Cloven 1993

This article was downloaded by: [Oregon State University]
On: 21 December 2014, At: 19:39

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communication Monographs
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmm20
The chilling effect of aggressive

potential on the expression of
complaints in intimate relationships
a b
Denise H. Cloven & Michael E. Roloff
a
Assistant professor of Communication Arts , University of
Wisconsin‐Madison ,
b
Professor of Communication Studies , Northwestern
University ,
Published online: 02 Jun 2009.
To cite this article: Denise H. Cloven & Michael E. Roloff (1993) The chilling effect
of aggressive potential on the expression of complaints in intimate relationships,
Communication Monographs, 60:3, 199-219, DOI: 10.1080/03637759309376309
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759309376309
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information
(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor
& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties
whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The
accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable
for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
THE CHILLING EFFECT OF AGGRESSIVE POTENTIAL ON THE
EXPRESSION OF COMPLAINTS IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
DENISE H. CLOVEN AND MICHAEL E. ROLOFF
This study examined relationships between a partner's aggressive potential and the
expression of complaints about that partner's controlling behaviors. A two-part survey
of 160 college students involved in dating relationships solicited information about
relational dependence, unexpressed complaints, and a partner's potential for
aggression. As expected, anticipating aggressive repercussions was associated with
withholding complaints about controlling behaviors (p < .01), but was not correlated
with other types of unexpressed grievances. This chilling effect was greater when
individuals who generally feared conflict anticipated aggressive repercussions
(p < .001), and when people anticipated symbolic aggression from relationally
independent partners (p < .05). An individual's own relational dependence also
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 19:39 21 December 2014
influenced the magnitude of this chilling effect (p < .05). The implications of these
findings for the management of relational difficulties and interpersonal aggression are
discussed.
A lthough intimate relationships afford ample opportunity for conflict, part-

ners do not openly confront each other over every irritation that arises.
Sillars (1980) found that 33 percent of college roommates deal with problems by
avoiding the issues, dismissing them as unimportant, or letting problems resolve
themselves. Roloff and Cloven (1990) found that 63 percent of a sample of
individuals in dating relationships withheld at least one complaint from their
partners, and an average of 40 percent of the irritations each person reported
had not been communicated. In fact, a reluctance to express irritations to
partners appears to characterize relationships ranging from friendship to
marriage (e.g., Blumberg, 1972; Scanzoni, 1978).
Withholding grievances in close relationships could result from a variety of
factors. Sometimes people forego confrontation because they define irritations
as unimportant, illegitimate, or negotiable through indirect communication
(Baxter & Wilmot, 1985; Newell & Stutman, 1991; Roloff & Cloven, 1990). On
the other hand, individuals can be inhibited from expressing complaints due to
fear of negative consequences (Newell 8c Stutman, 1991). For example, criticiz-
ing a partner may lead to conflict escalation that could prompt regretted
disclosures (Knapp, Stafford, & Daly, 1986) and harm the relationship (Baxter
& Wilmot, 1985).
We believe that fear of confrontation or conflict escalation is associated with
power dynamics within a relationship (see Roloff & Cloven, 1990). Although
investigations of power in interpersonal associations emphasize decision-
making control (e.g., Grauerholz, 1987) and conversational control behaviors
(Millar & Rogers, 1987), power relations can influence communication at more
covert levels as well (Hocker & Wilmot, 1991; Roloff & Cloven, 1990). For
example, a partner's power can inhibit an individual from ever raising particu-
Denise H. Cloven is assistant professor of Communication Arts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Michael E. Roloff is professor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University. An earlier version
of this paper was presented at the meeting of the SCA, November, 1992. The authors express their
gratitude to Ellyn Biltz, Kenzie Cameron, Christopher Eaton, Lisa Ekman, Noah Smith, Sari Soutor,
and Anna Zawislanski for their assistance at a variety of points in this research.
COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS, Volume 60, September 1993

200 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS
lar issues with the partner. Hence, the more powerful partner successfully,
though covertly, deflects an influence attempt (Roloff & Cloven, 1990). We call
this tendency for a partner's power to quell the expression of interpersonal
complaints "the chilling effect."
This chilling effect could have important relational consequences. Individuals
who avoid conflict discussions have greater difficulty resolving their disputes
(e.g., Sillars, 1980). Thinking about relational problems without talking to
partners is associated with perceptions of greater problem severity and a greater
tendency to blame partners for those problems (Cloven & Roloff, 1991). With-
holding interpersonal irritations could also perpetuate relational power disad-
vantages. Because inhibited parties actually cede relational control, a chilling
effect can serve to reinforce the power dynamics from which it arises (Roloff &
Cloven, 1990).
Given the frequency of conflict avoidance in close relationships and the

implications of withholding interpersonal irritations, investigations of decisions
to avoid communicating grievances are needed to complement recent research
on expressed complaints and confrontation processes (Alberts, 1988; Newell &
Stutman, 1991). Toward this end, we have undertaken research examining the
chilling effect within personal relationships. In the following section we explain
why a partner's power influences communication decisions, and we describe two
general forms of power in interpersonal relationships. Then, we advance
hypotheses and report a study expanding our investigation of the chilling effect.
POWER AND THE CHILLING EFFECT

Influence or power in interpersonal relationships arises from an individual's
ability to control the rewards and costs a partner experiences (Blau, 1964).
People form relationships to gain access to desired resources, and interpersonal
associations are managed toward maximizing rewards and minimizing costs (see
Roloff, 1981). Consequently, individuals should be responsive to the perceived
concerns of partners who control the distribution of rewards and costs within
their relationships (e.g., Scanzoni, 1978). In effect, people will make communi-
cation decisions that encourage powerful partners to continue providing re-
wards or to withhold costs. Thus, to the extent that confronting partners with
irritations could disrupt the flow of rewards or increase experienced costs,
individuals with powerful partners are likely to be inhibited from communicat-
ing grievances.
Because the chilling effect arises from perceptions of a partner's power, forms
of power controlled by a partner should be associated with a tendency to
withhold grievances from that individual. One type of power in interpersonal
relationships arises from having alternatives to the association (e.g., Scanzoni,
1978) and/or a relative lack of commitment to the relationship (e.g., Safilios-
Rothschild, 1976). The resulting power advantage has been called "dependence
power" because the basis of control is an individual's independence from the
relationship relative to a partner's dependence on that particular association
(Lawler & Bacharach, 1987). Specifically, people who are not highly dependent
on a relationship may be willing to exit their associations (Rusbult, Zembrodt, &
Gunn, 1982), and this ability to terminate relationships can be a source of
influence over partners (Roloff & Cloven, 1990). Hence, individuals who have
AGGRESSION AND THE CHILLING EFFECT 201
good alternatives in conjunction with little commitment to current relationships

