968

Longitudinal Effect of Defensive Denial on Relationship Instability
Daniel G. Lannin, Karen E. Bittner, and Frederick O. Lorenz
Iowa State University
Maladaptive communication may often undermine the long-term stability of romantic relationships. We
hypothesized that defensive denial may be a salient type of maladaptive communication that erodes
relationship stability over time because it may lead to more caustic conflict-escalating behaviors.
Additionally, we hypothesized that defensive denial observed in romantic relationships could be linked
back to defensive denial observed in the family of origin. Using data from the Family Transitions Project,
we specified longitudinal models in which observed defensive denial in romantic relationships affected
self-reported and partner-reported relationship instability both directly and indirectly through self-
reported and partner-reported conflict-escalating behaviors. Models also traced defensive denial observed
in romantic relationships back to defensive denial observed in the family of origin nearly 10 years earlier,
while participants were in late adolescence. Results from structural equation models supported the first
two hypotheses. For both men and women, defensive denial was mediated by conflict-escalating
behaviors to cause greater relationship instability over time. Additionally, there was evidence that the
expressions of defensive denial in romantic relationships may have been learned in the family of origin
for women, but not for men.
Keywords: relationships, relationship instability, denial, defensiveness, longitudinal
Longitudinal research on marriages and romantic relationships
has produced a substantial literature that addresses why these
relationships often destabilize and deteriorate (Karney & Brad-
bury, 1995). Behavioral models of marriages and romantic rela-
tionships have identified maladaptive communication patterns as
important predictors of divorce (e.g., Buehlman, Gottman, & Katz,
1992; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Gottman & Levenson, 1999,
2000), and intergenerational transmission studies have examined
how enduring vulnerabilities emerge from the family of origin to
predict dissolution of marriage and romantic relationships (e.g.,
Ehrensaft, Knouse-Westfall, & Cohen, 2011; Cui, Durtschi, Don-
nellan, Lorenz, & Conger, 2010). The present study used a behav-
ioral model to study the effect of defensive denial on the stability
of romantic relationships, and traced that defensive denial back to
previous defensive denial that occurred years earlier in the family
of origin. For the present study, defensive denial1
was conceived
as a subset of defensive behaviors that fail to acknowledge the
reality of a situation or fail to acknowledge personal responsibility
for a situation in ways that may or may not include misattribution
to other external causes (American Psychiatric Association, 2000;
Melby et al., 1990; Melby & Conger, 2001).
Defensiveness and Defensive Denial in Romantic
Relationships
Defensiveness refers to communication that functions to protect
the self from perceived attack by deflecting responsibility or blame
(Coan & Gottman, 2007), and has been found to provoke further
defensiveness in others (Gibb, 1961). Two prominent microana-
lytic relational coding systems use the category of defensiveness in
describing behaviors that function to protect the self from per-
ceived attack: the Specific Affect Coding System (Coan & Gott-
man, 2007) and the Rapid Couples Interaction Scoring Systems
(Krokoff, Gottman, & Hass, 1989). Indicators of defensiveness in
the Specific Affect Coding System include “yes–but” statements,
meeting complaints with countercomplaints, minimizing the de-
gree of a problem, making excuses to reduce personal responsi-
bility for a problem, and aggressive denials of personal responsi-
bility. Indicators of defensiveness in the Rapid Couples Interaction
Scoring System include the sum of excuse, deny responsibility,
negative solution, and negative mind-reading behaviors. Using
these coding systems, defensiveness has been identified as an
important predictor of marital instability, divorce, and relevant
factors associated with marriage dissolution such as marital prob-
lems that require therapy, self-described chaotic lives, lack of
fondness and “we-ness,” conflict-avoidant behaviors, and consis-
tent use of negatively coded interpersonal behaviors (Alexander,
1
It should be noted that the term “defense” or “defense mechanism”
refers to an automatic psychological process (Cramer, 2000), whereas
“defensiveness” in the romantic relationship literature refers to observable
behaviors (e.g., Coan & Gottman, 2007). Thus, to clarify this distinction
between internal psychological processes and observable behaviors, we
have chosen to use the term “denial” when referring to the associated
automatic psychological process, and “defensive denial” when referring to
observable interpersonal behaviors.
This article was published Online First November 4, 2013.
Daniel G. Lannin and Karen E. Bittner, Department of Psychology, Iowa
State University; Frederick O. Lorenz, Departments of Psychology and
Statistics, Iowa State University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniel G.
Lannin, Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Lagomarcino
W112, Ames, IA 50011. E-mail: dglannin@iastate.edu
ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.
Journal of Family Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association
2013, Vol. 27, No. 6, 968–977 0893-3200/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0034694
968

1973; Barton, Alexander, & Turner, 1988; Buehlman et al., 1992;
Carstensen, Gottman, & Levenson, 1995; Gottman & Krokoff,
1989; Gottman & Levenson, 1992, 1999, 2000; Wright & Fichten,
1976).
Despite the success and prominence of microanalytic coding
systems as tools for investigating behavior interactions in romantic
relationships, they have also drawn criticism for using behavioral
categories that include too broad an array of behaviors (King,
2001). Specifically, defensiveness has been criticized for including
behaviors not directly related to the theoretical conceptions of
defensive communication. Indeed, it could be argued that numer-
ous negative interpersonal processes such as criticism, contempt,
stonewalling, and hostility also provide defensive functions, inso-
far as they are enacted to protect an individual from perceived
attacks. Even though the broad operationalization of defensiveness
may increase its ability to predict relational outcome variables, this
broadness also decreases its theoretical precision (King, 2001).
Thus, identifying relevant dimensions of defensiveness may illu-
minate relevant interpersonal factors that influence romantic rela-
tionships.
The Defensive Functioning Scale may give some insight into the
relevant dimensions of defensiveness, as it categorizes defenses
empirically and conceptually according to the degree to which they
are adaptive (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-
ders, fourth edition, text revision [DSM–IV–TR]; American Psy-
chiatric Association, 2000). Defensive functioning ranges from
high adaptive level defenses, which result in optimal handling of
stressors to defenses on the level of dysfunctional dysregulation,
which are so maladaptive that they can lead to objective breaks
with reality. The Defensive Functioning Scale may thus give some
insight into the salient dimensions of defensiveness by providing a
theoretical guide for delineating the degrees of adaptive and mal-
adaptive responses to stressors.
