Content uploaded by Martine Hébert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martine Hébert on Nov 29, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Conflict resolution patterns and violence perpetration in
adolescent couples: A gender-sensitive mixed-methods
approach
Mylène Fernet,
Department of Sexology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Québec, Canada
Martine Hébert, and
Department of Sexology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Québec, Canada
Alison Paradis
Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Québec, Canada
Abstract
This study used a sequential two-phase explanatory design. The first phase of this mixed methods
design aimed to explore conflict resolution strategies in adolescent dating couples, and the second
phase to document, from both the perspective of the individual and of the couple, dyadic
interaction patterns distinguishing youth inflicting dating violence from those who do not. A
sample of 39 heterosexual couples (mean age 17.8 years) participated in semi-structured
interviews and were observed during a 45 min dyadic interaction. At phase 1, qualitative analysis
revealed three main types of conflict resolution strategies: 1) negotiating expectations and
individual needs; 2) avoiding conflicts or their resolution; 3) imposing personal needs and rules
through the use of violence. At phase 2, we focused on couples with conflictive patterns. Results
indicate that couples who inflict violence differ from nonviolent couples by their tendency to
experience conflicts when in disagreement and to resort to negative affects as a resolution strategy.
In addition, while at an individual level, they show a tendency to withdraw from conflict and to
use less positive affect, at a dyadic level they present less symmetry. Results offer important
insights for prevention programs.
Keywords
Conflict resolution tactics; Dyadic interaction patterns; Adolescence; Dating violence
Adolescence is considered a pivotal period in human development during which several
changes can occur, including the emergence of romantic relationships (Collins, Welsh, &
Furman, 2009). Positive sexual and romantic development is an important component of
health and well-being and may be an essential element of other important adolescent
developmental tasks, such as self-identity and autonomy (Boislard & Zimmer-Gembeck,
2012). Romantic relationships can be seen as a unique learning opportunity in which
Corresponding author: Mylène Fernet, Ph.D., Département de sexologie, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888, Succursale
Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3C 3P8. fernet.mylene@uqam.ca.
PubMed Central CANADA
Author Manuscript / Manuscrit d'auteur
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
Published in final edited form as:
J Adolesc
. 2016 June ; 49: 51–59. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.02.004.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
adolescents build effective conflict management skills and resolve differences by balancing
their own needs with those of their partner and of the relationship (Simon & Furman, 2010).
Disagreements can provide an opportunity for partners to define their relationship and
differentiate among areas of agreement and disagreement (Darling, Cohan, Burns, &
Thompson, 2008). For most adolescents, the voluntary, egalitarian nature of a romantic
relationship motivates them to negotiate mutually satisfactory solutions. However, being in a
romantic relationship can be very stressful and challenging for some adolescents. The
combination of stress and high expectations may lead to the manifestation of behaviors
aimed at preserving the relationship at all costs (Harper & Welsh, 2007) even if it means
experiencing coercion and violence. Indeed, when destructive conflict tactics are used, they
can be detrimental to both the relationship and the individuals involved, and may result in
coercive and violent dating experiences (Simon & Furman, 2010).
From a harmonious and egalitarian romantic relationships and violence prevention
perspective, it is relevant to document sources of conflict and resolution strategies used by
adolescents in order to better understand the dynamics of dating violence (DV). Previous
research has shown how interaction patterns - be it positive or negative - in early romantic
relationships may come to be embedded and repeated in later adult relationships (Furman
&Wehner, 1997; Simon, Bouchey, & Furman, 2000). Indeed, a prospective longitudinal
study documenting the links between the characteristics of adolescents’ dating experiences
at ages 15 to 17.5 (e.g., involvement and quality) and quality of their romantic relationships
in young adulthood (ages 20–21) revealed that adolescents who experienced better quality
dating relationships had more harmonious interactions when resolving conflicts with their
romantic partners in young adulthood (e.g., negotiating conflict to mutual satisfaction,
effective and timely caregiving/seeking).
Managing conflicts in romantic relationships during adolescence
Adolescent romantic relationships are unique (Welsh & Furman, 2008) and come with
specific developmental challenges which may shape the way adolescents explore and
negotiate disagreement, discuss issues and find potential solutions (Darling et al., 2008).
Empirical studies suggest that adolescents display a greater tendency to ignore differences in
opinions in order to maintain a positive “facade” in their relationship (Tuval-Mashiach&
Shulman, 2006). According to Shulman, Mayes, Cohen, Swain, and Leckman (2008), even
when disagreements are explored, it is done superficially in order to preserve unity over
further discussion. When discussing and negotiating with their romantic partners, the most
commonly reported strategies are compromise, distraction and avoidance (Feldman &
Gowen, 1998).
During early adolescence relationship goals are primarily focused on relationship
preservation, whereas during late adolescence relationships generally involve a deeper
emotional commitment to the partner and to the relationship (Simon, Kobielski, & Martin,
2008). These developmental changes in romantic experiences are accompanied by
corresponding shifts in knowledge about the meaning of conflict. By late adolescence,
conflicts are often viewed as something expected that has somewhat of a more constructive
than destructive potential. Adolescents in this age group also tend to privilege relationship-
Fernet et al. Page 2
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
oriented goals rather than self-focused, partner-focused, and revenge goals. As such,
negotiation is more frequently used as a resolution strategy than compliance or aggression
(Simon et al., 2008). Yet we know little about conflict negotiation, couple dynamics in
adolescents.
Despite the relevance to study couple dynamics, mixed-methods studies are scarce (Dolbin-
MacNab, Rubén Parra-Cardona & Gale, 2014). In addition, very few studies include
observational indicators when examining adolescents and emerging adults’ relationships.