should be particularly powerful because they have options they are willing to
explore.
A second form of power that may affect decisions to communicate or to
withhold irritations arises from the punitive capabilities of relational partners
(Lawler & Bacharach, 1987). Estimates of violence in intimate relationships
suggest that a sizable proportion of dating, cohabiting, and marital relations
involve physical and/or verbal aggression against both males and females (Stets
& Henderson, 1991; Stets & Straus, 1990a, 1990b; Straus & Gelles, 1990). Thus,
aggression is a relevant source of power in close relationships.
Focusing on the impact of either dependence or punitive power from the less
powerful individual's perspective provides insight into the chilling effect. People
suffering power deficits will be more likely to accomodate a partner's irritating
behaviors and withhold grievances for fear that confrontation would prompt
these partners to withdraw their resources or respond aggressively (cf. Bacha-
rach & Lawler, 1981; Roloff & Cloven, 1990; Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik,
& Lipkus, 1991). Notably, it is the perceptions individuals have of their partners'
potential actions that induces the chilling effect. We believe that these expecta-
tions may or may not be shared by relational partners, and whether the
powerful partner actually or intentionally withdraws rewards or responds
aggressively is less important than the perception that he or she might take such
action. Thus, our perspective is similar to Tedeschi, Bonoma, and Schlenker
(1972) who argue that whether threats of coercive action will gain compliance
with a request depends on the perceived credibility of the threat or the coercive
capability of the source of the threat.
To summarize, our perspective assumes that control over rewards and costs
gives individuals power within their close relationships. This power can lead to a
chilling effect such that less powerful partners withhold grievances toward
maximizing rewards obtained and minimizing costs experienced. When part-
ners are perceived to have dependence power, individuals will withhold com-
plaints in favor of maintaining the relationship as a source of valuable rewards.
If a partner's power arises from perceived punitive capabilities, a desire to avoid
direct costs in the form of coercive experiences will inhibit the expression of
relational irritations (cf. Tedeschi et al., 1972).
An earlier study evaluating the chilling effect within dating relationships
produced results consistent with this perspective (Roloff & Cloven, 1990). We
found that individuals who reported withholding complaints for fear of conflict
escalation withheld a greater volume of irritations about partners than did
respondents who did not report conflict escalation concerns. People withhold-
ing complaints to avoid conflict episodes also reported being unassertive and
unsuccessful during arguments with their partners.1 Finally, we found evidence
of a chilling effect associated with perceptions of a partner's dependence power
such that the quality of relational alternatives attributed to a dating partner was
positively associated with withholding complaints from the partner, and this
chilling effect was greater when a partner's good alternatives were coupled with
low commitment.
Although these results are consistent with the perspective advanced, this
earlier study focused exclusively on the chilling effect associated with sources of
dependence power. Indeed, research on interpersonal conflict has thus far

ignored the effects of a partner's punitive capabilities on communication about
relational grievances. Hence, to expand our investigation of a chilling effect
arising from a partner's power, this paper evaluates the role of interpersonal
aggression in decisions to withhold complaints from relational partners.
AGGRESSION AND THE CHILLING EFFECT

Aggression can be defined as the use of force to obtain goals that achieves
compliance by increasing the costs experienced by a target (Steinmetz, 1977;
Tedeschi, Gaes, & Rivera, 1977). In fact, both aggressive behavior and factors
suggesting a potential for aggression have been associated with short term
compliance or inhibited assertiveness (Ellsworth, Carlsmith, & Henson, 1972;
LaVoie, 1973; Turner, Layton, & Simons, 1975). Because the chilling effect
stems from the belief that confrontation could evoke aggressive responses, our
perspective emphasizes the role of perceived aggressive potential in decisions to
withhold interpersonal complaints.
In general, expected responses to confrontation influence whether grievances
are communicated (Newell & Stutman, 1989). Because conflict interactions are
potentially aggressive (e.g., Resick et al., 1981), individuals may withhold
complaints to avoid such episodes. In support of this view, interviews with
abused wives revealed that over half of the women sampled tried to reduce
aggression by avoiding their spouses or topics thought to prompt violence
(Gelles & Straus, 1988). Moreover, the percentage of women employing an
avoidance strategy increased with the severity of the experienced abuse (Gelles
& Straus, 1988). Thus, believing that a partner who was aggressive in prior
conflicts might behave in a similar fashion when confronted can lay the ground-
work for a chilling effect.
This analysis implies that a chilling effect will result whenever individuals
anticipate aggression from their partners; however, accounts of how people
respond to their partners' aggression suggest a more complex process. In
particular, the women interviewed by Gelles and Straus (1988) also reported
trying either to talk their husbands out of being aggressive or to solicit promises
to stop the abuse. Apparently, whereas some people respond to potential
aggression by avoiding problem areas, not all individuals are intimidated into
avoidant behaviors.
We believe that three factors influence whether aggressive potential will lead
to a chilling effect: (a) the type of grievance; (b) fear of conflict; and (c)
dependence power. The following sections examine these issues in turn.
Type of Grievance
Although many factors are related to the incidence of aggression in close

relationships (e.g., life stress, Mason & Blankenship, 1987; socio-economic
status, Stets & Henderson, 1991; personality, Stets & Pirog-Good, 1987), aggres-
sive behavior seems to arise from dissension over and challenges to the power
distribution between partners. Conflict is more common when partners dis-
agree about who controls decision-making, and disputes are most likely to lead
to violence when independence and control issues are salient (Coleman &
Straus, 1990; Stets & Straus, 1990b). Moreover, abusive action is often the result
of an individual's perception that his or her control in the relationship has been
challenged (Makepeace, 1981; Mason & Blankenship, 1987; Stets & Pirog-
Good, 1987). Thus, confronting partners over their controlling or demanding
behavior should be perceived as especially likely to prompt aggression.
Given this association between control challenges and aggressive behavior,
individuals in violent relationships may have reason to tolerate a partner's
domination (cf. Follingstad, Rutledge, Polek, & McNeill-Hawkins, 1988). Be-
cause confronting partners about demanding and dominating behaviors precip-
itates aggression, people who suspect aggressive reactions will see complaints
about such behavior as too risky to express. Hence, irritating control behaviors
will be tolerated rather than confronted, and a chilling effect will result.
Although power may be an underlying issue in all interpersonal conflict
(Hocker & Wilmot, 1991), not all relational complaints focus explicitly on a
partner's controlling actions (e.g., Roloff & Cloven, 1990). Moreover, because
other types of grievances are not directly implicated in aggressive episodes, even
people with potentially aggressive partners may not be inhibited from express-
ing irritations unrelated to control issues. In support of this view, Mitchell and
Hodson (1986) found that a sample of physically abused women employed
avoidant strategies in coping with incidents of aggression, but used non-
avoidant strategies to manage stressful events that did not involve aggression.
Accordingly, our first hypothesis predicts that a partner's aggressive potential
will produce a chilling effect that is of a restricted nature:
HI: Perceptions of a partner's aggressive potential will be positively correlated with withhold-
ing complaints about that partner's controlling behavior, but this correlation will be of
lower magnitude for other types of irritations.
Fear of Conflict
Stets and Straus (1990a) document a variety of physical and psychological
injuries that result from physical abuse, and verbal aggression can aversely
impact a recipient's self-concept and social adjustment (Baron, 1988; Farina,
Wheeler, & Mehta, 1991). Consequently, one might expect that all individuals
who perceive the potential for aggressive repercussions would also fear confron-
tation about relational control.
However, some people may be less averse to such conflict episodes and
correspondingly less susceptible to a chilling effect. For example, individuals
high in verbal aggressiveness perceive verbally aggressive messages as less
hurtful than do low verbal aggressives (Infante, Riddle, Horvath, & Tumlin,
1992). Infante, Sabourin, Rudd, and Shannon (1990) also speculate that some
partners establish "mock physical assaults" and "playful" verbal aggression that
does not cause severe harm provided it remains within relationally defined
limits. In addition, Gelles and Straus (1988) found that many wives reported
physically fighting back as their long term strategy for getting husbands to stop
abusive behavior. These observations imply that some individuals will not fear
confrontation, and aggression may even be normative in some relationships (cf.
Stets & Straus, 1990b).
When an individual defines open conflict as normative or acceptable, a
partner's aggressive potential should be less likely to produce a chilling effect on
complaints about controlling behaviors. In contrast, individuals who are averse
to confrontation episodes and anticipate aggressive reactions should be reluc-

