Keith Sanford

Characterizing aggressive behavior in a forensic population

The concept of a dichotomous versus a continuous aggression model continues to be debated within the research literature. The Impulsive/Premeditated Aggression Scale (IPAS; M. S. Stanford, R. J. Houston, C. W. Mathias, et al., 2003) is a newly developed self-report instrument designed to classify an individuals aggressive behavior as predominantly premeditated or predominantly impulsive. The IPAS consists of 30-items that are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. This study used a nonrandom sample of convenience (N = 85) from a forensic state hospital. Principal-components analysis of the 30 items revealed 2 distinct factors (Impulsive and Premeditated Aggression), which accounted for 33% of the variance. The results of this study further validate the bimodal classification of aggression through its application to a forensic sample. The implications for general assessment, diagnosis, and treatment are discussed.

Problem–solving conversations in marriage: Does it matter what topics couples discuss?

To address the validity of a common procedure for assessing problem–solving communication behavior in marriage, this study investigated the extent to which communication behavior is influenced by the difficulty of the topic being discussed. Married couples engaged in a sequence of four videotaped problem–solving conversations, and the topics discussed in each conversation were coded for difficulty. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to investigate both proximal and distal influences on communication behavior. At the proximal level, couples did not change their communication behavior in response to changes in topic difficulty that occurred across the four conversations. At the distal level, couples experiencing conflict over a highly difficult topic reported low relationship satisfaction and used negative forms of communication behavior in all their problem–solving conversations, regardless of the issue being discussed. The relationship between topic difficulty and communication behavior was mediated by marital satisfaction.

Communication during marital conflict: When couples alter their appraisal, they change their behavior.

In a sample of 77 recently married couples, within-person variance in cognitive appraisal was expected to predict corresponding within-person variance in communication behavior during conflict. Three types of appraisal were considered: expectancies of partner understanding, expectancies of partner negative communication, and attributions. Couples were observed in 4 different conflict conversations, completed during 2 assessment sessions, and appraisals were assessed prior to each conversation. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to analyze within-person effects. Changes from one conversation to the next in all 3 types of appraisal predicted corresponding within-person change in communication, and many effects were larger for wives than for husbands. Results were strongest for expectancies of partner understanding. Expectancies predicted change in ones own behavior after controlling for the accuracy of the expectancy.

Two Dimensions of Adult Attachment: Further Validation:

The present study used confirmatory factor analysis to identify two dimensions of adult attachment, analogous to infant attachment theory, using items derived from Hazan & Shavers (1987) widely used self-report measure. Subjects were 571 private university or community college students. Results indicated that a two-dimensional model best fits the data, that a three-dimensional model fits slightly less well and was simply less parsimonious, and that a one-dimensional model fits less than adequately. The same two-dimensional model fits both married and non-married adults. Loneliness, dating frequency, and dating/marital status showed a different pattern of correlations with the two attachment dimensions. Heterosexual confidence and parental divorce, although correlated with attachment dimensions, did not produce significantly different patterns of correlation with the two dimensions.

Perceived Threat and Perceived Neglect: Couples' Underlying Concerns During Conflict

The Couples Underlying Concern Inventory assesses 2 fundamental types of distress that couples experience during interpersonal conflict. Perceived threat involves a perception that ones partner is blaming and controlling the self. Perceived neglect involves a perception that ones partner is failing to make desired contributions or investments. Scales measuring these 2 underlying concerns were developed in Study 1, where a sample of 1,224 married people rated a pool of 57 words describing oneself and perceptions of a partner during a specific episode of conflict. Factor analysis identified 2 dimensions, and 2 brief 8-item scales were created. In Study 2, a sample of 2,315 married people completed the resulting 16-item inventory along with 10 self-report scales measuring types of emotion, cognition, and behavior during conflict. A 2-dimensional factor structure was confirmed, and measurement invariance was demonstrated across 4 racial/ethnic groups. Both perceived threat and perceived neglect correlated with relationship satisfaction and conflict communication. More importantly, each concern was associated with a different, and theoretically expected, set of variables regarding self emotion, emotion perceived in a partner, and cognition during conflict.