One potential dimension of defensiveness that we were able to
address in the present study was defensive denial. Denial involves
“refusing to acknowledge some painful aspect of external reality or
subjective experience that would be apparent to others,” and is
categorized as a defense on the disavowal level along with other
defenses such as projection and rationalization that are character-
ized by keeping aversive stressors, impulses, affects, or responsi-
bility from awareness (p. 811; American Psychiatric Association,
2000). Denial has been associated with behaviors such as mini-
mizing, disputing, or rejecting the implications of threatening
information, discounting negative feedback, and acting as though
one were personally invulnerable (Baumeister, Dale, & Sommer,
1998; Cramer, 2000, 2006, 2008; Lazarus, 1983).
In the present study, defensive denial was operationalized to
capture a subset of defensiveness that is specifically associated
with disavowal, that is, behaviors that fail to acknowledge the
reality of or personal responsibility for situations (Iowa Family
Interaction Rating Scales; Melby et al., 1990; Melby & Conger,
2001). Thus, although the function of defensive denial may be
similar to defensiveness, it represents a narrower construct because
it taps distinct disavowing strategies. Additionally, defensive de-
nial is distinguished from the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”
(Gottman, 1993, 1994) because defensive denial is marked by
disavowal, and does not overtly function to attack character (crit-
icism), communicate disgust (contempt), or engage in nonrespon-
siveness (stonewalling).
There is good reason to expect that defensive denial may be
detrimental to romantic relationships (Knee, Patrick, Vietor,
Nanayakkara, & Neighbors, 2002; Lazarus, 1983). A factor anal-
yses of the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales found that
defensive denial loads onto a larger negativity factor along with
other observed behaviors such as hostility, disruptive processes,
contempt, angry coercion, dominance, verbal attacks, interroga-
tion, and externalized negativity (Williamson, Bradbury, Trail, &
Karney, 2011). It is likely that defensive denial may harm rela-
tionship stability because it fails to acknowledge and address
conflict. For example, we operationalize defensive denial as ob-
served behaviors where individuals explicitly or implicitly denied
the existence of a problem, denied personal responsibility for a
problem, claimed that everything was okay, avoided blame by not
recognizing the problem, or provided excuses for their behavior
(Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales; Melby et al., 1990; Melby
& Conger, 2001). It is likely that couples who overuse strategies
such as defensive denial are not constructively engaging their
relationship difficulties, but are attempting to avoid conflict (Pe-
terson, 2002). Insofar as defensive denial averts constructively
engaging relationship problems, it may indirectly exacerbate rela-
tionship difficulties.
Defensive Denial and Overt Conflict-Escalating
Behaviors
In addition to failing to address conflict, it is likely that defen-
sive denial also elicits negative interpersonal reactions such as
irritability, tension, and persistence of the problem—that ulti-
mately may find expression in more overt conflict-escalating be-
haviors (Deutsch, 1973, 1990). We operationalize conflict-
escalating behaviors to include more explicitly damaging
interpersonal communication, for example, refusing to work out
solutions to problems, criticizing one’s partner, blaming one’s
partner for one’s problems, and insisting that one’s partner agree to
one’s own solution to a problem (Conger, Elder, Lorenz, Simons,
& Whitbeck, 1994). It is important to distinguish the notable
conceptual and operational differences between defensive denial
and conflict-escalating behaviors in the present study. Whereas
defensive denial may correspond to disavowing and diverting
behaviors that occur during the early avoidance versus engage-
ment stage of conflict, overt conflict-escalating behaviors are rep-
resentative of hostile fighting that occurs during the later escala-
tion versus negotiation stage of conflict (Peterson, 2002). That is,
defensive denial captures behaviors that attempt to avoid conflict
and blame through disavowal, whereas conflict-escalating behav-
iors are intended to be adversarial attacks, thereby marking a more
serious degree of relationship dysfunction.
Transmission of Defensive Denial From Family of
Origin to Future Romantic Relationships
As Karney and Bradbury (1995) noted, behavioral models of
marriage and romantic relationships may benefit from accounting
for enduring vulnerabilities, which are experiences or traits that
exist before romantic relationships occur. Intergenerational re-
search has often involved linking adverse traits, behaviors, and
outcomes in the family of origin and matching them to the traits,
behaviors, and outcomes in families of destination. This body of
969DEFENSIVE DENIAL AND RELATIONSHIP INSTABILITY

work has established that adverse experiences in the family of
origin are often carried forward into the next generation to nega-
tively affect functioning in future romantic relationships (Cui et
al., 2010; Ehrensaft et al., 2011). Previous research has found that
negative interpersonal processes may be a prominent enduring
vulnerability from the family of origin that people bring into their
future romantic relationships (Story, Karney, Lawrence, & Brad-
bury, 2004). It is conceivable, then, that defensive denial may be
one such negative interpersonal process that individuals use in the
family of origin, and bring into future romantic relationships.
Overview
Our purpose in this study was to closely consider the effects of
defensive denial on relationship stability in a cohort of young
couples. The model we developed looked forward to the mediating
mechanisms linking defensive denial to relationship stability, and
looked back to experiences in the family of origin for insight into
the persistent patterns of behavior that may perpetuate this form of
harmful interaction. Specifically, we hypothesized that defensive
denial would exacerbate relationship instability because it would
engender more relationally damaging conflict-escalating behav-
iors. Additionally, we hypothesized that defensive denial in ro-
mantic relationships and its influence on relationship instability
could be traced back to learned behaviors that occurred nearly 10
years earlier in the family of origin. Figure 1 shows the hypothe-
sized associations between variables. We tested these hypotheses
with longitudinal data over a 14-year period from the Family
Transitions Project, and used a combination of observational data,
self-report, and partner-report data from both romantic partners.