However, observational methods provide more specific information about temporal sequence
and nuanced patterns of interactional processes between partners in an interpersonal context
that cannot be solely obtained from global self-report measures (Welsh & Shulman, 2008).
In their study of 40 couples in late adolescence, Shulman, Tuval-Mashiach, Levran, and
Anbar (2006) performed a cluster analysis on couples’ interaction indicators which yielded
three distinctive conflict resolution patterns. The
Downplaying pattern
was characterized by
a high tendency to minimize the conflict. Adolescents displaying the
Integrative pattern
demonstrated a good ability to negotiate differences. Finally, adolescents utilizing the
Conflictive pattern
were characterized by a confrontational interaction style.
Conflicts and violence in marital literature
In the marital literature, verbal aggression or expressions of contempt or withdrawal, and
negativity or anger are all associated with relationship dissatisfaction and dissolution
(Darling et al., 2008). Studies show a link between the ways in which couples communicate
and deal with their disagreements and use of violence in their intimate relationships. In fact,
the majority of violent behaviors are manifested during a conflict (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995;
Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). As suggested, it is how conflicts are discussed and managed
which may be the most salient element, rather than the conflicts themselves (Heyman, 2001;
Weiss & Heyman, 1997). Hostility is linked to the use of physical violence both in men and
in women (Busby, Holman, & Walker, 2008; Robertson & Murachver, 2007). Withdrawal,
which is denying the existence of the problem, avoiding talking about it, or being disengaged
from the conflict is also associated with use of physical violence in couple relationships
(Katz, Carino, & Hilton, 2002). In adult couples, criticizing, blaming the other, or
withdrawing from the conflict are the most frequently reported communication problems
(Heyman, 2001). Most couples experience negative emotions including contempt and anger
when involved in a conflict-ridden discussion (Pérusse, Boucher & Fernet, 2012). Using
Gottman’s Marital Communication Conceptualization, a study conducted by Corenelius,
Shorey, and Beebe (2010) examined adaptive and maladaptive communication and violent
dating aggression in a sample of undergraduate students. Their results indicated that negative
communication behaviors were predictors of psychological and physical aggression in
dating relationships, suggesting that variables studied in marital relationships manifest
themselves in a similar fashion in adolescent dating relationships. In sum, current findings
suggest that romantic relationships in adolescence have a significant impact on later
relationships. The quality of romantic relationships in adolescence is linked to more
harmonious interactions and better conflict negotiation in adulthood. Yet, few studies on
dyadic interactions of adolescents and more specifically on interaction patterns of
adolescents using violence in situations of conflict have been conducted.
Fernet et al. Page 3
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
Methods
The present study relied on a mixed-methods design to obtain distinct yet also
complementary points of view on the phenomenon under study. We relied on a sequential
two-phase explanatory design (QUAL → Quan) (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) with a
preponderance given to qualitative analysis. The first phase aimed to explore conflict
resolution strategies in adolescent dating couples, and the second phase to document, from
both the perspective of the individual and couple, dyadic interaction patterns distinguishing
youth inflicting DV from those who do not.
Participants
Participants consisted of 39 young heterosexual couples aged 15–20 years (Mean age: 17.6).
Eligible subjects had to have a French-Canadian background and been in a heterosexual
dating relationship for more than two months. In this study, the term dating relationship
excluded partners who were cohabitating or who were a responsible caretaker of a
dependent child. Most of the respondents reported attending college (69.2%), high school
(12.8%), University (3.8%), while 14.1% were not in school at the time of the study. Most
adolescents had been dating their partner more than a year (average length 15.3 months;
ranging between 3 and 41 months). A total of 15% of participants were involved in their first
romantic relationship and 62.5% of adolescents reported their first sexual relation with the
current partner.
Procedure
Young couples were recruited through youth organizations from the Greater Montreal
(Quebec, Canada) area by soliciting youth workers who were susceptible to being in contact
with adolescents and from their living environments (e.g., schools, community
organizations, parks, and libraries) by direct solicitation, flyer distribution, information
booths and through word of mouth. Potential participants were first screened for eligibility
by telephone. Eligible couples came to our laboratory for a 2-hr session. After being greeted
by two experimenters, the study protocol was presented in detail to ensure adequate
comprehension of study goals, procedure, risks and benefits. Ethical considerations were
also discussed (e.g., voluntary and confidential participation, mandatory reporting to
authorities when the safety of the participant is believed to be compromised). Upon consent,
each member of the couple individually completed a set of questionnaires (average of 41
minutes), followed by an individual semi-structured interview (average of 48 minutes). The
couple was then reunited to participate in a videotaped interaction session consisting of a 3-
min warm-up activity followed by two 7-min discussions (average of 17 min). The warm-up
activity (i.e., plan an activity to do together with a limited budget) was used to allow the
couples to familiarize themselves with their surroundings and the testing situation. The
couples then discussed a topic of disagreement which was previously selected independently
by each partner from the
Adolescent Couples’ Issues Checklist
(ACIC; Welsh, Grello,
Dickson, & Harper, 2001). A counter-balanced approach was used to ensure that an equal
number of dyads discussed the male or female partner’s issue first. No observer was present
during the videotaped discussions. Following the interaction, individual debriefing was
provided and a list of psychosocial resources was handed out to all participants. Each
Fernet et al. Page 4
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
member of the couple was also given a $20 compensation for their time. This study received
the approval of the University’s institutional research ethics board.