tant to confront partners with such grievances. Hence, our second hypothesis
predicts a significant interaction between a partner's aggressive potential and
conflict aversion:
H2: The positive association between perceptions of a partner's aggressive potential and
withholding complaints about that partner's controlling behavior will be greater for
individuals who withhold grievances due to a fear of conflict than for those who do not
express such a motive.
Dependence Power
Although this study emphasizes the chilling effect of a partner's coercive
power, sources of dependence power are also associated with decisions to
withhold grievances from partners (Roloff & Cloven, 1990). Consequently, we
expect the extent to which relational partners are dependent on their associa-
tion for rewards to influence whether a partner's aggressive potential inhibits

the expression of complaints about that partner's controlling behaviors. Be-
cause both parties in a relationship can vary in their dependence on an
association, we examine in turn the role of the partner's and the individual's
perceived dependence power.
The partner's perceived dependence power. The chilling effect previously described
is amplified when a partner's punitive power occurs in combination with
dependence power. In such cases, confrontation may be perceived as risking
both aggressive responses and the partner's departure from the relationship.
Indeed, Follingstad et al. (1988) found that victims of dating abuse reported that
they gave into their partners' unreasonable demands if those partners threat-
ened to abandon the relationship. We extend this analysis by positing that
victims may withhold their complaints to avoid such threats:
withholding complaints about that partner's controlling behavior will be greater when
that partner is perceived to have good relational alternatives.
withholding complaints about that partner's controlling behavior will be greater when
that partner is perceived to have low commitment to the relationship.
The individual's own dependence power. The chilling effect of a partner's aggres-
sive potential should also be influenced by the degree to which an individual is
dependent on that particular relationship for resources. One important variable
is the quality an individual attributes to his or her own relational alternatives.
Access to alternatives is associated with lower levels of abuse in intimate relation-
ships (Kalmuss & Straus, 1990); but more importantly, high quality relational
alternatives increase the variety of ways that people can respond to either
irritating or aggressive behaviors.
On the one hand, good alternatives can empower people to voice their
complaints and to attempt to effect improvements in their relationships (Roloff
& Cloven, 1990; Rusbult, 1987; Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986; Rusbult et
al., 1982). Conversely, relational alternatives afford the option of leaving prob-
lematic associations (Rusbult et al., 1986; Rusbult et al., 1982). Indeed, individu-
als who have discontinued violent dating relationships report having signifi-
cantly more alternatives than people who remain in ongoing abusive associations
(Cate, Henton, Koval, Christopher, & Lloyd, 1982; Henton, Cate, Koval, Lloyd,
& Christopher, 1983). Thus, quality relational alternatives may empower indi-
viduals to confront problems, or allow people to leave troubling relationships.
The impact of alternatives on the chilling effect may depend upon the
individual's relational commitment. Love or commitment is among the reasons
why people tolerate abusive associations (Gelles & Straus, 1988; Strube &
Barbour, 1984). In fact, over half of the abused wives surveyed by Herbert,
Silver, and Ellard (1991) reported that they had relational options and that an
increase in alternative resources would not prompt them to leave their partners.
Thus, some individuals may not want to leave their current relationships, even
when those associations are potentially violent and reasonable alternatives exist.
The combination of an individual's perceived relational alternatives and
commitment clarifies the association between aggressive potential and the
chilling effect. When commitment is low, people with good alternatives are likely
to pursue those options, rather than voice complaints and face aggressive
responses. Thus, we would expect these individuals to avoid confrontation with
their potentially aggressive partners.
In the absence of good alternatives, people may evidence a chilling effect
regardless of their relational commitment. These individuals may feel "trapped"
in their relationships even if they are not committed to those associations.
Hence, they may seek to avoid aggression by withholding grievances.
Finally, people who perceive good alternatives but remain committed to their
relationships may not be inhibited by their partners' aggressive potential. These
people are sufficiently committed to their relationships to want to repair them
by confronting controlling partners; however, they also have viable alternatives
should communicating irritations prove unsuccessful. Consequently, these indi-
viduals should be less subject to the chilling effect. In total, we posit the
following:2
H5: Relational alternatives, commitment, and aggressive potential interact such that:
A. Perceptions of a partner's aggressive potential will be positively related to withholding
complaints about that partner's controlling behavior when an individual has good
alternatives but low commitment to the relationship, poor alternatives but high
commitment, or both poor alternatives and low commitment.
B. Perceptions of a partner's aggressive potential will be negatively related to withholding
complaints about that partner's controlling behavior when an individual has good
alternatives and high commitment.
METHODS
We examined associations between perceptions of a partner's aggressive
potential and decisions to withhold complaints among college students involved
in dating relationships.3
Procedure and Sample
Undergraduates at a midwestern university who were involved in what they
considered a "dating relationship" were offered extra credit in their communi-
cation courses to complete a two-part survey. Participants were assured confiden-
tiality and given the opportunity to withdraw from the project at any point.
First, participants completed questionnaires about their dating relationships.
Then one week later, respondents reported irritations they had about their
dating partners, indicated whether they had communicated each complaint to

those partners, and responded to questions about each of the irritations.
A total of 160 individuals (63 males and 97 females) completed all procedures.
This sample ranged in age from 18 to 32 (M = 19.96, SD = 1.41), with 98.8% of
the sample between the ages 18 and 22. Length of involvement in relationships
varied from less than a month to more than 7 years (M = 12.95 months,
SD = 13.32). All relationships were heterosexual.
Predictor Variables
Testing our hypotheses required assessment of several predictor variables:
aggressive potential, relational alternatives, relational commitment, and fear of
conflict.4
Relational alternatives. To measure perceptions of relational alternatives, partic-
ipants responded on 6-point Likert scales to four items developed by Rusbult

