violent husband. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 666-674.

Bell, M.L., & Forde, D.R. (1999). A factorial survey of interpersonal conflict resolution. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 369-377.

Billingham, R.E., & Sack, A.R. (1986). Courtship violence and the interactive status of the relationship. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7,315-325.

Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends regarding direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117-127.

Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). The development of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.), Of mive and women: Aspects of female aggression, (pp. 51-64). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bjorkqvist, K., & Osterman, K. (2000). Social intelligence - empathy = aggression? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 191-200.

Bookwala, J., Frieze, I.H., & Smith, C. (1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297-311.

40

Bookwala, J., Sobin, J., & Zdaniuk, B. (2005). Gender and aggression in marital relationships: A life-span perspective. Sex Roles, 52, 797-806.

Boyle, D.J., & Vivian, D. (1996). Generalized and spuse-specific anger/hostility and men's violence against intimates. Violence and Victims, 11, 293-317.

Bradbury, T.N., & Karney, B.R. (1993). Longitudinal study of marital interaction and dysfunction: Review and analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 15-27.

Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1989). The trauma symptom checklist (TSC-33): Early data on a new scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 151-163.

Bringle, R.G. (1991). Psychosocial aspects of jealousy: A transactional model. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 103-131). New York: Guildford Press.

Bringle, R.G., & Buunk, B. (1986). Jealousy and social behaviour. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 241-264.

Brisson, N.J. (1983). Battering husbands: A survey of abusive men/ Victimology, 338-344.

Bryson, J.B. (1991). Modes of response to jealousy-evoking situations. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 178-207). New York: Guildford Press.

Browning, J.J., & Dutton, D.G. (1986). Assessment of wife assault with the conflict tactics scale: Using couple data to quantify the differential reporting effect. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 375-379.

Buunk, B.P. (1995). Sex, self-esteem, dependency and extradyadic sexual experience as related to jealousy responses. Journal of Social and Personal Bulletin, 8, 310-316.

Buunk, B.P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D.M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science, 7, 359-363.

Buunk, B.P., & Hupka, R.B. (1987). Cross-cultural differences in the elicitation of sexual jealousy. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 12-22.

Buss, D.M., Larsen, R., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251-255.

41

Buss, D.M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.

Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.

Cohn, L.D. (1991). Sex difference in the course of personality development: A meta­analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 252-266.

Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Daly, M., Wilson, M., and Weghorst, S.J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 11 -27.

Davidson, G.C., Feldman, P.M., & Osborne, C.E. (1984). Articulated thoughts, irrational beliefs and fear of negative evaluation. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 8, 349-362.

Davison, G.C., Navarre, S.G., & Vogel, R.S. (1995). The articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm: A think-aloud approach to cognitive assessment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 29-33.

Davison, G.C., Robins, C, & Johnson, M.K. (1983). Articulated thought during simulated situations: A paradigm for studying cognition in emotion and behaviour. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 17-40.

Davison, G.C., Vogel, R.S., & Coffman, S.G. (1997). Think-aloud approaches to cognitive assessment and the articulated thought in simulated situations paradigm. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 950-958.

DeSteno, D.A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning the "fitness" of the model. Psychological Science, 7, 367-372.

DeSteno, D., Valdesolo, P., & Barlett, M.Y. (2006). Jealousy and the threatened self: Getting to the heart of the green-eyed monster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 626-641.

De Weerth, C, & Kalma, A.P. (1993). Female aggression as a response to sexual jealousy: A sex role reversal? Aggressive Behavior, 19, 265-279.

Dobash, R.E., & Dobash, R.P. (1980). Violence against wives: A case against the Patriachy. London: Open Books.

42

Dodge, K., Pettit, G.S., Bates, J.E., & Valente, E. (1995). Social information-processing patterns partially mediate the effect of early physical abuse on later conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 632-643.

Dutton, D.G. (1988). The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal justice perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dutton, D.G. (1995). A scale for measuring the propensity for abusiveness. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 203-221.

Dutton̂ D. G. (1998). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships. New York: Guilford Press.

Dutton, D.G., & Browning, J.J. (1988). Concern for power, fear of intimacy and wife abuse. In G»T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J.T. Kirkpatrick, & M. Straus (Eds.), New Directions in Family Violence Research (pp. 127). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Dutton, D.G., Landolt, M., Starzomski, A., & Bodnarchuk, M. (2001). Validation of the PAS in diverse male populations. Journal of Family Violence, J6, 59-73.

