1. Adolescent Romantic Couples’ Interaction: A Cross-Study Analysis Joseph W. Dickson 1 Jill Carlivatii 2 Martin J. Ho 3 Deborah P. Welsh 1 1 University of Tennessee 2 University of Minnesota 3 University of Denver

2. Background Collaboration brings the potential to advance research yet also has many challenges and barriers. Testing models using similar constructs in samples from diverse contexts can enhance the validity of findings. There has been a long and impressive literature examining the link between observed interactional processes of significant interpersonal relationships and the qualities of the relationship. These literatures suggest that relationships in which partners display fewer negative behaviors (such as conflict, negative reciprocity, hostility) and more positive behaviors (such as support, affection) report higher relationship qualities, longer lasting relationships, and healthier individual functioning. These literatures have also indicated that members of these relationships have very different understandings of their interactions within their relationship.

3. Aims Collaboration between three nationally funded longitudinal, multi-reporter, multi-method research projects Examine observed interactional processes and self-report of adolescent romantic couples’ aggression in predicting relationship satisfaction

4. Challenges Communication  Conflicting schedules of busy researchers  Different time zones Data management  Unfamiliar with measures and data  Finding similar constructs Personal Control Issues  Allowing yourself to rely on others

5. Sample The data for this project come from three independent projects. Site 1 211 adolescent dating couples 1  93 couples between 17-21 yrs old Couples dating a minimum of 1 month  (range: 1-60 months; mean: 14.5 months) 1 The data for this project come from The Study of Tennessee Adolescent Romantic Relationships (STARR), funded by NICHD to Deborah P. Welsh, Ph.D.

6. Site 2 66 adolescent dating couples 1  47 couples between 17-21 yrs old Couples dating a minimum of 6 months  (range: 6 to 47 months; mean: 18 months) 1 A subset of participants from Studying Teens And Relationships (STAR), supported by Grant 50106 from NIH to Wyndol Furman, Ph.D.

7. Site 3 86 adolescent dating couples 1  72 couples approximately 21 yrs old Couples dating a minimum of 4 months  (range: months; mean: months) 1 Participants were a sub-sample of young adults taking part in the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children and supported by a grant from NIMH (MH 40964 -16) to Byron Egeland (PI), L. Alan Sroufe, and W. Andrew Collins.

8. Site 1Site 2Site 3 RegionSoutheastern U.S. Tennessee Western U.S. Colorado Midwestern U.S. Minnesota Sample Size93 Couples47 Couples72 Couples Age17-21 M=18.3 17-24 M=18.1 21 Weeks Dating1 to 60 months M=14.5 months 6 to 47 months M=18 months 4 to xx months M= months Relationship Quality Self-report Relationship Satisfaction (Levesque, 1993) Self-report Quality of Marriage Index (Norton, 1983) Self-report Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988) Self-Report Physical Aggression Modified Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979) Observed Interaction Couple’s Positive Connection Dyadic PositivityShared Positive Affect

9. Relationship Satisfaction Site 1: Relationship Satisfaction (Levesque, 1993) - a 5- item scale to assess satisfaction in adolescents’ romantic relationships. Participants were asked to responded using a six-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 6=strongly agree). Site 2: Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983) - a six-item measure of an individual’s global relationship satisfaction. Participants were asked to rate the degree to which each item characterized their romantic relationship on a seven-point Likert scale (e.g., ”My relationship with my partner makes me happy.”), with higher scores indicating greater relationship satisfaction. Site 3: Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS: Hendrick, 1988) - a 7 ‑ item scale of relationship satisfaction. Responses are given on 7 ‑ point scales (1=low to 7=high). The RAS has a coherent factor structure, is internally consistent.

10. Self-Report Aggression Modified Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979)  Presence of Verbal Aggression (Self and Partner) Used insults Yelled  Presence of Physical Aggression (Self and Partner) Pushed, grabbed, or shoved Tried to hit with something hard Hit with a fist

11. Site 1 – Dyadic Positive Connection  Participants recorded having a five-minute warm-up task and 2 eight-minute and forty-second interaction tasks (a conflictual issue selected by each couple member) Site 2 - Dyadic Positivity factor  Participants recorded having 7 five-minutes tasks (a warm- up task, a problem selected by each couple member outside the relationship, a goal selected by each couple, a problem in the relationship, and a discussion of fun times) Site 3 – Shared Positive Affect  Participants recorded during two interaction tasks: the Markman-Cox procedure (Cox, 1991). Couples decide on a topic causing most conflict and then discuss the problem for ten minutes trying to reach a solution. Interaction Procedure

12. Results Descriptive Findings: Report of Verbal and Physical Aggression: Site 1Site 2Site 3 Verbal aggression (self) 51%96%91% Verbal aggression (partner) 51%92%85% Physical aggression (self) 18%25%11% Physical aggression (partner) 17%21%15%

13. Results Descriptive Findings on Verbal Aggression: Site 1Site 2Site 3 Verbal aggression (neither partner self-reports) 29%0%6% Verbal aggression (one partner self- reports) 40%8.5%7% Verbal aggression (both partners self-report) 31%91.5%87% Verbal aggression (neither partner reports partner) 31%2.1%7% Verbal aggression (one partner reports other partner) 35%10.6%17% Verbal aggression (both partners report other partner) 33%87.2%76%

14. Results Descriptive Findings on Physical Aggression: Site 1Site 2Site 3 Physical aggression (neither partner self-reports) 73%53%80% Physical aggression (one partner self-reports) 18%45%17% Physical aggression (both partners self-report) 9%2%3% Physical aggression (neither partner reports partner) 73%62%73% Physical aggression (one partner reports other partner) 20%34%24% Physical aggression (both partners report the other) 7%4%3%

15. Results Relationship Satisfaction (HLM Baseline Model)  Site 1 55% of variance predicting relationship satisfaction is due to individual characteristics 45% is due to couple differences  Site 2 86% individual characteristics 14% couple differences  Site 3 59% individual characteristics 41% couple differences

16. Results Site 1Site 2Site 3 Observer’s rating of Positive Affect.94*-.10.16* Verbal aggression (self)--.28-.11 Verbal aggression (partner) -.06-.33-.24 Physical aggression (self) --.35.12 Physical aggression (partner) -2.72**-.89**-.65** Variance explained (within/between couples) 8% of 55% 38% of 45% 8% of 86%7% of 59% 21% of 41% Table 1: Multiple Regression Predicting Relationship Satisfaction from Observer’s rating of Couples’ Positive Affect and couple members’ self-report of verbal and physical aggression. Coefficients represent betas * p <.05 **p <.01

17. Conclusion Communication is key Great opportunity to become more familiar and work with future colleagues and two world renowned projects. This project presents its own difficulties faced as an example of collaborative research  Finding comparable data and constructs Although similar constructs were identified, other problems emerged.  Differing within and between couples variability in outcome variable  High rate of verbal aggression found in samples What predicts Relationship Satisfaction?  Observers’ ratings of adolescent couples positiveness predicted relationship satisfaction in two of the three sites when controlling for couple members’ self-reported acts of aggression.  Although not found in Site 2, this may be due to the amount of variance attributed to individual characteristics.