(1980). Adequate inter-item reliability was achieved for the sum of items
assessing both perceptions of the quality of a partner's alternatives (alpha = .80,
M = 9.82, SD = 3.72), and the respondent's own perceived alternatives (al-
pha = .84, M= 11.13, SD = 4.28).
Relational commitment. Perceptions of relational commitment were also as-
sessed through four Likert scale items (Rusbult, 1980). Alpha for the index was
.90 for the measure of the respondent's commitment (M = 17.89, SD = 4.90)
and .89 for perceptions of the partner's commitment (M = 19.15, SD = 4.32).
Partner's aggressive potential. Beliefs that partners would react aggressively to
complaints were assessed through a modified version of the Conflict Tactics
Scale (CTS) that included items assessing both symbolic and physical forms of
aggression (Mason & Blankenship, 1987; Straus, 1990a). Whereas the CTS
typically requires respondents to indicate the frequency of specific behaviors
over a period of time, we asked subjects to estimate the likelihood that commu-
nicating an irritation would cause their partners to respond with each action. By
contextualizing conflict tactics in this way, we both assessed expectations about
actions specifically with respect to relational complaints and addressed criticisms
that the CTS ignores the circumstances which give rise to aggressive action (cf.
Straus, 1990b).
In particular, each respondent indicated the likelihood (1 = would never
happen; 6 = would definitely happen) that expressing a grievance to a partner
would cause the partner to: (1) insult or swear at the respondent; (2) sulk and/or
refuse to talk about it; (3) stomp out of the room, house, or yard; (4) cry; (5) do
or say something to spite the respondent; (6) threaten to break off the relation-
ship; (7) become cold or less affectionate; (8) threaten to hit or to throw
something at the respondent; (9) throw, smash, hit, or kick something; (10)
throw something at the respondent; (11) push, grab, or shove the respondent;
(12) slap the respondent; (13) kick, bite, or hit the respondent; and (14) hit or try
to hit the respondent with something.
To confirm which behaviors comprised the symbolic and physical dimensions,
we conducted a varimax rotation, principal components factor analysis of the
CTS items. Results replicated dimensions observed in prior research (Straus,
1990a). One factor contained items constituting verbal or psychological abuse
(items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9). These items were averaged to form a measure

reflecting the perceived likelihood that a partner would respond to a complaint
with symbolic aggression (alpha = .78, M = 2.31, SO = 0.76). A second factor
reflected the partner's potential for physical aggression and was represented by
the mean of items 8 and 10 through 14 (alpha = .94, M = 1.24, SD = 0.51).5
Note that item 4, partner would cry, was excluded as per Straus' (1990a)
instructions.
To assess the incidence of actual aggression, we instructed respondents to
review the list of conflict tactics and indicate those behaviors their partners had
enacted at least once before. In total, 64.4 percent of our sample reported at
least one encounter with symbolic aggression, and 11.3 percent had been
subject to physical aggression from their dating partners.
Fear of conflict. To assess a respondent's fear of open conflict, subjects were
asked to write out why they had withheld each of the unexpressed irritations
they generated. Two judges independently coded these explanations (N = 289)
for the presence or absence of conflict aversion (i.e., the respondent expressed
that communicating the irritation would result in disagreement or endanger the
relationship). Intercoder reliability was adequate (kappa = .84), and disagree-
ments were resolved through discussion. Our final measure of fear of conflict
was a dummy-coded variable representing whether a respondent had given
conflict aversion as a motivation for withholding an irritation across any of the
unexpressed complaints identified. In total, 24 of 160 subjects expressed an
aversion to conflict episodes.
Dependent Variable
Our perspective suggests that the chilling effect of a partner's aggressive
potential is represented by unexpressed grievances about that partner's control-
ling behavior. Thus, two coders independently judged whether each irritation
(N = 845) was a complaint that the partner was dominant or controlling (i.e.,
the partner is too bossy, critical, manipulative, or must have things his or her
way). Coders identified 84 dominance complaints in common with adequate
interjudge reliability (kappa = .70), and disagreements were resolved through
discussion. To form the dependent variable, unexpressed complaints about a
partner's controlling behavior were totalled.
To test HI, we also needed to assess other types of irritations. Accordingly, we
totalled unexpressed complaints respondents had in each of the following
categories: The partner (1) shows interest in other romantic partners (partner
flirts, goes out with or talks about going out with others, kappa = .79); (2) is not
affectionate (partner is unwilling to show emotions or share physical intimacy,
kappa = .98); (3) lacks respect (partner is insensitive to the respondent's needs
or takes the respondent for granted, kappa = .76); (4) is uncommunicative
(partner does not talk, kappa = .91); (5) has dissimilar attitudes (partner has a
different political, religious perspective, kappa = .78); and (6) is too relationally
dependent (partner is too involved or too in love, kappa = .79).
RESULTS
In general, variables representing perceptions of relational alternatives and
commitment, conflict aversion, a partner's aggressive potential, and the chilling
TABLE 1
CORRELATION OF AGGRESSIVE POTENTIAL WITH TYPES OF UNEXPRESSED COMPLAINTS
Symbolic Physical
Aggression" Aggression5
Unexpressed Complaints:
Control .23** .25***
Interest in others .09 -.07
(1.27) (2.93)**
Lack of affection .01 .01
(2.04)* (2.24)*
Lack of communication -.07 -.02
(2.69)** (2.43)**
Lack of respect -.00 .03
(2.10)* (2.01)*
Dissimilar attitudes .01 .04
(2.17)* (2.08)*
Excessive dependency -.11 -.02

(3.16)*** (2.50)**
Note. Values in parentheses are /-scores for the test of the difference between that correlation and the
correlation of unexpressed control complaints with that form of anticipated aggression.
W = 160.
•W = 159.
*p < .05. **/> < .01. ***p < .001.
effect were related to additional measures of extradyadic involvement, types of

irritations, beliefs about expressing complaints, aggressive experiences, and
relational satisfaction as expected.6 Thus, these measures evidence sufficient
validity to test the hypotheses advanced.
Hypotheses Tests
Our first hypothesis was tested by computing and comparing the correlations
between perceptions of a partner's potential for aggression and unexpressed
complaints of different types. H2 through H5 were assessed using a hierarchical
regression technique that examines interaction effects while retaining the contin-
uous nature of measures (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).7 Specifically, the number of
unexpressed complaints about controlling behavior was regressed onto indepen-
dent variables on the first step, two-way interaction terms were entered on the
second step, and three-way interaction terms were added on a third step when
appropriate. Predicted effects were then tested using the slope of the relevant
term (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, chapter 8). Finally, significant interactions were
assessed by reordering the unstandardized regression weights associated with
the predictor variables, their interaction, and the Y intercept to examine the
regression of the dependent variable on one predictor within different levels of
the other predictor variable(s) (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen & Cohen, 1983).
Although we did not predict that the chilling effect associated with a partner's
aggressive potential would differ for males and females, we used hierarchical
regression procedures to assess whether any of the predicted associations were
contingent on the respondent's sex. Any significant effects of biological sex are
reported in the following discussions of results associated with each hypothesis.
HI. The correlations relevant to assessing HI are contained in Table 1. As
anticipated, we found a positive correlation between unexpressed control com-
AGGRESSION AND T H E CHILLING EFFECT 209
TABLE 2
REGRESSION OF UNEXPRESSED CONTROL COMPLAINTS ON CONFLICT AVERSION,
AGGRESSIVE POTENTIAL, AND THEIR INTERACTION
Symbolic Physical
Aggression3 Aggression*1
Step 1:
Conflict aversion 0.63* 0.65***
Aggressive potential 0.14*** 0.28**
Y Intercept 0.17*** 0.17***
R .43*** .46***
Change in R2 .19*** .21***
Step 2:
Conflict aversion 0.52*** 0.60***
Aggressive potential 0.06 0.09
Aversion X Aggression 0.61*** 1.14***
Y Intercept 0.17*** 0.17***