Method
Participants
In 1989, Conger et al. (1994) began the Iowa Youth and Fam-
ilies Project to study the effects of the 1980s farm crisis on rural
Iowa families. They contacted schools in rural Iowa and invited
7th grade target students to participate in the study. Students were
eligible if they were living with their biological parents and had a
sibling within four years of age. Participants were compensated
according to the number of tasks and questionnaires they com-
pleted. In 1991, Simons (1996) initiated a parallel study, the Iowa
Single Parent Project, which focused on recently divorced single
mothers. Participants in the Iowa Single Parent Project were ninth
graders in 1991 who were living with their biological mothers and
had a sibling within four years of age. In 1994, the two projects
were combined to create The Family Transitions Project, leading
to a total number of 525 targets.
The sample used for the current study included 748 participants
(383 women, 51.2%) who were either the targets or the romantic
partners of targets from the Family Transitions Project (women:
age2007, M ϭ 31.1 year, SD ϭ 2.1, range ϭ 23.1–43.8 years,
Hispanic ϭ 0.8%; Non-Hispanic ϭ 93.2%; European American ϭ
97.0%, Black/African American ϭ 1.1%, Asian ϭ 0.3%, Native
American/Alaskan Native ϭ 0.3%, Other ϭ 0.8%; men: age2007,
M ϭ 33.0 years, SD ϭ 3.7, range ϭ 22.7–54.6 years; Hispanic ϭ
1.1%; Non-Hispanic ϭ 93.2%, European American ϭ 98.1%,
Asian ϭ 0.3%, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander ϭ 0.3%, Native
American/Alaskan Native ϭ 0.3%, Other ϭ 1.1%). Of this sample,
the majority (women: n ϭ 320, 83.6%; men: n ϭ 319, 82.5%)
originated from the Iowa Youth and Families Project and the
remainder were from the Iowa Single Parent Project. Participants
were in heterosexual relationships, and were either married (wom-
en: n ϭ 248, 64.7%; men: n ϭ 234, 64.2%) or cohabiting full-time
or part-time; those who were not married or cohabiting were
excluded from these analyses. Of the 365 couples who completed
outcome data in 2007, 323 (88%) couples had the same partner in
2005, 281 (77%) had the same partner in 2003, 242 (66%) of
couples had the same partner in 2001, and 190 (52%) had the same
partner in 1999.
Procedure
Data collection included in-home interviews for participants
who consented to an observational discussion task with their
families of origin in 1999, and with their romantic partners in
1999, 2001, and 2003. Before an interviewer visit, participants
were mailed a packet of “homework” questionnaires. After partic-
ipants completed the homework questionnaires, trained interview-
ers traveled to their homes, video-recorded interaction tasks, and
administered additional questionnaires.
Relationship
instability
Denial in
RR
Denial in
FOO
Conflict-
escalating
Figure 1. Theoretical model of proposed relationships between defensive denial, conflict-escalating behaviors,
and relationship instability. FOO ϭ family of origin; RR ϭ romantic relationship; Denial ϭ defensive denial;
Conflict-escalating ϭ conflict-escalating behaviors.
970 LANNIN, BITTNER, AND LORENZ

Measures
Defensive denial. The current study used observed defensive
denial wherein interpersonal interactions were scored by coders
who were trained to assess a number of behaviors in the video-
taped discussion task. Coders were required to pass written tests at
90% accuracy and were required to pass viewing tests at 80%
accuracy before coding tapes. Coders also participated in 1.5 hours
of group training meetings each week during the coding process.
Trained observers coded defensive denial using the Iowa Family
Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1990; Melby & Conger,
2001).
Defensive denial was operationalized as a subset of defensive
behaviors that fail to acknowledge the reality of a situation or fail
to acknowledge personal responsibility for a situation in ways that
may or may not include misattribution to other external causes.
That is to say, defensive denial was marked by the degree to which
individuals explicitly or implicitly denied the existence of a prob-
lem, denied personal responsibility for a problem, or provided
excuses for their behavior during the discussion task. Behaviors
coded as defensive denial could be verbal, such as denying that the
situation raised by the partner exists, claiming that everything is
okay, changing the subject of discussion suddenly, excusing one’s
own behavior by saying “just kidding,” or projecting fault onto
someone or something else. Behaviors coded as defensive denial
could also be nonverbal, such as physically turning away from the
partner or shaking one’s head. Participants’ defensive denial dur-
ing the discussion task was scored on a 9-point Likert scale, where
1 ϭ not at all characteristic and 9 ϭ mainly characteristic.
The current analyses included two defensive denial factors, each
coded by trained observers at different points in time. The first
defensive denial factor assessed observed defensive denial in the
family of origin (1994), when targets were adolescents, and com-
prised observed ratings of each family member’s behavior toward
the other family members. This factor included three observed
ratings of defensive denial: father’s defensive denial, mother’s
defensive denial, and target’s defensive denial. These scores were
combined to create a latent factor of defensive denial in the family
of origin. The second factor of defensive denial assessed observed
defensive denial in the romantic relationship, when targets were in
early adulthood. This factor comprised three observed ratings over
time (1999, 2001, and 2003) that consisted of either men’s defen-
sive denial behaviors toward their romantic partners or women’s
defensive denial behaviors toward their romantic partners.
The reliability coefficient for observed ratings of defensive
denial is a single-item intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)
based on a one-way random effects ANOVA model (McGraw &
Wong, 1996; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). The Family Transitions
Project reported the single-item because individual coders’ ratings,
and not the mean of both coders’ ratings, were used in further
analyses. Both coders were drawn randomly from the same pop-
ulation of coders. Intraclass correlations were calculated for the
three years of observational tasks (1999, 2001, and 2003), and
ranged from .60 to .83, with an average of .69 (Choukalas, Melby,
& Lorenz, 2000). Twenty-five percent of the total interactions
were randomly selected to be independently rated by a second
observer, meaning that 25% of all interactions were independently
coded by two people. Differences between the original ratings
were then reconciled by the two coders.