Measures
Qualitative measures—Semi-directive individual interviews addressed the following
themes: 1) story of their romantic relationship; 2) romantic feelings, attachment and
intimacy; 3) general communication strategies; 4) conflict resolution strategies; 5) coping
strategies when confronted with problems. Individual interviews present several advantages,
such as offering each partner the possibility to disclose and discuss issues related to conflict
and violence freely and in all security (Stith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2003; Wittenborn, Dolbin-
MacNab & Keiley, 2013). Interviews were video recorded and transcribed verbatim. Content
analysis (Sabourin, 2008) was then performed. This type of analysis involves three steps: 1)
coding, which consists of dividing the material using a coding grid based on dimensions
drawn from the scientific literature, the theoretical framework and the empirical material; 2)
categorising, during which all the codified extracts are summarized and attributed themes in
order to make sense of the testimonies and to then create conceptual categories, and 3)
linking, which consists of identifying links between the conceptual categories. This
schematization process allows analysis to transition from a description to an explanation of
the studied phenomenon. The software Atlas.ti 5.0 was used for these operations.
Self-report measures. Perpetration of Dating Violence—DV was assessed using the
80-item VIFFA questionnaire (“Violence faite aux filles dans les fréquentations à
l’adolescence”) (Lavoie & Vézina, 2001). The measure assesses the number of times
respondent and their current partner have been the victim and/or the perpetrator of 40
specific DV acts, including psychological, sexual and/or physical. In the current study, we
focused specifically on perpetration of DV reported by the respondent against their current
dating partner. Examples of items include “I used physical force to make him/her have
sexual contact with me” and “I pushed or shook him/her in a moment of anger or
frustration.” Items are rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (more than 10
times). Internal consistency for the perpetration subscale was satisfactory with an alpha
score of .85. DV perpetration was treated as a dichotomous score (1 = yes and 0 = no),
indicating if participants had endorsed perpetrating at least one act of physical DV, one act
of sexual DV, or two or more acts of psychological DV.
Disagreement Topics—In order to identify two topics of disagreement for the
interactions, both partners were individually instructed to rate, on a 4-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (very often), the extent to which each topic of disagreement from
the
Adolescent Couples’ Issues Checklist
(ACIC; Welsh et al., 2001) was a problem in their
relationship. This checklist includes 17 common issues of disagreement between adolescent
romantic partners, as well as an option to write issues not on the list (e.g., “My partner and I
disagree about how much time we should spend with our friends”; “My partner gets jealous
when I talk to other boys/girls ; “My partner and I disagree about sex, sexual behaviors, or
contraception”). Researchers selected the most highly rated issue indicated by both partners
to discuss during the interaction.
Fernet et al. Page 5
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
Observational Measures and Coding—The Interactional Dimension Coding System
(IDCS; Julien, Chartrand, Markman, & Lindahl, 1991; Julien, Markman, & Lindahl, 1989)
was used to code key dimensions of the couples’ two videotaped discussions of problem
areas in their relationship. This global coding system was developed to better assess the
quality of problem-solving behaviors. It provides seven individual dimensions (e.g., each
partner receives a separate code by dimension) and four dyadic dimensions (e.g., the couple
is rated as a whole). Table 1 provides a brief overview of the definitions of all observed
variables. Individual dimensions are rated from 1 to 9 while dyadic dimensions range from 1
to 17, with higher scores indicating greater intensity of the behavior. Each discussion was
used as a unit of observation for the seven individual dimensions. For the purpose of this
study, Positive interaction and Negative interaction composite scores were created. The
Positive interaction subscale averaged positive affect, problem-solving skills, support/
validation, and communication skills dimensions (α for boys’ was .80, for girls’ it was .73).
The Negative interaction composite score averaged the negative affect, withdrawal, and
conflict dimensions (α for boys’ = .64; α for girls’ = .76). Two graduate students, who
received more than 80 h of training, coded the interactions. Several studies have
demonstrated the satisfactory reliability, concurrent validity with microscopic coding and
predictive validity of dyadic outcomes of the IDCS (for a review, see Kline et al., 2008).
Inter-coder agreement was assessed by independent coding of a randomly selected set of
30% of interactionsand used intra-class correlation (ICC, absolute agreement option).
Reliability scores were calculated for each of the individual and dyadic dimensions. In the
event of a divergence between coders (+1 point on the scale), the affect and content elements
in dispute were discussed until consensus was reached. Inter-rater agreement coefficient
ranged from .88 to .95. Preliminary analyses (correlations, t tests) did not support the need to
use the observed variables from both discussions in the analyses, as scores of the first and
second 7-min discussions were highly correlated and no significant differences were
identified between scores. On the basis of these results, for matters of parsimony and
considering the greater acclimation to being video-taped which may have led to more natural
behavior, only the scores from the second videotaped problem-solving discussion were used.
Results
Conflict resolution strategies within the couple
At phase 1, we qualitatively explored conflict resolution strategies used by couples. Data
analysis revealed three main types of conflict resolution strategies: 1) negotiating
expectations and individual needs; 2) avoiding conflicts or their resolution; 3) imposing
personal needs and rules through the use of violence. These strategies are summarized in
Table 2.
Negotiating expectations and individual needs—Most participants (52) believe that
the negotiation of expectations and needs is realized through self-expression and the search
for solutions. To resolve a conflict, some couples prefer to take a step back and choose a
more suitable time to start the discussion. “Instead of getting all worked up and calling him
right away and saying: “What the hell is this?”, I think about it by myself at first and can get
Fernet et al. Page 6
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
worked up alone in my room… I really try and visualize what it is I want to tell him.”
(Karine, 20 years old, dating Philippe).
Other participants reported immediately raising the issue and steering the discussion towards
a satisfactory compromise that suits both partners. “Let’s say that she wants to go the
movies, and I want to go out; we’ll make arrangements to go to the movies and then go out,
or something that will suit both of us” (Adam, 19 years old, dating Xéna).