R .51*** .58***
Change in R2 .07*** .13***
Regressions of unexpressed control
complaints on aggressive potential:
No conflict aversion: Y = (0.06)X + 0.17 Y = (0.93)X + 0.17
Conflict aversion: Y = (0.67)X + 0.69 Y = (1.23)X + 0.78
Note. Cell entries for variables are unstandardized regression weights or slopes. The significance test of the
interaction slopes are one-tailed, all others are two-tailed.
a
AT = 160.
h
N = 159.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
plaints and anticipating both symbolic and physical aggression. Furthermore,

the potential for symbolic and physical aggression was not significantly corre-
lated with unexpressed complaints about the partner's interest in other roman-
tic partners, lack of affection, lack of respect, lack of communication, dissimilar
attitudes, or excessive dependence.
We also conducted Mests to determine whether the correlations between a
partner's aggressive potential and unexpressed control complaints were signifi-
cantly greater than associations between anticipated aggression and other
unexpressed grievances. These tests revealed that the relationship between
anticipated symbolic aggression and unexpressed complaints about a partner's
other romantic interests was not significantly different than the correlation
between unexpressed control complaints and anticipating that form of aggres-
sion. However, the correlations between anticipated aggression and all other
types of unexpressed grievances were significantly lower than the relationships
reflecting the predicted chilling effect. Thus, these results are generally consis-
tent with HI.
H2. Our second hypothesis predicted that aggressive potential would induce
a greater chilling effect among individuals who fear conflict than among those
who do not. The hierarchical regression analysis assessing this contingent
association is in Table 2.
The interaction of aggressive potential and fear of conflict was significant in
analyses involving both symbolic and physical aggression. Moreover, the de-
rived regression equations (see Table 2) revealed that aggressive potential has a
TABLE 3
REGRESSION OF UNEXPRESSED CONTROL COMPLAINTS ON PARTNER'S ALTERNATIVES,
Symbolic Physical
Aggression3 Aggression11
Step 1:
Partner's alternatives 0.02 0.02
Aggressive potential 0.18** 0.29**
Y Intercept 0.28*** 0.28***
R .25** .27**
Change in R2 .06** .07**
Step 2:
Partner's alternatives 0.02 0.02
Alternatives X Aggression 0.05** 0.02
Y Intercept 0.28*** 0.28***

R .34*** .27**
Change in R2 .05** .00
Regressions of unexpressed control complaints
on anticipated symbolic aggression:
Partner's alternatives low:c Y = (0.00)X + 0.20
>•<>
Partner's alternatives average: = (0.19)X + 0.28
Partner's alternatives high: Y = (0.38)X + 0.36
*N = 153.
b
JV=152.
Tredictor variables were centered; therefore, levels of partner's alternatives were defined as one
standard deviation (3.72) above and below the centered mean of 0.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***/> < .001.
greater positive relationship with unexpressed control complaints for individu-

als who express an aversion to open conflict than for those who do not.8 Thus,
these results are consistent with H2.
H3 and H4. H3 and H4 specify that the magnitude of the chilling effect
associated with aggressive potential is contingent on the quality of the relational
alternatives (H3) and level of commitment (H4) attributed to that partner. Tests
of the interactions involving partner's alternatives and partner's commitment
are in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Expecting a partner to respond to complaints with symbolic aggression
interacted significantly with perceptions of both the partner's alternatives and
level of commitment when predicting unexpressed dominance complaints;
however, the chilling effect of anticipating physical aggression was not contin-
gent on the partner's relational circumstances. Thus, initial regression results
only partially supported H3 and H4.
To determine whether the significant interactions involving symbolic aggres-
sion conformed to our hypotheses, we computed the regression of unexpressed
control complaints on anticipating symbolic aggression within various levels of
either partner's alternatives or commitment (see Tables 3 and 4). As predicted,
expecting a partner to respond to relational complaints with symbolic aggres-
sion produced a greater chilling effect on dominance complaints when that
partner was also perceived to have good relational alternatives. Similarly, a
AGGRESSION AND T H E CHILLING EFFECT 211
TABLE 4
REGRESSION OF UNEXPRESSED CONTROL COMPLAINTS ON PARTNER'S COMMITMENT,
Symbolic Physical
Aggression11 Aggression1"
Step 1:
Partner's commitment -0.01 -0.004
YIntercept 0.27*** 0.27***
R .23* .25**
Change in R2 .05* .06**
Step 2:
Partner's commitment -0.01 -0.01
Commitment X Aggression -0.03* -0.02
YIntercept 0.26*** 0.27***

R .27** .26*
Change in R2 .02 .00
Regressions of unexpressed control complaints
on anticipated symbolic aggression:
Partner's commitment Iow:c Y = (0.32)X + 0.29
Partner's commitment average: Y = (0.19)X + 0.26
Partner's commitment high: Y = (0.07)X + 0.23
a
iV=158.
b
N= 157.
'Predictor variables were centered; therefore, levels of partner's commitment were defined as one
standard deviation (4.32) above and below the centered mean of 0.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
greater positive slope between anticipating symbolic aggression and withholding

complaints about control is apparent when the partner is believed to be
uncommitted to the relationship.
Tests of H4 also revealed an unanticipated sex difference in the combined
chilling effect of a partner's lack of commitment and potential for symbolic
aggression. Specifically, the three-way interaction term explained significant
additional variance in unexpressed control complaints when added to the
regression analysis, change in R2 = .02, change in F(l, 150) = 3.99, p < .05.
Consequently, we examined the regression of unexpressed control complaints
on a partner's symbolic aggressive potential for different levels of partner's
commitment separately for males and females. For males, anticipating symbolic
aggression had a small and negative effect on withholding when the partner was
perceived to be highly committed to the relationship, but this effect became
positive and increased in magnitude as the partner's perceived commitment
decreased, adjusted slopes: partner's commitment high = —0.02, average =
0.32, low = 0.66. In contrast, decreases in a partner's commitment had a less
dramatic effect on the chilling effect of anticipating symbolic aggression for
females, adjusted slopes: partner's commitment high = 0.05, average = 0.07,
low = 0.09.
H5. Our fifth hypothesis suggested that the chilling effect of a partner's
potential aggressiveness would be contingent on levels of an individual's own
TABLE 5
REGRESSION OF UNEXPRESSED CONTROL COMPLAINTS ON RESPONDENT'S ALTERNATIVES, RESPONDENT'S
COMMITMENT, ACGRESSIVE POTENTIAL, AND THEIR INTERACTIONS
Symbolic Physical
Aggression" Aggression1"
Step 1:
Respondent's alternatives 0.01 0.01
Respondent's commitment -0.01 -0.01
Aggressive potential 0.16* 0.28**
Y Intercept 0.27*** 0.28***
R .26* .28**
Change in R2 .07* .08**
Step 2:
Respondent's alternatives 0.00 0.01
Aggressive potential 0.17** 0.10