Assessing Conflict Communication in Couples: Comparing the Validity of Self-Report, Partner-Report, and Observer Ratings

This study of married couples investigated the short-term predictive validity of the partner-report and self-report scales of the Conflict Communication Inventory and compared the validity of these scales with the validity of observer ratings. A sample of 83 married couples completed two problem-solving conversations. Self-report, partner-report, and observer ratings from Conversation 1 were used to predict behavior in Conversation 2, as rated by a separate panel of observers. The short-term predictive validity of partner-report ratings was extremely high and indistinguishable from the validity of observer ratings. Self-report ratings also demonstrated good validity, albeit slightly lower than other methods. Both partner-report and self-report scores explained a substantial amount of variance in concurrent observer ratings of communication after controlling for relationship satisfaction.

The Couples Emotion Rating Form: Psychometric Properties and Theoretical Associations.

The Couples Emotion Rating Form assesses 3 types of negative emotion that are salient during times of relationship conflict. Hard emotion includes feeling angry and aggravated, soft emotion includes feeling hurt and sad, and flat emotion includes feeling bored and indifferent. In Study 1, scales measuring hard and soft emotion were validated by observation of 82 married couples in a series of conflict conversations. Self-report ratings for each emotion corresponded with observer ratings of the same emotion, and the emotion scales produced expected correlations with negative affect. In Study 2, a measure of flat emotion was added to the instrument, and 1,239 married people completed questionnaires. The rating form fit an expected 3-dimensional factor structure, and each scale correlated with a set of theoretically linked constructs. Hard emotion was associated with power assertion, pursuit of self-centered goals, and negative communication. Soft emotion was associated with expressions of vulnerability, pursuit of prosocial goals, and positive communication. Flat emotion was distinct from other emotions in being associated with withdrawal.

The communication of emotion during conflict in married couples.

This study investigated emotion during interpersonal conflicts between mates. It addressed questions about how clearly couples express emotion (encoding), how accurately they recognize each others emotion (decoding), and how well they distinguish between types of negative emotion. It was theorized that couples express and perceive both: (a) event-specific emotions, which are unique to particular people on particular occasions, and (b) contextual-couple emotions, which reflect the additive effect of emotions across different events and across both partners. Eighty-three married couples engaged in a series of two conflict conversations. Self-report ratings, observer ratings, and partner ratings were used to assess two types of negative emotion: hard emotion (e.g., angry or annoyed) and soft emotion (e.g., sad or hurt). Couples were reasonably accurate in encoding, decoding, and in distinguishing between types of emotion. Emotion expression was strongly associated with general levels of contextual-couple emotion summed across two conversations, whereas emotion perception was more closely tied to specific events. Hard emotion was readily perceived when it was overtly expressed, and soft emotion could sometimes be recognized even when it was not expressed clearly.

A latent change score model of conflict resolution in couples Are negative behaviors bad, benign, or beneficial?

This study used latent change score models to examine how couples make progress toward resolution when they experience conflicts. It examined why negative conflict engagement might sometimes predict increased resolution, and how this process might be moderated by relationship satisfaction. A sample of 734 people in heterosexual marriages or cohabitation relationships were asked to identify an episode of relationship conflict and complete a questionnaire measuring types of negative behavior, attributions, anger, and soft emotion as well as measures of current discord, peak discord, positive behavior, and types of conflict disengagement. Negative engagement predicted peak levels of conflict discord, but for people in satisfying relationships, this effect was benign because large conflicts predicted large resolutions regardless of negative engagement levels.

Memories of Feeling Misunderstood, and a Schema of Partner Empathic Responding: New Scales for Marital Research:

Two instruments were created to assess cognitions in marital relationships: these were a 4-minute speeded test to assess Memory Accessibility for Partner Not Understanding (MAPNU), and a 20-item Likert-type questionnaire to assess Schema of Partner Empathic Responses to Anger (SOPERA). Seventy-four married individuals (37 couples, ranging from happily married to mildly distressed) completed both cognitive measures, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Areas of Change questionnaire. The cognitive measures produced high reliability coefficients and a high convergent validity coefficient. SOPERA was related to, but not redundant with, general marital adjustment, and these two constructs best fit a two-dimensional as compared to a one-dimensional confirmatory factor analysis model. MAPNU was not correlated with length of marriage nor with a measure of general response production. Having a partner who demonstrated accurate understanding on the Areas of Change questionnaire was related to scores on both MAPNU and SOPERA, and path analysis supported a model in which SOPERA mediates the relationship between partner accurate understanding and relationship satisfaction.