Greater Negativity, Less Positivity
Partners in physically abusive relationships are much more likely than other partners to engage in a variety of negative conflict behaviors that do little to solve their problems.
These include the following: signs of anger and contempt (Burman et al., 1993; Gordis et al., 2005; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1998); other demonstrations of hostility include exasperation, blaming, and critical assessments of the partner (Gordis et al., 2005; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1998); and the expression of critical feelings, interruptions, and dominance of the floor (Berns, Jacobson, & Gottman, 1999).Conversely, physically abusive partners are less likely to rely on the following positive conflict management behaviors that promote resolution: showing affec- tion/caring, positive energy, validation of the partner, backchannel responses, and humor (Berns et al., 1999; Burman et al., 1993; Gordis et al., 2005); negotiation and focus on the problem (Berns et al., 1999; Gordis et al., 2005); and flexibility (Gordis et al., 2005). In brief, the mere frequencies regarding these conflict strategies present a radically different profile of how couples in physically abusive marriages differ from those in non-physically abusive marriages. Both husbands and wives, ironically, engage in negative conflict strategies that reveal not only their dissatisfaction with their marriage but also their sheer contempt for their marital partner.
In addition, physically abusive partners are much more likely than others to engage in dysfunctional patterns of interaction over time. Burman et al. (1993) found that physically abusive couples “are characterized not only by more hostile affect overall but also by a number of contingent patterns involving anger” (p. 36). Two features of couple conflict patterns emerged: (1) physically abusive couples more likely initiate and perpetuate patterns of anger exchange; and (2) they have fewer alternative responses to anger (such as validation).
The rigid patterns of negativity were likewise reported in Jacobson et al. (1994). In Jacobson et al., wives indicated that their husbands were likely to be violent when they (the wives) were violent, when they verbally defended themselves, and even when they attempted to withdraw from the conflict. Husbands indicated their violence continued only when the wife was violent or when she was emotionally abusive (p. 985).A few studies have also found that physically abusive husbands engage in more frequent demand and withdrawal behavior. That is, physically abusive husbands demand change from the wife, which is counter to the norm in non-violent marriages where the wife is more likely to demand and the husband withdraws (e.g., Babcock et al., 1993; Berns et al., 1999; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1998). Berns et al. (1999) summarized their data accordingly (p. 672):
Batterers put continued and exceedingly high levels of pressure on their wives for change. Yet they simultaneously avoided and withdrew from their wives’ efforts to change them. In contrast, although their wives simultaneously demanded change, any tendencies they might have had to withdraw from their husbands’ change demands were suppressed.
In other words, abusive husbands demand change but withdraw from conflict it their wives want change. But wives in abusive relationships do not appear to have the option to withdraw.