To prevent the situation from escalating, the importance of addressing the problem quietly
without taking their frustrations out on each other seemed to be, from the participants’
perspective, a key element in the resolution process. “I’ll talk about the same problem, but
I’ll try not to get frustrated. In any case, if I’m angry, she’ll get angry again and it’ll never
end. It’s better to talk about it normally, to talk about it in a neutral tone. It’ll get resolved
much more easily than if the plates were flying” (Matéo, 18 years old, dating Jacinthe).
Avoiding conflicts or their resolution—Cited by a majority of participants (43),
avoiding strategies aimed to maintain a relative harmony within the couple and to prevent
the relationship from deteriorating. They are not necessarily perceived negatively by those
who employ them and are favoured in situations likely to generate tensions in the couple.
Such strategies consist of not addressing certain issues deemed sensitive, trivializing
problems and ignoring a partner or sulking to express dissatisfaction or anger. “Some things
pass under silence, and fade away after time. If not, it piles up onto the next time and she’ll
tell me about it” (Nathan, 19 years old, dating Laurie).
In conflict situations, some participants reported simply fleeing from any discussion
“Sometimes I want to talk to him about it [old relationships], but I feel like it would cause
me so much pain that I dissuade myself each time, even though I feel like it” (Jacinthe, 19
years old, dating Matéo).
Others mentioned hiding their dissatisfaction or acquiescing because they did not want to
displease their partner or in fear of being left. “When I’m angry, I don’t talk. I don’t look at
him, I don’t talk to him. He takes my hand, but I don’t do anything. I just look straight in
front of me” (Hannah, 17 years old, dating Étienne).
Imposing personal needs and rules through the use of violence—The third type
of strategy reported by 51 participants involves acts of violence during a conflict to control
or denigrate a partner. “I got really pissed. I told her: “ You can’t do that, what would you do
if I was seeing the cashier at work”. She said, “Oh, yeah, I would’ve been angry as well”.
Then, she says that I don’t allow her to see her friends that I lock her up. I tell her “No, it’s
that guy that I don’t want you to see” (Mikaël, 19 years old, dating Dalianne).
“He knows that he can’t really hurt me physically, so emotionally stays an option. He’ll try
to attack me, try to hurt me by telling me that I’m a slut” (Christine, 16 years old, dating
Edward).
In such cases, many participants felt the need to justify, during the interview, the contexts in
which they resorted to violence to resolve a conflict. Many of them emphasized the
Fernet et al. Page 7
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
unintentional and involuntary nature of these acts, stating that they were not directed at their
partner, but rather a response to a particular situation. “At first, I was pissed, I told her: “Go
get fucked by him!”. She was sad that that’s what I thought about her, but I don’t think that
of her” (François, 16 years old, dating Joanie). Many of them emphasized personality traits
or having witnessed such a method of conflict resolution in their family of origin to explain
their use of violence.
Tensions between trust and distrust: insecurities related to relationship rules
At phase 2, we focused on the testimonials of couples with conflictive patterns, in particular
those where one partner reported imposing personal needs and rules by using violence
during conflicts. A descriptive vignette illustrating two typical cases are presented in Table
3. These couples seem to grant a significant importance to transparency and to exclusivity.
“Everything is said. I can tell everything about my life, it doesn’t bother me and I want her
to tell me everything. If something happens, I want her to tell me. And I’ll ask her what she
did: “So, how was your night?”; “Oh, there were cute guys”; “Oh, there were hot chicks”, at
the end, that’s what it is.” (François, 16 years old, dating Joanie).
Couples who reported frequent use of violence emphasized how the trust between them and
their partner is unstable and easily disrupted during conflicts. They’re constantly
preoccupied by their fear of losing their partner and the eventuality that their partner will
cheat on them. “ Her confidence in me isn’t as good as it used to be… jealousy […] Yeah
well, I have a little more confidence in her, although sometimes I ask myself where she is,
what she’s doing, but not at the point of becoming crazy or anything, but…” (Edward, 16
years old, dating Christine).
Though, in reality, these relationship rules were oftentimes implicit, that is, they were not
discussed or negotiated according to the needs of both partners, but rather imposed by one of
the partners. The transgression of these rules, or the perception that the rules were
transgressed, gives rise to situations that degenerate into conflicts. “We had a lot of
arguments because he’s a charmer. I was his first stable girlfriend, but he was always really
close with everyone… It was often part of our arguments because at parties, he had a little
alcohol and he would quickly become touchy-feely, like putting his arms around other girls’
necks for example. And I’d be like, no that’s not gonna happen. So it took him like a year
for him to understand that he couldn’t do that with me, or it would be over […] We’d get
really angry and every night when we’d get back we’d argue” (Julie, 20 years old, dating
Mathieu).
To explore possible interaction specificities in couples reporting use of dating violence, we
also performed quantitative analyses on interactions. Out of a total of 39 couples, 23 boys
(59.0%) and 22 girls (56.4%) indicated having inflicted at least one form of violence against
their dating partner. Using McNemar’s chi-square tests for related samples (Siegel, 1956),
we found that the boyfriends (30.8%) had significantly higher rates of self-reported sexual
aggression than their girlfriends (0%), χ2 (1,
N
= 39) = 12.00,
p
< .001. No such difference
was found for psychological (38.5% vs. 48.7%; χ2 = 1.00,
p
= .317) or physical violence
(28.2% vs. 30.8.7%; χ2 = .08,
p
= .782). For 55.2% of the 29 couples reporting DV, acts of
Fernet et al. Page 8
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
perpetrated violence were self-reported by both partners and could be categorized as
bidirectional.