Dutton, D.G., Saunders, K., & Starzomski, A. (1994). Intimacy-anger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1367-1386.

Dutton, D. G., Starzomski, A., & Van Ginkel, C. (1995). The role of shame and guilt in the intergenerational transmission of abusiveness. Violence & Victims, 10, 121-131.

Dutton̂ D.G., & Strachan, C.E. (1987). Motivational needs for power and dominance as differentiating variables of assaultive and non-assaultive male populations. Violence and Victims, 2, 145-156.

Dutton, D., Webb, A., and Ryan, L. (1994). Gender differences in anger/anxiety reactions to witnessing dyadic family conflict. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 26,353.

Dye, M.L., & Eckhardt, C.I. (2000). Anger, irrational beliefs, and dysfunctional attitudes in violent dating relationships. Violence and Victims, 15, 337-350.

Eckhardt, C, Barbour, K.A., & Davidson, G.C. (1998). Articulated thoughts of martially violent and nonviolent men during anger arousal. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 66, 259 - 269.

Eckhardt, C, Barbour, K.A., Stuart, G. L. (1997). Anger and hostility in martially violent men: Conceptual distinctions, measurement issues, and literature review. Psychology Review, 17, 333-358.

43

Eckhardt, C, & Jamison, T.R. (2002). Articulated thoughts of male dating violence perpetrators during anger arousal. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 289-308.

Eckhardt, C, Jamison, T.R. & Watts, K. (2002). Anger experience and expression amonj male dating violence perpetrators during anger aroual. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1102-1114. .

Eckhardt, C, & Kassinove, H. (1998). Articulated cognitive distortions and cognitive deficiencies in martially violent men. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 12, 231 -250.

Ellis, A. (1977). Anger: How to live with and without it. New York: Reader's Digest Press. v

Feldman, CM., & Ridley, CA. (2000). The role of conflict-based communication responses and outcomes in mae domestic violence toward female partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 17, 552-573.

Franche, R.L. (1987). The interpersonal response to depression as a function of two levels of intimacy. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Gayford, J.J. (1975). Wife battering: A preliminary survey of 100 cases. British Medical Journal, 1, 194-197.

Gayford, J.J. (1979). Battered wives. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 22, 496-503.

Geary, D.C, Rumsey, M., Bow-Thomas, C.C., & Hoard, M. (1995). Sexual jealousy as a facultative trait: Evidence from the pattern of sex differences in adults from China and the United States. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 355-383.

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

Gottman, J.M., & Krokoff, L.J. (1989). The relationship between marital interaction and marital satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 47-52. -

Gryl, F.E., Stith, S.M., & Bird, G.W. (1991). Close dating relationships among college students: Differences by use of violence and by gender. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 8, 243-264.

Hall, J.A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845-857.

44

Hall, J.A. (1990). Nonverbal sex differences: Accuracy of communication and expressive style. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Harris, C.R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psychological Science, 13, 7-12.

Hartman, D.P. (1969). Influence of symbolically modeled instrumental aggression and pain cues on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 280-288.

Hasting, J.E., & Hamberger, L.K. (1988). Personality characteristics of spouse abusers: A controlled comparison. Violence and Victims, 3, 31-48.

Hilberman, E., & Manson, M. (1977). Sixty battered women. Victimology, 2, 460-471.

Holzworth-Munroe, A. (1992). Social skill deficits in martially violent men: Interpreting the data using a social information processing model. Clincial Psychology Review, 12, 605-618.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smulzler, N., & Sandin, E. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence. Part I: Maritally violent versus nonviolent men. Aggression and Violent Behaviour: A Review Journal, 2, 65-99.

Hupka, R.B. (1991). The motive for the arousal of romantic jealousy: Its cultural origin. In: P. Salovey (Ed.), The Psychology of Jealousy & Envy. New York: Guilford Press, 252-270.

Hupka, R.B., & Ryan, J.M. (1990). The cultural contribution to jealousy: Cross cultural aggression in sexual jealousy situations. Behavior Science Research, 24, 51-71.

Hyde, J.S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20, 722-736.

Hyde, J.S. (1990). Meta-analysis and the psychology of sex differences. Signs, 16, 55-73.

Jack, L., Dutton, D.G. , Webb, A. & Ryan, L. (1995). Effects of early abuse on adult affective reactions to exposure to dyadic conflict. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 484-500.

Jacobson, N.S., Gottman, J.M., Waltz, J., Rushe, R., Babcock, J., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1994). Affect, verbal content, and psychophysiology in the arguments of couples with a violent husband. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 982-988.