Alternatives X Commitment -0.001 -0.001
Commitment X Aggression -0.02 -0.03
Alternatives X Aggression 0.03 0.05
YIntercept 0.24*** 0.23***
R .37** .41***
Change in R2 .06* .09**
Step 3:
Respondent's alternatives -0.01 -0.001
Aggressive potential 0.06 -0.06
Alternatives X Commitment 0.001 -0.003
Commitment X Aggression 0.00 0.003
Alternatives X Aggression 0.03 -0.001
3-way interaction -0.01* -0.02***
Y Intercept 0.25*** 0.23***
R .40*** .49***
Change in R2 .03* .07***
Regressions of unexpressed dominance
complaints on aggressive potential:
Alternatives and commitment low:c Y= (-0.16)X + 0.37 Y = (-0.41)X + 0.20
Alternatives high; commitment low: Y= (0.34)X + 0.27 Y = (0.26)X + 0.32
Alternatives low; commitment high: Y= (0.04)X + 0.20 Y = (0.30)X + 0.27
Alternatives and commitment high: Y= (0.04)X + 0.18 Y = (-0.38)X + 0.13
three-way interaction slopes are one-tailed, all others are two-tailed.
W = 156.
h
N= 155.
c
Predictor variables were centered; therefore, levels of respondent's commitment (SD = 4.90) and
alternatives (SD = 4.26) were defined as one standard deviation above and below centered means of 0.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***/> < .001.
alternatives and commitment. The hierarchical regression analyses assessing the

predicted three-way interactions are presented in Table 5.
The three-way interaction term contributed significantly to explaining vari-
ance in unexpressed dominance complaints in analyses involving both symbolic
and physical aggression. Hence, we computed separate equations for the
regression of unexpressed control complaints on anticipated aggression for
combinations of high and low levels of the respondent's alternatives and
commitment (see Table 5).
As expected, anticipating symbolic or physical aggression was associated with
greater withholding when respondents had good alternatives and were not
committed to continuing the association. Similarly, individuals with poor alter-
natives who were committed to their relationships responded to potential
aggression by withholding dominance complaints; however, this effect was
relatively weak in the analysis involving symbolic aggression. For individuals
with both good alternatives and high commitment, expecting physical aggres-
sion was negatively related to the frequency of unexpressed dominance com-
plaints, as predicted. Surprisingly, this slope was positive, though relatively
small, when symbolic aggression was anticipated. Finally, contrary to our
expectations, a partner's aggressive potential was negatively related to withhold-
ing complaints about control for people with poor alternatives and low commit-
ment.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study are generally consistent with our expectations
regarding the effect of a partner's aggressive potential on the expression of
complaints about that partner's controlling behaviors. Aggressive potential
exerted a chilling effect over dominance complaints, but did not promote the
withholding of other types of grievances {HI). We also have evidence that this
chilling effect is stronger when a person fears conflict episodes, in general (H2).
In addition, the assumption that aggressive potential would interact with the
partner's relational circumstances to magnify the chilling effect was supported
by tests involving symbolic aggression (H3 and H4). Finally, the magnitude and
direction of the relationship between a partner's aggressive potential and
withholding control complaints was contingent on an individual's own alterna-
tives and commitment to the relationship (H5).
Although we have evidence of the predicted chilling effect, our findings were
not wholly consistent with our expectations. First, a partner's physical aggressive
potential did not interact with a partner's relational circumstances in predicting
the chilling effect (H3 and H4). Apparently, the likelihood that physically
aggressive partners will exit relationships if confronted does not increase the
threat associated with anticipated physical repercussions. In contrast, the psycho-
logical and emotional distress associated with symbolic aggression appears to be
magnified by the added possibility of relational dissolution.
In addition, we discovered an unanticipated sex difference such that anticipat-
ing symbolic aggression was associated with a greater chilling effect in males
compared to females when partners were perceived to be uncommitted to the
relationship. This finding is consistent with Sprecher's (1985) argument that
females derive power in dating relationships from control over the reciproca-
tion of love; however, we did not find any other contingencies on biological sex
in either this study or our earlier work (Roloff & Cloven, 1990). Indeed, the
general absence of significant sex effects suggests that both males and females
are subject to a chilling effect if a partner is perceived to have punitive power.
We also did not anticipate some of the results associated with our fifth
hypothesis. We had expected individuals with both poor alternatives and low
commitment to respond to potential aggression by withholding dominance
complaints. In contrast, these people withheld fewer complaints in the face of
potential aggression. We assumed these individuals have everything to lose by
confronting an aggressive partner: They are likely to evoke aggressive repercus-

sions in an association to which they are not committed and they have no
relational options. However, these individuals do not seem to value their assets
very highly; perhaps as a consequence, they are not concerned about the
negative repercussions of confronting powerful partners.
Finally, we expected that a partner's aggressiveness would be negatively
related to withholding when individuals were empowered by alternatives and
committed to the relationship. This expectation was supported in analyses with
physical aggression; however, anticipating symbolic aggression had a small
positive effect on withholding. Although speculative, committed individuals
with good alternatives may tolerate a degree of symbolic aggression from a
partner. In contrast, the bodily harm associated with physical aggression in-
duces such persons to address control problems in valued relationships.
Despite these deviations from our expectations, this research contributes to