In order to explore the differences between the observed communication behaviors of
adolescents who inflicted violence against their dating partner and those who did not, a
series of
t
-tests were conducted. Table 4 summarizes the results of these analyses for both
boyfriends and girlfriends. Overall, when looking at positive and negative subscale scores,
both boys and girls who reported having perpetrated DV exhibited more negative
interactions during the videotaped problem-solving discussion than non-perpetrators. No
such differences were found for positive interactions. In regards to dyadic dimensions,
negative escalation was observed more in couples where the boyfriend (
p
= .002) or the
girlfriend (
p
= .012) had reported inflicting DV, while less interactional synchrony was
observed only for boys perpetrators (
p
= .020).
Discussion
Dating violence is a serious social problem and scholarly reports aiming to identify
correlates of inflicted violence in romantic contexts may offer possible cues for the
elaboration of prevention efforts. This study provides relevant data in this regard using a
mixed-method approach that allows, firstly, to improve our understanding of sources of
conflict in adolescent relationships and strategies used to deal with them and, secondly, an
exploration of possible interaction specificities in couples reporting use of violence.
According to the systems theory, conflict resolution strategies refer to stabilizing expectation
strategies, since the couple must redefine or reestablish its expectations, boundaries and
rules (Joly, 1986). This study attests to the tensions between trust and distrust that are
experienced by adolescents and emerging adults in the context of their romantic
relationships. Jealousy, an indicator of lack of trust within a relationship, was named by
most participants during interviews and was reported as a source of recurring conflict.
Conflicts related to issues of distrust and jealousy can be much greater in these young
couples where partners learn together to establish the boundaries of their relationship, such
as the place that can be occupied by ex-lovers, peers and friends of the opposite sex. In such
relationships, partners are confronted by the necessity to identify, express and question their
expectations and needs and, in turn, learn to consider the other.
The more a couple adopts flexible rules, the more it will be capable to adapt and face
conflicts accordingly. However, if a couple is inflexible and establishes rules that are too
restrictive, it will more likely experience difficulties in resolving the conflict and finding a
balance with separation becoming more probable (Joly, 1986). When balance is broken due
to a transgression of the established rules, in this case rules on transparency and exclusivity,
control mechanisms (anti-deviation) are put into place in order to bring back the deviating
partner within the established boundaries (Joly, 1986). These control mechanisms can be
positive (clarifications, open discussions, outside resources) or negative (hitting, humiliating
and manipulation) as demonstrated by the strategies reported in this study. These strategies
used in conflictual situations in the context of romantic relationships that echo the conflict
resolution patterns identified by Shulman et al. (2006) with a sample of late adolescents. The
Fernet et al. Page 9
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
first type of strategy observed in the present study consists of negotiating respective needs
and expectations by emphasizing self-affirmation and problem-solving. This strategy
appears closely related to the
Integrative pattern
characterized by a good ability to negotiate
differences. The second type, conflict avoidance or avoidance of resolution, shares some
resemblance to the
Downplaying pattern
characterized by a high tendency to minimize the
conflict. The third type of strategy, which consists of imposing rules and needs to the partner
by resorting to acts of violence, is similar to the
Conflictive pattern
.
Findings from the quantitative phase of this study suggest that communication skills for both
genders and positive affects for boys were the individual dimensions most frequently
observed during interactions. On a dyadic level, both positive and negative communication
skills were equally exhibited during partner interactions. Compared to non-perpetrators,
adolescent boys and girls who inflicting at least one type of DV showed, less positive affects
when interacting with their partner and more negative interactions. Marital literature
suggests that the majority of violent behaviors are manifested during conflicts (Cascardi &
Vivian, 1995; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). Literature on dating relationships among emerging
adults indicates that DV perpetration is associated with fewer instances of repair attempts
(e.g., tendency of partners to minimize negative statements, use of humor, and taking breaks
during conflicts) and influence acceptance (e.g., partner’s perception of shared influence on
their partner) (Cornelius, Shorey, & Beebe, 2010).
In regards to dyadic dimensions, in this study negative escalation was more often observed
in couples where the boyfriend or the girlfriend had reported inflicting DV, while less
interactional synchrony was observed only for boy perpetrators. Cornelius et al. (2010)
found that, among a sample of undergraduates, those who reported perpetrating DV in the
context of their romantic relationships tended to exhibit communication patterns that
escalated from neutral to negative affect in the initial broaching of a topic (
harsh start up
)
and used iterative, cascading response sequences with their partners (
Four Horsemen
).
The present study has limitations that can provide possible insights for future studies. The
sample is heterogeneous in terms of participants’ age (15–20 years old) as well as in the
duration of relationships (spanning from 3 months to nearly four years). Relationship goals
and how conflicts are perceived would be expected to vary significantly among early
adolescents and late adolescents (Simon et al., 2008). Thus, further studies should include
larger samples that could consider specificities linked to developmental periods.
The rather small sample size did not allow for more detailed analyses in relation to the
severity of violence inflicted. Future studies should recruit larger samples in order to
possibly identify dyadic interaction specificities in different subgroups. Indeed, studies
conducted with adult samples have found that those who inflict more severe violence are
different from those who inflict less severe or less chronic violence (Cunha & Gonçalves,
2013; Thijssen & De Ruiter, 2011). A typological approach may offer an insightful mean to
identify such profiles in adolescents. In addition such an analysis could identify specificities
in interaction patterns of adolescents vulnerable to DV (exposed to interparental violence,
having been sexually victimized in childhood, etc.).