Conflict-escalating behaviors. Conflict-escalating behaviors
were assessed by the negative problem solving scale, which was
created for the Iowa Youth and Family Project (Conger et al.,
1994). The 4-item scale assesses the degree to which participants
engage in conflict-escalating behaviors that may negatively impact
their ability to adequately solve relational problems. Items such as,
“How often do you refuse, even after discussion, to work out a
solution to the problem?”, “How often do you criticize your
partner or his or her ideas for solving the problem?”, and “How
often do you blame your partner for the problem?” were rated on
a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 ϭ never and 7 ϭ always. Conflict-
escalating behaviors were assessed in 2005. Participants reported
the frequency of their own behaviors and the behaviors of their
romantic partners, resulting in four measures of conflict-escalating
behavior per couple: a self-report and partner-report for men, and
a self-report and partner-report for women. Cronbach’s alpha
scores for these four measures ranged from .79 to .91. Responses
from men and women were aggregated as manifest variables of a
latent factor representing the degree to which each gender engaged
in conflict-escalating behaviors. The latent factor of women’s
conflict-escalating behaviors included two indicators: women’s
self-reported ratings of their own behaviors and their romantic
partner’s ratings of women’s behaviors. The latent factor of men’s
conflict-escalating behaviors included two indicators: men’s self-
reported ratings of their own behaviors and their romantic part-
ners’ ratings of men’s behaviors.
Relationship instability. The five-item relationship instabil-
ity scale was created by Booth, Johnson, and Edwards (1983) to
assess how recently thoughts and behaviors associated with ending
the relationship had occurred. Items such as, “Even people who get
along quite well with their partner sometimes wonder whether
their relationship is working out. Have you thought your relation-
ship might be in trouble?” and “Have you or your partner talked
[about consulting an attorney/with other people]2
about a possible
separation or divorce?” were assessed on a 4-point Likert scale,
where 1 ϭ not in the last year and 4 ϭ yes, within the last 3
months. Relationship instability was assessed in 2007 with higher
numbers corresponding to greater relationship instability. Re-
sponses from men and women were aggregated to create manifest
variables for a latent factor of relationship instability. Cronbach’s
alpha scores were good for both women and men (␣women ϭ .88;
␣men ϭ .86).
Avoidance. The current study used avoidance in the romantic
relationship to provide evidence for the validity of defensive denial
and conflict-escalating behaviors. Couples’ interactions were scored
by coders who were trained to assess a number of behaviors in the
videotaped discussion task. Trained observers coded avoidance using
the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1990; Melby
& Conger, 2001). Avoidance measured the degree to which the
participant avoided physical interaction with the other participant by
averting their gaze or orienting their body away from the other
participant. Participants’ avoidance during the discussion task was
scored on a 9-point Likert scale, where 1 ϭ not at all characteristic
2
Married couples were asked, “Have you or your partner talked about
consulting an attorney about a possible separation or divorce?” Cohabiting
couples were asked, “Have you or your partner talked with other people
about a possible separation or divorce?”

and 9 ϭ mainly characteristic. The current analyses included rela-
tional avoidance in the romantic relationship, when targets were in
early adulthood. This factor comprised three observed ratings over
time (1999, 2001, and 2003) that consisted of either men’s observed
relational avoidance toward their romantic partners or women’s
avoidance toward their romantic partners. Twenty-five percent of the
total interactions were randomly selected to be independently rated by
a second observer, meaning that 25% of all interactions were inde-
pendently coded by two people, with differences between the original
ratings reconciled by the two observers or in a group meeting format.
For the present study, the ICC ranged from .51 to .72, with an average
ICC equal to .60.
Hostility. The current study used hostility in the romantic rela-
tionship to provide evidence for the validity of defensive denial and
conflict-escalating behaviors. Hostility in the romantic relationship
was measured by the 9-item moderate hostility subscale of the 22-
item Behavioral Affect Rating Scale (BARS; Conger et al., 1994),
created for the Family Transitions Project to assess interpersonal
hostility and warmth. All items were assessed on a 7-point Likert
scale, where 1 ϭ never and 7 ϭ always. Moderate hostility assessed
behaviors with items such as, “How often did your partner get angry
at you?” and “How often did your partner ignore you when you tried
to talk to him/her?” For women, Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .91 to
.92 across the three waves (1999, 2001, and 2003), with an average ␣
of .91. For men, Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .93 to .94 across the
three waves, with an average ␣ equal to .93.
Covariates. Covariates included the dichotomized education
variable (whether participants had a bachelor’s degree or not),
relationship status (i.e., married or not), and a measure of house-
hold income. Per capita household income was log transformed to
approximate a normal distribution (range ϭ $0 - $905,888; M ϭ
$23,828; Median ϭ $20,000).
Results
Descriptive Results
In 1999, women ranged from 18 to 28 years of age (M ϭ 23.4),
and men ranged from 19 to 44 years of age (M ϭ 25.0). The
analyses dichotomized education to represent whether participants
had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (e.g., Master’s or other
professional degree). Half of the women (50.2%) and 42.9% of
men had a bachelor’s degree or higher. There was limited vari-
ability in ethnicity (Ͻ1% Hispanic targets; 2.4% Hispanic part-
ners) and race (99.4% Caucasian targets; 94.8% Caucasian
partners), and thus neither variable was included as a covariate.
Descriptive statistics for all model variables are included in
Table 1.
Analytic Approach
Our analytic approach included two main steps. First, to estab-
lish evidence for construct and criterion validity for defensive
denial and conflict-escalating behaviors, we calculated intercorre-
lations between defensive denial, conflict-escalating behaviors,
and theoretically related variables. Second, to assess associations
between defensive denial, conflict-escalating behaviors, and rela-
tionship instability, we evaluated the hypotheses using structural
equation modeling (SEM) with full information maximum likeli-
hood (FIML). Rather than imputing specific values for couples,
FIML uses all available data to create a comprehensive covariance
matrix. This is beneficial in a longitudinal panel study such as this
because of the reality that some participants may not participate in
a specific wave of data, but may later return to the study. FIML in
Mplus excludes cases that contain a high proportion of missing
values. All participants who fit initial inclusion standards, as
outlined above, had sufficient data to qualify for inclusion in the
current analyses.
