“Micro‐cultures” of conflict

Couple‐level perspectives on reasons for and causes of intimate partner violence in young adulthood

Bibliographic Data

ID18948939
AuthorsP C Giordano (0000-0002-2484-0886, Department of Sociology and Center for Family and Demographic Research Bowling Green State University Bowling Green Ohio USA, corresponding author), Mackenzie M Grace (0000-0002-1041-1765, College of Health and Human Services Bowling Green State University Bowling Green Ohio USA), Monica A Longmore (0000-0001-8368-8928, Department of Sociology and Center for Family and Demographic Research Bowling Green State University Bowling Green Ohio USA), W D Manning (0000-0002-8063-7380, Department of Sociology and Center for Family and Demographic Research Bowling Green State University Bowling Green Ohio USA)
Year2022
Volume84
Issue4
Pages1062-1080
Publication date2022-08-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Marriage and the Family (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-2445 • E-ISSN: 1741-3737
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/jomf.12864
PMID36245675
OpenAlexW4283268541
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited39

Objective: To highlight the development of young adult couples' shared understandings about reasons for conflict in their relationships, views about why some disagreements included the use of aggression ("causes"), and gendered perspectives on these relationship dynamics. Background: Feminist theories have centered on relationship dynamics associated with intimate partner violence (IPV), but have focused primarily on men's concerns (e.g., jealousy) and use of violence as a means of control over female partners. The current analysis drew on symbolic interaction theory as a framework for exploring couple-level concerns, and ways in which dyadic communication contributes to these understandings, or what can be considered "micro-cultures" of conflict. Method: = 90). Results: Analyses revealed that women's concerns about men's actions (e.g., infidelity) were frequently cited as reasons for serious conflicts, and showed significant concordance in partners' reports. Shared understandings sometimes extended to views on the role of more distal causes (e.g., family background) and the meaning(s) of each partner's use of aggression. Gendered dynamics included men's tendency to minimize women's concerns, and both partners' more open discussions of women's perpetration. Conclusions: Theories of IPV and associated programmatic efforts should include attention to the social construction of these "micro-cultures," as these shared meanings affect behavior, are potentially malleable, and add to the more intuitive focus on one-sided forces of control and constraint.

Affect (linguistics) · Aggression · Concordance · Developmental psychology · Domestic violence · Jealousy · Meaning (existential) · Poison control · Attachment and Relationship Dynamics · Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression · Human Factors and Ergonomics · Intimate Partner and Family Violence · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access