Fernet et al. Page 10
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
A clear strength of the present study is the fact that both partners’ perspectives were
considered in the analyses. However, interactions were observed in a research setting; a
situation that may give rise to social desirability issues. For example, it is possible that social
desirability may have influenced the choice of conflict discussed by participants. Indeed,
while some participants’ answers suggested that sexuality was a central source of conflict in
their relationship during the individual interviews, they chose different topics of
disagreement to be discussed during the videotaped interactions; possibly reflecting
adolescents’ tendency to maintain a positive appearance and resorting to avoidance strategies
when confronted with situations of disagreement. During recruitment, participants were
informed that the study would address “communication and conflict resolution”. This may
have introduced a selection bias as, for example, youth experiencing more severe violence
could have been less favorable to participate in a study on conflict resolution.
In future studies relying on larger samples, APIM analyses should be considered to better
delineate both actor and partner effects and, therefore, simultaneously take into account
individual and dyadic factors (Campbell & Stanton, 2015). In addition, a longitudinal design
that could explore whether interactions patterns are stable over time, accentuate as the
relationship continues or repeat in subsequent relationships, would be of great value to this
field of study.
Our data suggest that a significant number of adolescents use violence tactics in their
romantic relationships, attesting to the need to implement efficient prevention strategies. In
terms of practical implications, our study highlights the relevance of going beyond
individual intervention to prevent DV by promoting healthy relationship skills (e.g.,
communication, conflict resolution) (Tharp et al., 2011). The present study also underscores
the relevance of helping adolescents in the identification of their needs and expectations as
well as the rules governing their relationships. In addition, strategies aiming to help
adolescents develop a critical outlook on their relational models and their conflict resolution
strategies may contribute to healthier romantic relationships.
References
Boislard, PMA.; Zimmer-Gembeck, M. Adolescent sexual behavior: Current knowledge, challenges
and implications for research and practice. In: Peterson, NE.; Campbell, W., editors. Sexuality:
Perspectives, Issues and Role in Society. New York, NY: NOVA Publishers; 2012. p. 153-168.
Busby DM, Holman TB, Walker E. Pathways to relationship aggression between adult partners.
Family Relations. 2008; 57(1):72–83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00484.x
Campbell, L.; Stanton, SCE. Actor-partner interdependence model. In: Cautin, RL.; Lilienfeld, SO.,
editors. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2015. p.
1-7.
Cascardi M, Vivian D. Context for specific episodes of marital violence: Gender and severity of
violence differences. Journal of Family Violence. 1995; 10(3):265–293. DOI: 10.1007/BF02110993
Collins WA, Welsh DP, Furman W. Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology.
2009; 60:631–652. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163459
Cornelius TL, Shorey RC, Beebe SM. Self-reported communication variables and dating violence:
Using Gottman’s marital communication conceptualization. Journal of Family Violence. 2010;
25(4):439–448. DOI: 10.1007/s10896-010-9305-9
Creswell, JW.; Plano Clark, VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2007.
Fernet et al. Page 11
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
Cunha O, Gonçalves RA. Intimate partner violence offenders: Generating a databased typology of
batterers and implications for treatment. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal
Context. 2013; 5(2):131–139. DOI: 10.5093/ejpalc2013a2
Darling N, Cohan CL, Burns A, Thompson L. Within-family conflict behaviors as predictors of
conflict in adolescent romantic relations. Journal of Adolescence. 2008; 31(6):671–690. DOI:
10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.10.003 [PubMed: 18992935]
Dolban-MacNab, ML.; Rubén Parra-Cordona, J.; Gale, JE. Mixed methods clinical research with
couples and families. In: Miller, RB.; Johnson, LN., editors. Advanced Methods in Family
Therapy Research. A Focus on Validity and Change. New York, NY: Routledge; 2014. p. 266-281.
Feldman SS, Gowen LK. Conflict negotiation tactics in romantic relationships in high school students.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1998; 27(6):691–717. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022857731497
Furman, W.; Wehner, EA. Adolescent romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. In:
Shulman, S.; Collins, WA., editors. Romantic Relationships in Adolescence: Developmental
Perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1997. p. 21-36.
Harper MS, Welsh DP. Keeping quiet: Self-silencing and its association with relational and individual
functioning among adolescent romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
2007; 24(1):99–116. DOI: 10.1177/0265407507072601
Heyman RE. Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applications, stubborn truths, and
shaky foundations. Psychological Assessment. 2001; 13(1):5–35. DOI: 10.1037//1040-3590.13.1.5
[PubMed: 11281039]
Johnson MP, Ferraro KJ. Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of
Marriage and Family. 2000; 62(4):948–963. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00948.x
Joly, Y. La thérapie de couple dans une perspective systémique: Approche interactionnelle. Montreal,
QC: Bellarim; 1986.
Julien, D.; Chartrand, E.; Markman, HJ.; Lindahl, KM. Systéme d’observation des dimensions
d’interaction. Département de psychologie, Université du Québec à Montréal; 1991. Document
inédit
Julien D, Markman HJ, Lindahl KM. A comparison of a global and a microanalytic coding system:
Implications for future trends in studying interactions. Behavioral Assessment. 1989; 11(1):81–
100.
Katz J, Carino A, Hilton A. Perceived verbal conflict behaviors associated with physical aggression
and sexual coercion in dating relationships: A gender-sensitive analysis. Violence and Victims.
2002; 17(1):93–109. DOI: 10.1891/vivi.17.1.93.33641 [PubMed: 11991160]
Kline, GH.; Julien, D.; Baucom, B.; Hartman, SG.; Gilbert, K.; Gonzales, T., et al. The interactional
dimensions coding system: A global system for couple interactions. In: Kerig, PK.; Baucom, DH.,
editors. Couple Observational Coding Systems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;
2004. p. 113-127.