Models were run separately for men and women to determine
existing gender differences. All female participants (targets and
romantic partners) were combined into the model for women, and
all male participants (targets and romantic partners) were com-
bined into the model for men. As presented in Figure 1, there were
three steps within the SEM analysis. First, we evaluated the total
effect of defensive denial in the romantic relationship on relation-
ship instability. Second, we included a latent factor of conflict-
escalating behaviors in romantic relationships as a mediator be-
tween defensive denial in the romantic relationship and
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
M 2.91 1.76 1.94 2.90 3.78 3.18 2.11 2.11 1.26
SD 1.89 1.17 1.13 1.72 2.03 1.86 1.03 .88 .56
1. FOO DE: Target 2.91 1.89 — .40‫ءء‬
.34‫ءء‬
.07 .14‫ء‬
.21‫ءء‬
.02 .06 .07 .01
2. FOO DE: Mother 1.76 1.17 .41‫ءء‬
— .34‫ءء‬
.02 Ϫ.03 .12‫ء‬
.03 .09 .12‫ء‬
.07
3. FOO DE: Father 1.94 1.13 .34‫ءء‬
.34‫ءء‬
— .08 .18‫ءء‬
.14‫ء‬
.12†
.02 .05 .07
4. RR DE: 1999 2.81 1.94 .11†
.13‫ء‬
.19‫ءء‬
.43‫ءءء‬
.32‫ءء‬
.30‫ءء‬
.14‫ء‬
.04 .11†
.06
5. RR DE: 2001 3.12 1.82 .12‫ء‬
.08 .12†
.28‫ءء‬
.53‫ءء‬
.47‫ءء‬
.19‫ءء‬
.12†
.15‫ءء‬
.21‫ءء‬
6. RR DE: 2003 2.92 1.65 .15‫ء‬
.22‫ءء‬
.14‫ء‬
.17‫ءء‬
.38‫ءء‬
.53‫ءء‬
.18‫ءء‬
.15‫ءء‬
.22‫ءء‬
.21‫ءء‬
7. CEB: Women 1.96 .78 .04 .07 .14‫ء‬
.10 .24‫ءء‬
.13‫ء‬
.65‫ءء‬
.38‫ءء‬
.30‫ءء‬
.25‫ءء‬
8. CEB: Men 2.36 .98 .09 .14‫ء‬
.09 .07 .19‫ءء‬
.15‫ء‬
.40‫ءء‬
.69‫ءء‬
.15‫ءء‬
.28‫ءء‬
9. RI: Women 1.39 .69 .07 .12‫ء‬
.05 Ϫ.04 .15‫ء‬
.16‫ء‬
.29‫ءء‬
.16‫ءء‬
— .66‫ءء‬
10. RI: Men .01 .07 .07 Ϫ.05 .11 .15‫ء‬
.20‫ءء‬
.32‫ءء‬
.66‫ءء‬
—
Note. Women’s descriptive statistics and correlations are shown below the diagonal (n ϭ 365). Men’s descriptive statistics and correlations are shown
above the diagonal (n ϭ 365). Available correlations between men are women are italicized and on the diagonal. FOO DE ϭ observed defensive denial
in the family of origin; RR DE ϭ observed defensive denial in the romantic relationship; CEB: Women ϭ women’s report of participant’s conflict-
escalating behaviors; CEB: Men ϭ men’s report of participant’s conflict-escalating behaviors RI: Women ϭ women’s self-report of relationship instability;
RI: Men ϭ men’s self-report of relationship instability.
†
.05 Ͻ p Ͻ .10. ‫ء‬
p Ͻ .05. ‫ءء‬
p Ͻ .01.

relationship instability. Third, we included defensive denial in the
family of origin as a spurious predictor of both defensive denial in
the romantic relationship and relationship instability.
Validity of Defensive Denial and Conflict-Escalating
Behaviors
To establish the construct validity of defensive denial and
conflict-escalating behaviors, we examined the correlations be-
tween both measures along with measures avoidance and hostility.
The results supported the construct validity of both measures.
Defensive denial was strongly associated with avoidance (rwomen ϭ
.44, p Ͻ .01, rmen ϭ .50, p Ͻ .01), but less strongly associated with
hostility (rwomen ϭ .25, p Ͻ .01, rmen ϭ .30, p Ͻ .01). In contrast,
conflict-escalating behaviors was strongly associated with hostility
(rwomen ϭ .55, p Ͻ .01, rmen ϭ .55, p Ͻ .01), but less strongly
associated with avoidance (rwomen ϭ .14, p ϭ .02, rmen ϭ .18, p Ͻ
.01). Additionally, defensive denial was only weakly correlated
with conflict-escalating behaviors (rwomen ϭ .19, p ϭ .02, rmen ϭ
.22, p Ͻ .01), indicating that the two constructs respectively shared
4% and 5% of the common variance for women and men. For
criterion validity, we explored the relationship between defensive
denial and conflict-escalating behaviors with relationship instabil-
ity. As expected, conflict-escalating behaviors evidenced a stron-
ger association with relationship instability (rwomen ϭ .28, p Ͻ .01,
rmen ϭ .32, p Ͻ .01) than did defensive denial (rwomen ϭ .12, p ϭ
.04, rmen ϭ .18, p Ͻ .01).
Structural Equation Modeling Analysis
We conducted a confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) with the
model variables. Table 2 shows the standardized factor loadings
for the CFA model; estimates were similar across all models. Next,
we followed a three-step SEM analyses. First, we tested the total
effects of defensive denial in the romantic relationship on relation-
ship instability. Second, we explored the mediating effects of
conflict-escalating behaviors on the association between defensive
denial in the romantic relationship and relationship instability.
Last, we included defensive denial in the family of origin as a
spurious predictor of defensive denial in the romantic relationship
and relationship instability.
Total effect of defensive denial on relationship instability.
First, we estimated the total effects of defensive denial in romantic
relationships on relationship instability for men and women. Con-
sistent with our hypothesis, women (b ϭ .30, p ϭ .02) and men
(b ϭ .36, p Ͻ .01) who were observed demonstrating more
defensive denial in their romantic relationships had significantly
higher relationship instability. Figures 2 and 3 present models for
women and men, respectively, with total effects shown in brack-
ets.3
Mediating effects of conflict-escalating behaviors. The sec-
ond step in the model series determined the mediating, or indirect,
effects of defensive denial in romantic relationships on relation-
ship instability through conflict-escalating behaviors. In both mod-
els, the path from defensive denial to conflict-escalating behaviors
remained significant with the addition of the path from conflict-
escalating behaviors to relationship instability, although it declined
in magnitude for both women (b ϭ .48, p Ͻ .01) and men (b ϭ .38,
p Ͻ .01). These results suggest that defensive denial was associ-
ated with a significant increase in the frequency of future conflict-
escalating behaviors. There was also a significant path from
conflict-escalating behaviors to subsequent relationship instability
for women (b ϭ .44, p Ͻ .01) and men (b ϭ .38, p Ͻ .01),
suggesting that more frequent conflict-escalating behaviors were
associated with greater relationship instability.