Kalmuss, D.S. (1984). The inter-generational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 11-19.

45

Kankaaranta, R.V., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., & Bjorkqvist, K. (1993). Social structure of peer groups and indirect aggression among girls. Aggressive Behavior, 19, 55.

Kobak, R.R., & Hazan, C. (1991). Attachment in marriage: Effects of security and accuracy of working models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 861-869.

Konecni, U.J. (1975). Annoyance, type and duration of post annoyance activity, and aggression: The "cathartic effect." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 76 -102.

Lloyd, S. (1987). Conflict in premarital relationships: Differential perceptions of males and females. Family Relations, 36, 290-294.

Lloyd, S.A. (1990). Conflict types and strategies in violent marriages. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 269-283.

Maiuro, R.D., Cahn, T.S., Vitaliano, P.P., Wagner, B.C., & Zegree, J.B. (1988). Anger, hostility, and depression in domestically violent versus generally assaultive men and nonviolent control subjects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 17-23.

Marchand, J.F. (2004). Husbands' and wives' marital quality: The role of adult attachment orientations, depressive symptoms, and conflict resolution behaviors. Attachment & Human Development, 6, 99-112.

Margolin, G., John, R.S., & Glebermen, L. (1989). Affective responses to conflictual discussions in violent and non-violent couples. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 56, 24-33.

Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relationship of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324-344.

Mullen, P.E. (1995). Jealousy and violence. Hong Kong Journal of Psychiatry, 5, 1-7.

Mullen, P.E. (1996). Editorial: Jealousy and the emergence of violent and intimidating behaviours. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 6, 199-205.

Mullen, P.E., & Martin, J. (1994). Jealousy: A community study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 35-43.

Novaco, R.C. (1976). The function and regulation of the arousal of anger. American Journal of Psychiatry, 133, 1124- 1128.

Paul, L., Foss, M.A., & Galloway, J. (1993). Sexual jealousy in young men and women. Aggressive Behavior, 19, 401-420.

46

Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. P (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 181-196.

Pines, A.M., & Friedman, A. (1998). Gender differences in romantic jealousy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 54-71.

Purdy, F., & Nickle, N. (1981). Practice principles for working with groups of men who batter. Social Work with Groups, 4, 111-122.

Ridley, C.A., & Feldman, CM. (2003). Female domestic violent toward male partners: Exploring conflict responses and outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 157-170.

Rounsaville, B.J. (1978). Theories in marital violence; evidence from a study of battered women. Victimology, 3, 11-21.

Rule, B.G., & Nesdale, A.R. (1976). Emotional arousal and aggressive behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 851 -863.

Russell, J.A., and Mehrabian, A. (1974). Distinguishing anger and anxiety in terms of emotional response factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 79- 83.

Russell, J.A., and Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three - factor theory of emotions. Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 273 - 294.

Sabourin, T.C (1995). The role of negative reciprocity in spouse abuse: A relational control analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 271-283.

Sabourin, T.C, Infante, D.C, & Rudd, J.E. (1993). Verbal aggression in marriages: A comparison of violent, distressed but nonviolent, and nondistressed couple. Human Communication Research, 20, 245-267'.

Salovey, P. (Ed.). (1991). The psychology of jealousy and envy. New York: Guildford Press.

Schill, T., & Schneide, L. (1970). Guilt and self report of hostility. Psychological • Reports, 27,713 -714.

Smith, C.A., and Ellsworth, P.C (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisals in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838.

Senchak, P.R., & Leonard, K. (1992). Attachment styles and marital adjustment among newly wed couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 51-64.

47

Shackelford, T.K., Voracek, M., Schmitt, D.P., Buss, D.M., Weekes-Shackelford, V.A. & Michalski, R.L. (2004). Romantic jealousy in early adulthood and in later life. Human Nature, 15, 283-300.

Sharpsteen, D.J., & Kirkpatrick, L.A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 627-640.

Shi, L. (2003). The association between adult attachment styles and conflict resolution in romantic relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 143-157.

Shook, N.J., Gerrity, D.A., & Jurisch, J. (2000). Courtship violence among college students: A comparison of verbally and physically abusive couples. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 1-22.

Sigelman, C.K., Berry, C.J., & Wiles, K.A. (1984). Violence in college students dating relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 74,530-548.

Sonkin, D.J., Martin, D., & Walker, L.E.A. (1985). The male batterer: A treatment approach. New York: Springer.