knowledge about how people manage relational problems and interpersonal
aggression. Whether to withhold complaints or to confront partners with
grievances is a particularly important decision in the management of interper-
sonal problems (Cloven & Roloff, 1991; Newell & Stutman, 1991; Sillars, 1980).
Indeed, an exclusive focus on how individuals communicate about problems in
close relationships overlooks or overly simplifies the frequent instances where
partners choose to avoid such communication (e.g., Roloff & Cloven, 1990).
Thus, this investigation highlights how interpersonal dynamics can be an
important precondition that may allow or inhibit certain communication behav-
iors.
Second, we have expanded prior conceptions of the chilling effect (Roloff &
Cloven, 1990). In particular, this study suggests that the power relational
partners derive from attributed aggressive capabilities works with dependence
power to influence decisions to withhold irritations in close relationships. Thus,
perceiving that a partner controls either rewards or costs within a relationship
can result in a chilling effect. The present study also refines our understanding
of the relationship between power dynamics and unexpressed irritations by
beginning to link a specific source of power to the withholding of a particular
type of grievance.
Our research also clarifies how people might attempt to manage aggression
within intimate relationships. We have evidence that individuals may exercise
communicative restraint to minimize the incidence of aggression in their relation-
ships. Indeed, although a partner's aggressive potential has a chilling effect with
regard to control complaints, this effect does not generalize to other types of
grievances that are not implicated in aggressive episodes. Thus, these findings
are consistent with evidence reported in Gelles and Straus (1988) that suggests
individuals take effortful and strategic action to avoid aggression in abusive
relationships.
Fourth, these results suggest that symbolic and physical aggression may
reflect distinct processes (cf. Stets, 1990). Although perceiving the potential for
either form of aggression was associated with a chilling effect, anticipating
symbolic or physical aggression did not interact with dependence power in the
same way. As noted, perhaps the potential for physical aggression does not
require the added threat of relational dissolution to produce a maximal chilling
effect. People who are committed to relationships and lack alternatives are also
subject to a greater chilling effect when faced with possible physical aggression
compared to symbolic aggression. In contrast, committed individuals with
alternatives appear unwilling to tolerate control from potentially physically
aggressive partners, but withhold control complaints when symbolic aggression
is expected. Clearly, additional research is needed to clarify how and why
physical and symbolic aggressive potential produce different effects on decisions
to withhold relational grievances.
Finally, evidence of a chilling effect associated with a partner's aggressive
potential provides insight into the "learned helplessness" observed by Walker
(1979) in the victims of intimate abuse. Walker suggests that people who
experience repeated violence from intimates often have lowered self-esteem and
feelings of being unable to control life events. As a result, they do not leave their
abusive partners, nor do they seek outside help. From our view, the chilling
effect may be a precursor to learned helplessness. Individuals who have re-
ceived either symbolic or physical aggression come to expect such reactions
should they challenge their partner's dominance. To cope in these relation-
ships, people may refrain from confronting their partner's controlling behavior.
As a result of this chilling effect on challenges to a partner's control, individuals
actually forfeit their ability to influence the relationship.
Notably, however, our data suggest limitations to the learned helplessness
perspective. First, the expression of irritations unrelated to control issues does
not seem to be affected by a partner's punitive power. Thus, at least early in the
learned helplessness cycle, victims of aggression may not be completely inhib-
ited from confronting their partners. In addition, withholding complaints from
an aggressive partner may not always reflect learned helplessness. For individu-
als with alternatives who are uncommitted to their relationships, avoidance may
mask an active attempt to leave the relationship. Thirdly, we found a minimal
chilling effect associated with anticipating symbolic aggression for individuals
who either did not fear conflict or perceived their partners to be relationally
dependent. Apparently individual attitudes and relational circumstances can
limit the chilling effect and perhaps the evolution of learned helplessness within
aggressive relationships.
Although this study clarifies the role of a partner's potential aggression in
decisions to withhold complaints about that partner's controlling behaviors,
several questions remain. First, we discovered that individuals may not always
withhold grievances because of a perceived power disadvantage (see Cloven,
1992). Hence, future efforts should expand our theoretical framework to
explain how relational and personal circumstances might give rise to different
reasons for withholding interpersonal irritations.
Second, our research raises questions about communication behaviors in
relationships where a chilling effect operates. For example, people who are
inhibited from expressing grievances may address irritations through other
means (e.g., Sillars, 1980). Thus, investigations of the extent to which nonverbal
or indirect strategies replace confrontation when people suffer power disadvan-
tages are warranted. This study also does not examine how people might
communicatively establish punitive power. Although we assume that percep-
tions of aggressive potential need not be shared by partners, attributions of
aggressiveness are likely to arise from prior exchanges that may or may not
involve aggressive behavior. Therefore, clarifying how communication is used
to create perceptions of power can provide insight into the genesis of the chilling
effect.
Finally, future efforts should examine the utility of managing potentially
aggressive relationships by withholding control complaints. Tolerating a part-
ner's control could have important outcomes, especially if the domination takes
the form of aggression. Abused women acknowledge that avoidance is among
the least effective strategies for putting an end to relational violence (Gelles &
Straus, 1988). In contrast, individuals who confront their partner's controlling
or aggressive behavior at its first occurrence may be better able to stop the
dominance than those who wait (Follingstad et al., 1988; Gelles & Straus, 1988).
Although this evidence suggests that managing aggression by withholding
complaints could be problematic, further research is required to clarify what

communicative strategies might be effective. The strategy reported to be most
effective by Gelles and Straus's respondents involved persuading aggressive
partners to promise to end the abuse; however, neither trying to talk husbands
out of being abusive nor threatening to get a divorce proved to be particularly
effective communication strategies. Thus, questions about how communication
might be used to eliminate aggression in intimate relationships clearly persist.
Methodological limits to this research must also be acknowledged. Because of
the cross-sectional nature of the design, the direction of causality cannot be
definitively determined in this effort. Thus, future work should explore the
causal impact of perceived aggressive potential on complaint behaviors in a
longitudinal design. In addition, our sample was drawn from a university
setting and composed of preprofessionals. Although interpersonal aggression
occurs in the relationships of college students (Follingstad et al., 1988; Makepeace,
1981; Stets & Pirog-Good, 1990), generalizations to populations with different
socio-economic characteristics should be made cautiously. Similarly, the major-
ity of our respondents were white Americans; therefore, we can not assess the
extent to which different cultures might respond to relational power dynamics
by withholding irritations. Indeed, cultural groups are likely to differ in their
norms for communication about relational problems (cf. Cahn, 1985).
Our goal was to examine how relational power might shape elemental
decisions regarding whether to communicate grievances to partners. The re-
sults of this study suggest that the power partners accrue when they are
perceived to be potentially aggressive exerts a chilling effect on the expression of
complaints about controlling behaviors. Thus, this research expands previous
conceptions of the chilling effect by demonstrating how a partner's control of
costs as well as rewards might inhibit confrontation.
ENDNOTES
1
These relationships were not reported in the original article but were found in a secondary analysis of
the data. Withholding complaints due to conflict avoidance was negatively correlated with the
respondent's own level of assertiveness during disagreements, r(98) = —.185, p < .034, and the
respondent's win record in arguments, r(95) = -.162, p < .059.
2
Our position deviates from that specified in previous research. Although Rusbult et al. (1991) argue
that commitment mediates the effect of alternatives on responses to a partner's destructive actions, we
suggest this relationship is moderational (James & Brett, 1984). A trade-off between commitment and
valuation of alternatives has been demonstrated (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989); however, this correlation is
not perfect (e.g., Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992, study 2). Moreover, whereas Rusbult and her colleagues did
not perform analyses to assess moderational effects, Roloff and Cloven (1990) discovered that perceptions
of a partner's alternatives and commitment interactively influence the expression of relational com-
plaints.
3
We chose to examine dating relationships in light of the prevalence of courtship abuse (Stets &
Henderson, 1991), and because dating associations can vary greatly in their level of commitment and
offer fewer barriers to dissolution than marital relationships. College students were selected because of
their availability, but also because students have particular access to relational alternatives. In addition,
previous studies of courtship abuse have targeted college populations (Follingstad et al., 1988;
Makepeace, 1981; Stets & Pirog-Good, 1990).
4
The questionnaire completed during part one of the procedures included measures of alternatives,
commitment, and aggression. Respondents reported in counterbalanced sections their own scores and
their impressions of their partner's scores for measures of alternatives and commitment. Perceptions of a
partner's aggressiveness were assessed at the end of the first questionnaire to avoid any contamination
effects associated with focusing respondents on coercive events. Fear of conflict was assessed in the second
part of procedures.
5
Because this variable was highly positively skewed, we set outliers equal to three standard deviations
above the mean (3.19). This required rescoring the measure for three respondents whose scores ranged
from 3.67 to 5.17.