When the factor of conflict-escalating behaviors was added into
the model, the effect of defensive denial in romantic relationships
was no longer significant for either women (b ϭ Ϫ.14, p ϭ .38) or
men (b ϭ .11, p ϭ .27). These results provide evidence (Baron &
Kenny, 1986) that conflict-escalating behaviors mediated the as-
sociation between defensive denial and relationship instability
both for women (Indirect Effect ϭ .21, p ϭ .02; see Figure 2) and
for men (IE ϭ .15, p ϭ .02; see Figure 3).
Spurious influence of family of origin defensive denial on
defensive denial in romantic relationships. To provide a more
thorough explanation of the mechanism by which defensive denial
in romantic relationships influences later relationship instability,
the third and last step was to add defensive denial in the family of
origin as a spurious predictor of defensive denial in romantic
relationships and relationship instability (see Figures 2 and 3).
After the addition of family of origin defensive denial, the mag-
nitude of the influence of defensive denial in romantic relation-
ships on conflict-escalating behaviors remained consistent for men
and women, as did the magnitude of conflict-escalating behaviors
on relationship instability. However, family of origin defensive
denial did not have a spurious effect on the instability of future
romantic relationships for women (b ϭ .05, p ϭ .65) or men (b ϭ
.08, p ϭ .34).
The models indicated that family of origin defensive denial had
differential spurious influences on defensive denial in subsequent
3
Models also included a path from denial to conflict-escalating behav-
iors; to avoid estimation problems, the conflict-escalating behaviors factor
only had two indicators, and could not be included in the model unless it
was associated with another factor. These paths from denial to conflict-
escalating behaviors were also significant for women (b ϭ .66, p Ͻ .01)
and men (b ϭ .47, p Ͻ .01).
Table 2
Standardized Factor Loadings
Women
(n ϭ 383)
Men
(n ϭ 383)
Family of origin defensive denial (1994)
Father .55‫ءء‬
.55‫ءء‬
Mother .69‫ءء‬
.66‫ءء‬
Target .56‫ءء‬
.58‫ءء‬
Romantic relationship defensive denial
Participant to partner (1999) .51‫ءء‬
.59‫ءء‬
.56‫ءء‬
.64‫ءء‬
Conflict-escalating behaviors (2005)
Self-report .72‫ءء‬
.49‫ءء‬
Partner-report .56‫ءء‬
.75‫ءء‬
Relationship instability (2007)
Women’s report .89‫ءء‬
.84‫ءء‬
Men’s report .75‫ءء‬
.80‫ءء‬
Note. Factor loadings were from confirmatory factor analysis models.
Factor loadings for latent factors were of a similar or greater magnitude
across all models.
‫ءء‬
p Ͻ .01.

romantic relationships for women and men. Specifically, there was
a significant path from family of origin defensive denial to defen-
sive denial in romantic relationships for women (b ϭ .40, p Ͻ .01)
but not for men (b ϭ .13, p ϭ .22). Therefore, for women there
was an additional significant indirect effect (IE ϭ .08, p ϭ .04) by
which defensive denial in the family of origin influenced relation-
ship instability through defensive denial and conflict-escalating
behaviors in romantic relationships. This effect was not significant
for men (IE ϭ .02, p ϭ .29). Overall, the results suggest that
female adolescents growing up in families with more defensive
denial tended to utilize more defensive denial years later in their
own adult romantic relationships.
Discussion
We hypothesized that over time defensive denial would lead to
conflict-escalating behaviors in romantic relationships, which in
turn would engender greater relationship instability. We also hy-
.40**
.44**
[.48**
] .47**
[.30*
] -.14
.05 Relationship
instability
R2
= .24
Denial in RR
R2
= .30
Denial in
FOO
Conflict-
escalating
R2
= .21
Men’s
report
Women’s
report
1999 2001 2003
M F T
Men’s
RI
Women’s
RI
Figure 2. Women’s model predicting relationship instability from conflict-escalating behaviors in the romantic
relationship, defensive denial in the romantic relationship, and defensive denial in the family of origin. Denial ϭ
defensive denial; FOO ϭ family of origin; M ϭ mother; F ϭ father; T ϭ target; RR ϭ romantic relationship;
Conflict-escalating ϭ conflict-escalating behaviors. Total effect paths are in brackets, followed by direct paths.
n ϭ 383, ␹52
2
ϭ 95.444, RMSEA ϭ .047, CFI ϭ .917. ‫ء‬
p Ͻ .05; ‫ءء‬
p Ͻ .01.
.13
.38**
[.47**
] .38**
[.36**
] .11
.08 Relationship
instability
R2
= .27
Denial in RR
R2
= .13
Denial in
FOO
Conflict-
escalating
R2
= .17
Men’s
report
Women’s
report
1999 2001 2003
M F T
Men’s
RI
Women’s
RI
Figure 3. Men’s model predicting relationship instability from conflict-escalating behaviors in the romantic
relationship, defensive denial in the romantic relationship, and defensive denial in the family of origin. Denial ϭ
defensive denial; FOO ϭ family of origin; M ϭ mother; F ϭ father; T ϭ target; RR ϭ romantic relationship;
Conflict-escalating ϭ conflict-escalating behaviors. Total effect paths are in brackets, followed by direct paths.
n ϭ 365, ␹52
2
ϭ 125.972, RMSEA ϭ .062, CFI ϭ .864. ‫ءء‬
p Ͻ .01.

pothesized that defensive denial and its influence on relationship
instability could be traced back to learned behaviors that occurred
in the family of origin. Using longitudinal data over a 14-year
period from the Family Transitions Project that included a com-
bination of observational, self-report, and partner-report data, we
examined the effects of defensive denial on relationship instability
when participants were in their late twenties, and traced those
effects back to defensive denial that occurred in the family of
origin more than a decade earlier, when participants were adoles-
cents. The findings support our initial hypotheses. The current
study provided evidence that defensive denial observed in roman-
tic relationships is linked to future relationship instability because
defensive denial elicits more overtly damaging conflict-escalating
behaviors such as criticism, refusing to solve problems, and blam-
ing partners for problems. Additionally, there was evidence that
the tendency to use defensive denial in the family of origin
continued forth to subsequent romantic relationships for women,
but not for men.