Stacy, C.L., Schandel, L.M., Flannery, W.S., Conlon, & Milardo, (1994). It's not all moonlight and roses: Dating violence at the University of Maine. 1982-1992. College Student Journal, 28,2-9.

Starzomski, A.J., & Dutton, D.G. (1993). Emotional and attributional reactions to conflict: The role of attachment. Unpublished manuscript.

Strachan, C.E., & Dutton, D.G. (1992). The Role of Power and Gender in Anger Responses to Sexual Jealousy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1721 -1740.

Straus, M.A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.

Straus, M., Gelles, R., and Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence and the American family. New York: Anchor Doubleday.

Tavris, C. (1989). Nager: The misunderstood emotion (2nd ed.). New York: Touchstone.

Thomas, L.A., & Dutton, D.G. (2004). The Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS) as a predictor of affective priming to anticipated intimate conflict. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1-14.

Tilley, D.S., & Brackley, M. (2005). Men who batter intimate partners: A grounded theory study of the development of male violence in intimate partner relationships. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 26, 281-297.

48

White, G.L. (1981). A model of romantic jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 295-310. White, G.L. (1985). Gender, power, and romantic jealousy. Unpublished manuscript,

quoted in G. White & P. Mullen. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies (p. 132-133). New York: Guilford Press.

White, J.W., & Koss, M.P. (1991). Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence and Victims, 6, 247-256.

White, G.L., & Mullen, P.E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New York: Guilford Press.

Winters, J. Clift, R.J.W. & Dutton, D.G. (2004). An exploratory study of emotional intelligence and domestic abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 255-267.

49

SUBJECT # R A T E R INITIALS D A T E

SEGMENT 1

1. Identification F ' M Both Neither 2. Realistic Y N

3. Annoy 0— 1— 2—3—4 Anger/Rage 0—1—2—3—4 Fear/Anxiety/Sadness 0—1— 2—3-A

4. CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Same) CRS 0—1—2—3~A (Other) CRS 0— 1— 2—3-^t (Both)

5. Blame (Same) - 0—1—2—3—4 Blame (Other) - 0—1—2—3—4 Blame (Both) - 0—1—2—3-

SEGMENT 2

1. Identification F M Both Neither 2. Realistic Y N

3. Annoy 0— 1 —2—3—4 Anger/Rage 0—1—2—3—4 Fear/Anxiety/Sadness 0—1—2—3—4

4. CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Same) CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Other) CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Both)

5. Blame (Same)-0—1—2—3—4 Blame (Other) - 0—1— 2—3—4 Blame (Both) - 0—1— 2—3-

SEGMENT 3 • , '

1. Identification F M Both Neither 2. Realistic Y N

3. Annoy 0— 1—2—3—4 Anger/Rage 0—1— 2—3—4 Fear/Anxiety/Sadness 0—1—2—3—4

4. CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Same) CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Other) ' CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Both)

5. Blame (Same) -0—1—2—3^4 Blame (Other) - 0—1—2—3-4 Blame (Both) - 0—1—2—3-

SEGMENT 4

1. Identification F M Both Neither 2. Realistic Y N

3. Annoy 0—1—2—3—4 Anger/Rage 0—1—2—3—4 Fear/Anxiety/Sadness 0—1—2—3—4

4. C R S 0 — 1— 2—3—4 (Same) CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Other) CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Both)

5. Blame (Same)-O—1—2—3—4 , Blame (Other) - 0—1—2—3—4 Blame (Both) - 0—1—2—3—4

SEGMENT 5 . '•'

1. Identification F M Both Neither , 2. Realistic Y N

3. Annoy 0— 1— 2—3—4 Anger/Rage 0-^1— 2—3—4 Fear/Anxiety/Sadness 0—1—2—3—4

4. CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Same) CRS 0—1—2—3^* (Other) CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Both)

5. Blame (Same)-0—1—2—3—4 Blame (Other) - 0—1—2—3—4 Blame (Both) - 0—1—2—3—4

SEGMENT 6

1. Identification F M Both Neither 2. Realistic Y N

3. Annoy 0— 1— 2—3—4 Anger/Rage 0—1—2—3^1 Fear/Anxiety/Sadness 0—1—2—3—4

4. C R S 0 — 1— 2—3—4 (Same) CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Other) CRS 0—1—2—3—4 (Both)

5. Blame (Same)-0—1—2—3^ Blame (Other) - 0—1—2—3—4 Blame (Both) - 0—1—2—3—4

50