Lavoie F, Vézina L. Violence faite aux filles dans le contexte des fréquentation à l’adolescence:
Elaboration d’un instrument (VIFFA) [Violence committed against girls in the context of
adolescent relationships: Élaboration of an instrument]. Revue Canadienne de santé mentale. 2001;
20(1):153–171. DOI: 10.7870/cjcmh-2001-0009
Pérusse F, Boucher S, Fernet M. Observation of couple interactions: Alexithymia and communication
behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences. 2012; 53(8):1017–1022. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.
2012.07.022
Robertson K, Murachver T. It takes two to tangle: Gender symmetry in intimate partner violence. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology. 2007; 29(2):109–118. DOI: 10.1080/01973530701331247
Sabourin, P. L’analyse de contenu. In: Gauthier, B., editor. Recherche sociale: De la problématique à la
collecte de données. 5. Québec, QC: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2008. p. 415-444.
Shulman S, Mayes LC, Cohen TH, Swain JE, Leckman JF. Romantic attraction and conflict
negotiation skills among late adolescent and early adult romantic couples. Journal of Adolescence.
2008; 31:729–745. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.02.002 [PubMed: 18835494]
Shulman S, Tuval-Mashiach R, Levran E, Anbar S. Conflict resolution patterns and longevity of
adolescent romantic couples: A 2-year follow-up study. Journal of Adolescence. 2006; 29(4):575–
588. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.018 [PubMed: 16198410]
Fernet et al. Page 12
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1956.
Simon, V.; Bouchey, HA.; Furman, W. The social construction of adolescent’s representation of
romantic relationships. In: Larose, S.; Tarabulsy, GM., editors. Attachment and development. Vol.
2. Québec, QC: Les Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2000. p. 301-326.
Simon VA, Furman W. Interparental conflict and adolescents’ romantic relationship conflict. Journal of
Research on Adolescence. 2010; 20(1):188–209. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00635.x
[PubMed: 20186259]
Simon VA, Kobielski SJ, Martin S. Conflict beliefs, goals, and behavior in romantic relationships
during late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2008; 37(3):324–335. DOI: 10.1007/
s10964-007-9264-5
Stith, SM.; Penn, C.; Ward, D.; Tritt, D. Partner violence assessment. In: Jordan, DK., editor.
Handbook of Couple and Family Assessment. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers; 2003. p.
187-210.
Tharp AT, Burton T, Freire K, Hall DM, Harrier S, Latzman NE. Dating matters: Strategies to promote
healthy teen relationships. Journal of Women’s Health. 2011; 20(12):1761–1765. DOI: 10.1089/
jwh.2011.3177
Thijssen J, De Ruiter C. Identifying subtypes of spousal assaulters using the B-SAFER. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence. 2011; 26:1307–1321. DOI: 10.1177/0886260510369129 [PubMed:
20522890]
Tuval-Mashiach R, Shulman S. Resolution of disagreements between romantic partners, among
adolescents, and young adults: Qualitative analysis of interaction discourses. Journal of Research
on Adolescence. 2006; 16(4):561–588. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00508.x
Weiss, RL.; Heyman, RE. A clinical-research overview of couples interactions. In: Halford, KW.;
Markman, HJ., editors. Clinical Handbook of Marriage and Couples Interventions. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1997. p. 13-41.
Welsh, DP.; Grello, CM.; Dickson, JW.; Harper, MS. The Adolescent Couples’ Issues Checklist
(ACIC). Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee; Knoxville, TN 37996–0900, USA:
2001. Unpublished questionnaire
Welsh DP, Shulman S. Directly observed interaction within adolescent romantic relationships: What
have we learned? Journal of Adolescence. 2008; 31:877–891. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.
2008.10.001 [PubMed: 18986697]
Wittenborn AK, Dolbin-MacNab ML, Keiley MK. Dyadic research in marriage and family therapy:
Methodological considerations. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2013; 39(1):5–16. DOI:
10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00306.x [PubMed: 25073839]
Fernet et al. Page 13
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author
Manuscript
Fernet et al. Page 14
Table 1
Definition of the observed variables
a
Construct Definition
Individual dimensions
Positive interactions
Communication skill Refers to an individual’s ability to convey thoughts and feelings in a clear, constructive manner (e.g., self-disclose
emotions; expressing emotions clearly).
Support/validation Refers to positive listening and speaking skills that an individual uses to demonstrate support and understanding to
his or her partner (e.g., being attentive when the partner is talking; expression of concern and sympathy for the
partner).
Problem solving Refers to an individual’s ability to define a problem and work toward a mutually satisfactory solution for the
problem. It is based on the individual’s ability to try to solve the problem, not on whether the problem was actually
solved (e.g. recognizing the existence of the problem; negotiating compromises).
Positive affect Refers to positivity expressed through facial expressions, body positioning, and tone of voice (e.g., relaxed posture;
smiling).
Negative interactions
Conflict Refers to behaviors that encourage arguing. For example, the level of tension, hostility, oppositionality, antagonism,
and negative affect displayed (e.g., tension in the body; negative comments toward the partner).
Withdrawal Refers to attempting to avoid an interaction or discussion through body language or stating a desire not to discuss a
topic. It is actively rejecting the existence of the disagreement or denying personal responsibility for the problem
(e.g., avoiding visual contact; changing the topic).
Negative affect Refers to negativity expressed through facial expressions, body positioning, and tone of voice (e.g., frowning; angry
voice).