The present study expanded previous relationship research on
defensive communication in important ways. First, in addressing
previous criticisms of defensiveness, the current study examined
the effects of a specific type of defensive communication—defen-
sive denial—rather than using an operationalization that has elic-
ited criticism for lacking theoretical precision (King, 2001). This
narrowing of the construct of defensiveness may constitute an
important initial step in identifying other salient elements of de-
fensive communication that merit further study. The results sug-
gest that defensive denial may exacerbate relationship instability
because it inadequately addresses relational problems (Karney &
Bradbury, 1995), and because it elicits negative interpersonal
reactions that may later find expression through more caustic
conflict-escalating behaviors (Deutsch, 1973, 1990; Gibb, 1961;
Peterson, 2002).
Second, although previous research has explored the longitudi-
nal emergence of denial and its associated personality traits (Cra-
mer, 1999, 2000, 2006), the present study was the first to trace the
transmission of observed defensive denial in the family of origin
into communication patterns and relationship outcomes of future
romantic relationships. Defensive denial in the family of origin
was significantly associated with defensive denial in the romantic
relationship for women, but not for men. There is some evidence
in the current study that women may have learned this behavior
from observing their mothers, because the highest factor loading of
family of origin defensive denial (for both women and men) was
the defensive denial of the mother. Given the prevalent role of
behavioral modeling in gender typing theories (e.g., Bandura,
1977; Bem, 1981), it makes sense that women might model their
mothers’ behaviors rather than their father’s behaviors in future
romantic relationships. Moreover, it is conceivable that denial is a
learned coping strategy that allows some women to adapt psycho-
logically to the decreased personal control they may encounter
when entering into some types of marriages and romantic relation-
ships (Cramer, 2000; Ross & Sastry, 1999).
Limitations and Future Directions
Despite numerous strengths, the present study also had limita-
tions. Because the sample was collected in rural Iowa, the sample
lacked ethnic and racial diversity. Nevertheless, the measurement
instruments and observational coding scheme developed for this
panel have been widely used with a variety of populations, and the
strength of the relationships between study constructs have been
replicated in other studies including African Americans (Conger &
Conger, 2002), Mexican Americans (Solantaus, Leinonen, & Pna-
maki, 2004), and participants in the Czech Republic (Lorenz,
Hraba, & Pechacova, 2001). Future research could benefit from
including a more diverse sample of individuals to further gener-
alize the results of the current study. Additionally, even though the
romantic relationship models’ inclusion of family of origin data in
the present study may have been a strength in comparison to many
other studies, the family of origin data was incomplete. Though
observations of both target and partner were used in latent roman-
tic relationship variables, only observations of the target and his or
her family of origin were used in family of origin latent variables,
meaning that correlations between family of origin and family of
destination were likely attenuated because they were systemati-
cally based on incomplete data. Relatedly, not all of the couples
remained intact throughout the 14 years of the study. The results
should be generalized cautiously in applying to specific intact
romantic relationships. Nevertheless, the presence of robust em-
pirical relationships between defensive denial, conflict-escalating
behaviors, and relationship instability suggests that defensive de-
nial and conflict-escalating behaviors may constitute pervasive
maladaptive interpersonal patterns that destabilize relationships.
There are also numerous other factors that the present study did
not examine, which could have influenced both the use of defen-
sive denial and its impact on other variables. Future research may
want to continue to develop and validate assessments of defensive
denial. One application of this may be to consider disentangling
the components of defensive denial to examine how the content of
that which is denied—for example, denying the existence of prob-
lems versus denying blame for a problem—influences relationship
outcomes. It is also imaginable that problem severity may moder-
ate couples’ usage of defensive denial, the latter of which could
impact conflict-escalating behaviors and relationship instability.
Finally, although the current study examined separate models for
women and men, it may be beneficial for future models to begin to
incorporate alternative statistical models that explore the manner
in which defensive denial behavior in one partner influences the
other.
Conclusion and Implications
The present study contributes to the literature by investigating
defensive denial’s effects on relationship stability in a longitudinal
design that unfolded over 14 years and included multiple-
informant data. Notably, the results point to a robust relationship
between defensive denial and relationship instability, mediated by
conflict-escalating behaviors. This finding has implications for
committed romantic relationships. Relationship interventions that
target defensive denial may consider attempting to increase aware-
ness of internal psychological reactions, so that defensive denial is
not an individual’s default response to relational stressors. For
example, mindfulness-based interventions that heighten the aware-
ness of internal psychological reactions may be one method to
potentially decrease defensive denial (Carson, Carson, Gil, &
Baucom, 2004; Lakey, Kernis, Heppner, & Lance, 2008). Addi-
tionally, it is possible that interventions informed by self-

affirmation theory that bolster self-worth could potentially reduce
the need to enact self-protective behaviors in relationships (Mur-
ray, Holmes, MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998).
Overall, the results indicate that defensive denial is a type of
communication that destabilizes romantic relationships over time.
The findings also underscore the possibility that families of origin
with pervasive defensive denial may be linked to future romantic
relationships where similar interpersonal dynamics might occur.
Similar to the proverbial ostrich who puts his head in the sand,
couples who deny important situations and responsibilities may
find that while their “heads were in the sand,” their relationships
may have deteriorated. Our study suggests that defensive denial is
not a constructive manner of addressing relationship problems, and
may ultimately be a maladaptive interpersonal process that ushers
in more overtly damaging communication. Indeed, there may be
many good reasons for disavowing certain painful realities and
problems within a relationship, but this approach appears to be a
poor long-term strategy.
References
Alexander, J. F. (1973). Defensive and supportive communication in
normal and deviant families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 40, 223–231. doi:10.1037/h0034514
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Barton, C., Alexander, J. F., & Turner, C. W. (1988). Defensive commu-
nications in normal and delinquent families: The impact of context and
family role. Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 390–405. doi:10.1037/
h0080468
Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). Empirical findings
in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection, displace-
ment, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of Personal-
ity, 66, 1081–1124. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00043
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex
typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X
.88.4.354
Booth, A., Johnson, D., & Edwards, J. N. (1983). Measuring marital
instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 387–394. doi:
10.2307/351516
Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1992). How a couple
views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral
history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 295–318. doi:
10.1037/0893-3200.5.3-4.295
Carson, J. W., Carson, K. M., Gil, K. M., & Baucom, D. H. (2004).
Mindfulness-based relationship enhancement. Behavior Therapy, 35,
471–494. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80028-5
Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotional
behavior in long-term marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10, 140–149.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.10.1.140
Choukalas, C., Melby, J. N., & Lorenz, F. O. (2000). Tech. Rep. No.:
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients in SPSS. Unpublished Tech. Rep.
No. Institute for Social and Behavioral Research, Iowa State University,
Ames.
Coan, J. A., & Gottman, J. M. (2007). The Specific Affect (SPAFF) coding
system. In J. A. Coan and J. J. B. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of emotion
elicitation and assessment (pp. 106–123). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families:
Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal
study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361–373. doi:10.1111/j
.1741-3737.2002.00361.x
Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck,
L. B. (1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural
America. Social institutions and social change (pp. 21–54). Hawthorne,
NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Cramer, P. (1999). Personality, personality disorders, and defense mecha-
nisms. Journal of Personality, 67, 535–554. doi:10.1111/1467-6494
.00064
Cramer, P. (2000). Defense mechanisms in psychology today. American
Psychologist, 55, 637–646. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.637
Cramer, P. (2006). Protecting the self: Defense mechanisms in action. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cramer, P. (2008). Seven pillars of defense mechanism theory. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1963–1981. doi:10.1111/j.1751-
9004.2008.00135.x
Cui, M., Durtschi, J. A., Donnellan, M. B., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D.
(2010). Intergenerational transmission of relationship aggression: A
prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 688–
697. doi:10.1037/a0021675
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destruc-
tive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. doi:10.1177/
000276427301700206
Deutsch, M. (1990). Sixty years of conflict. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 1, 237–263. doi:10.1108/eb022682
Ehrensaft, M. K., Knouse-Westfall, H. M., & Cohen, P. (2011). Direct and
indirect transmission of relationship functioning across generations.
Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 942–952. doi:10.1037/a0025606
Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication,
11, 141–148. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1961.tb00344.x
Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability.
Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 57–75. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfac-
tion: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 57, 47–52. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.47
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of
later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63
.2.221
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999). What predicts change in
marital interaction over time? A study of alternative models. Family
Process, 38, 143–158. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1999.00143.x
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce:
Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 62, 737–745. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000
.00737.x
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of
marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research.
Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3
King, K. (2001). A critique of behavioral observational coding systems of
couples’ interaction: CISS and RCISS. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 20, 1–23. doi:10.1521/jscp.20.1.1.22253
Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., Vietor, N. A., Nanayakkara, A., & Neighbors, C.
(2002). Self-determination as growth motivation in romantic relation-
ships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 609–619. doi:
10.1177/0146167202288005

Krokoff, L. J., Gottman, J. M., & Hass, S. D. (1989). Validation of a global
rapid couples interaction scoring system. Behavioral Assessment, 11,
65–79.
Lakey, C. E., Kernis, M. H., Heppner, W. L., & Lance, C. E. (2008).
Individual differences in authenticity and mindfulness as predictors of
verbal defensiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 230–238.
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.05.002
Lazarus, R. S. (1983). The costs and benefits of denial. In S. Breznitz (Ed.),
Denial of stress (pp. 1–30).New York, NY: International Universities
Press.
Lorenz, F. O., Hraba, J., & Pechacova, Z. (2001). Effects of spouse support
and hostility on trajectories of Czech couples’ marital satisfaction and
instability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1068–1082. doi:
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01068.x
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some
intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30
Melby, J. N., & Conger, R. D. (2001). The Iowa Family Interaction Rating
Scales: Instrument summary. In P. Kerig and K. Lindahl (Eds.), Family
observational coding systems: Resources for systematic research (pp.
33–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Melby, J. N., Conger, R. D., Book, R., Rueter, M., Lucy, L., Repinski, D.,
. . . Stavros, T. (1990). The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (2nd
ed.). Unpublished coding manual. Ames, IA: Center for Family Re-
search in Rural Mental Health, Iowa State University.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., MacDonald, G., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1998).
Through the looking glass darkly? When self-doubts turn into relation-
ship insecurities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
1459–1480. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1459
Peterson, D. (2002). Conflict. In E. Berscheid & H. Kelley (Eds.), Close
relationships (pp. 361–396). Clinton Corners, NY: Percheron Press.
Ross, C. E., & Sastry, J. (1999). The sense of personal control: Social-
structural causes and emotional consequences. In Handbook of the
sociology of mental health: Handbooks of sociology and social research
(Part IV, pp. 369–394). New York, NY: Springer.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in
assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
Simons, R. (1996). Understanding differences between divorced and intact
families: Stress, interaction, and child outcomes. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Solantaus, T., Leinonen, J., & Punamaki, R. L. (2004). Children’s mental
health in times of economic recession: Replication and extension of the
family economic stress model in Finland. Developmental Psychology,
40, 412–429. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.412
Story, L. B., Karney, B. R., Lawrence, E., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004).
Interpersonal mediators in the intergenerational transmission of marital
dysfunction. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 519–529. doi:10.1037/
0893-3200.18.3.519
Williamson, H. C., Bradbury, T. N., Trail, T. E., & Karney, B. R. (2011).
Factor analysis of the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales. Journal of
Family Psychology, 25, 993–999. doi:10.1037/a0025903
Wright, J., & Fichten, C. (1976). Denial of responsibility, videotape
feedback and attribution theory: Relevance for behavioral marital ther-
apy. Canadian Psychological Review/Psychologie canadienne, 17, 219–
230. doi:10.1037/h0081841
Received November 28, 2012
Revision received July 29, 2013
Accepted September 6, 2013 Ⅲ

968

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to 968

Similar to 968 (20)

968