Dyadic dimensions
Interactional synchrony Refers to a pattern in which the partners’ behaviors are synchronized or coordinated. It is viewed as the organization
of the content according to the rhythm or pace of the conversation.
Negative escalation Refers to a pattern in which a negative behavior of one partner is followed by a negative behavior of the other and so
forth, creating a snowball effect. To be rated very highly on Negative Escalation, both partners must give the
impression of triggering each other’s negative verbal and nonverbal behaviors.
Dominance Refers to a pattern in which one partner is able to control or influence his or her partner. To be rated highly on the
Dominance dimension, there has to be an asymmetry in terms of who directs the content and the flow of the
conversation (e.g., one partner interrupts the other more often; one talks more than the other).
Editing Refers to a pattern in which one of the two partners responds positively or neutrally to the other partner’s negative
behavior. This pattern of behavior is considered as a mechanism which prevents negative escalation during couple
discussions.
a
Source: Julien et al., 1991; Kline et al., 2004, p. 116–117.
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author
Manuscript
Fernet et al. Page 15
Table 2
Conflict resolution strategies within the couple.
1 Negotiating expectations and individual needs: self-expression and search for solutions
a. Taking a step back and continuing the discussion at a more opportune time (52)
b. Raising the issue and searching for a compromise that suits both partners (51)
c. Approaching the issue calmly while avoiding getting angry (37)
d. Crying to vent emotions and to express discomfort (27)
e. Communicating through writing to weigh words and identify reactions (8)
2 Avoiding conflicts or their resolution: trivializing problems, ignoring the other or sulking, self-censorship or
acquiescing to demands, fleeing
discussions
a. Not addressing certain confrontational subjects or trivializing problems (43)
b. Ignoring the other or sulking to express dissatisfaction or anger (28)
c. Expressing anger alone or canalising it into other activities (20)
d. Self-censorship or acquiescing to avoid displeasing the other or in fear of being left (17)
e. Fleeing discussions about the conflict (16)
3 Imposing personal needs and rules by using violence: hurting, controlling, dominating, blaming or provoking the
other
a. Raising one’s voice to be heard or saying hurtful things (51)
b. Dictating terms to control the other (27)
c. Inflicting physical harm during an argument that degenerates (24)
d. Venting frustration and anger in front of the other (19)
e. Making the other suffer to get revenge (16)
f. Dominating the discussion in order to have the last word (11)
g. Provoking the other to obtain a reaction (7)
h. Making the other carry the blame (7)
Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of participants who reported having used each strategy and are not mutually exclusive.
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author
Manuscript
Fernet et al. Page 16
Table 3
Descriptive vignette.
Vignette 1. François, 16 years old and Joanie, 17 years old
François and Joanie have been seeing each other for six months. They met on the internet. It was François’ humor that charmed Joanie and
they decided to contact each other by phone. When they are having conflicts, they tend not to look for a solution. Instead, they’ll insult and
belittle one another, argue loudly and sometimes become physically aggressive. Their words suggest that their communication isn’t axed on a
search for solutions, but rather on the domination of the other. Francois says he has difficulties managing his physical force and self-control. He
mentions that he’s already been afraid of harming his girlfriend and that he has a tendency to justify his acts by exterior motives. Sexuality,
faithfulness and relationships with peers of the opposite sex are the main sources of conflicts cited by François. Joanie, for her part, is very shy
during the interview. She’s not very talkative and stays discrete on the problems her couple faces. She mentions that her boyfriend likes to assert
his superiority and usually dominates all discussions.
Vignette 2. Edward and Christine, 16 years old
Christine and Edward have been in a relationship for seven months. They met at their high school. Both report that they were charmed by the
other’s humor and physique. Christine mentions that communication isn’t always easy, Edward gets angry very quickly, is impulsive and has
trouble managing his frustrations. She also specifies that her boyfriend has been in therapy since he was a young boy because he has trouble
feeling his emotions. Christine explains that Edward is very jealous and forbids her to see and talk to her friends. Her friends don’t like Edward
and neither does he like them, which disappoints Christine a lot. She also recalls situations when there was the presence of control and physical
violence. Edward describes himself as a jealous person, and says little about the violent incidents when the question is raised. He has a tendency
to trivialize his violent behaviors. Though he mentions the fact that he loves his girlfriend and sees himself with her in the future.
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author Manuscript PMC Canada Author
Manuscript
Fernet et al. Page 17
Table 4
Observed variables by history of violence against a dating partner and gender.
Boyfriends Girlfriends
No DV (n - 16)
M(SD) At least one type of DV (n - 23)
M(SD) t p No DV (n - 17)
M(SD) At least one type of DV (n - 22)
M(SD) t p
Individual dimensions
Positive interaction
4.7 (1.0) 4.2 (1.6) 1.245
ns
4.6 (.8) 4.3 (1.4) .728
ns
Negative interaction
3.1 (1.4) 4.1 (1.6) −2.090 .044
*
3.2 (1.0) 4.1 (1.8) −1.946
ns
Dyadic dimensions
Interactional synchrony 5.9 (2.0) 4.5 (1.8) 2.423 .020
*
5.6 (1.6) 4.7 (2.2) 1.449
ns
Negative escalation 1.1 (.3) 2.7 (2.1) 3.378 .002
*
1.2 (.6) 2.6 (2.2) 2.647 .012
*
Dominance 9.5 (2.7) 8.9 (2.4) .717
ns
8.9 (2.4) 9.3 (2.6) .463
ns
Editing 8.8 (.6) 8.7 (1.7) .347
ns
8.8 (.8) 8.6 (1.7) .745
ns
Note
: DV - Dating Violence;
*p
< .01.
J Adolesc
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 22.