6
Contact authors for details.
7
For these and subsequent regression analyses we centered all continuous predictor variables by
subtracting the mean score from each value. Although centering does not affect regression weights or
significance levels, it does simplify calculations and eliminates potential problems with multicollinearity
between main effect and interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991).
8
To rule out the possibility that other motives might be confounded with conflict aversion, we
examined other motives for withholding irritations. Specifically, the number of reasons that fell into the
following categories were coded: (1) the complaint is not important (does not bother the respondent, is
not a big deal, kappa = .92); (2) the relationship is not sufficiently intimate (the respondent does not feel
close enough to complain, they have only been dating a short while, kappa = .98); (3) arguing would be
futile (partner will not or cannot change, kappa = .87); and (4) the individual does not want to project a
negative self-image (respondent does not want to "nag" or appear jealous, kappa = .78). Then we
employed the same regression technique to test for the interaction between aggressive potential and
other motivations for withholding. None of the interactions were statistically significant.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Alberts, J.K. (1988). An analysis of couples' conversational complaints. Communication Monographs, 55,
185-194.
Bacharach, S.B., & Lawler, E.J. (1981). Power and tactics in bargaining. Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, 34, 219-233.
Baron, R.A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199-207.
Baxter, L.A., & Wilmot, W.W. (1985). Taboo topics in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 2, 253-269.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in everyday life. New York: Wiley.
Blumberg, H.H. (1972). Communication of interpersonal evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 23, 157-162.
Cahn, D.D. (1985). Communication competence in the resolution of intercultural conflict. World
Communication, 14, 85-94.
Cate, R.M., Henton, J.M., Koval, J., Christopher, F.S., & Lloyd, S. (1982). Premarital abuse: A social
psychological perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 3, 79-90.
Cloven, D.H. (1992). Conflict avoidance in personal relationships: An examination of motives. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Cloven, D.H., & Roloff, M.E. (1991). Sense-making activities and interpersonal conflict: Communicative
cures for the mulling blues. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 134-158.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coleman, D.H., & Straus, M.A. (1990). Marital power, conflict, and violence in a nationally representative
sample of American couples. In M.A. Straus & R.J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp.
287-304). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Drigotas, S.M., & Rusbult, C.E. (1992). Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of breakups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62-87.
Ellsworth, P.C., Carlsmith, J.M., & Henson, A. (1972). The stare as a stimulus to flight in human subjects:
A series of field experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 302-311.
Farina, A., Wheeler, D.S., & Mehta, S. (1991). The impact of an unpleasant and demeaning social
interaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 351-371.
Follingstad, D.R., Rutledge, L.L., Polek, D.S., & McNeill-Hawkins, K. (1988). Factors associated with
patterns of dating violence toward college women. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 169-182.
Gelles, R.J., & Straus, M.A. (1988). Intimate violence. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Grauerholz, E. (1987). Balancing the power in dating relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 563-571.
Henton, J., Cate, R., Koval, J., Lloyd, S., & Christopher, S. (1983). Romance and violence in dating
relationships.JournalofFamilyIssues,4, 467-482.
Herbert, T.B., Silver, R.C., & Ellard, J.H. (1991). Coping with an abusive relationship: I. How and why
do women stay? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 311-325.
Hocker, J.L., & Wilmot, W.W. (1991). Interpersonal conflict (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Infante, D.A., Riddle, D.L., Horvath, C.L., & Tumlin, S.A. (1992). Verbal aggressiveness: Messages and
reasons. Communication Quarterly, 40, 116-126.
Infante, D.A., Sabourin, T.C., Rudd, J.E., & Shannon, E.A. (1990). Verbal aggression in violent and
nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38, 361-371.
James, L.R., 8c Brett, J.M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied
Johnson, D.J., & Rusbult, C.E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a
means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
967-980.
Kalmuss, D.S., & Straus, M.A. (1990). Wife's marital dependency and wife abuse. In M.A. Straus & R.J.
Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 369-382). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Knapp, M.L., Stafford, L., & Daly, J.A. (1986). Regrettable messages: Things people wish they hadn't
said. Journal of Communication, 36, 40-58.
LaVoie, J.C. (1973). The effects of an aversive stimulus, a rationale, and sex of child on punishments
effectiveness and generalization. Child Development, 44, 505-510.
Lawler, E.J., & Bacharach, S.B. (1987). Comparison of dependence and punitive forms of power. Social
Forces, 66, 446-462.
Makepeace, J.M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Family Relations, 30, 97-102.
Mason, A., & Blankenship, V. (1987). Power and affiliation motivation, stress, and abuse in intimate
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 203-210.
Millar, F.E., & Rogers, L.E. (1987). Relational dimensions of interpersonal dynamics. In M.E. Roloff &
G.R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 117-139). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, R.E., & Hodson, C.A. (1986). Coping and social support among battered women: An ecological
perspective. In S.E. Hobfoll (Ed.), Stress, social support, and women (pp. 153-169). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Newell, S.E., & Stutman, R.K. (1989, May). Perceived situational factors in the decision to confront: Facilitators
and constraints. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San
Francisco.
Newell, S.E., & Stutman, R.K. (1991). The episodic nature of social confrontation. In J.A. Anderson (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 14 (pp. 359-392). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Resick, P.A., Barr, P.K., Sweet, J.J., Kieffer, D.M., Ruby, N.L., & Speigel, D.K. (1981). Perceived and
actual discriminators of conflict from accord in marital communication. The American Journal of Family
Therapy, 9, 58-68.
Roloff, M.E. (1981). Interpersonal communication: The social exchange approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Roloff, M.E., & Cloven, D.H. (1990). The chilling effect in interpersonal relationships: The reluctance to
speak one's mind. In D.D. Cahn (Ed.), Intimates in conflict: A communication perspective (pp. 49-76).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rusbult, C.E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment
model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.
Rusbult, C.E. (1987). Responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The exit-voice-loyalty-neglect
model. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Developmental dynamics and deterioration
(pp. 209-237). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rusbult, C.E., Johnson, D.J., & Morrow, G.D. (1986). Determinants and consequences of exit, voice,
loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in adult romantic involvements. Human Relations, 39,
45-63.
Rusbult, C.E., Verette, J., Whitney, G.A., Slovik, L.F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in
close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social
Rusbult, C.E., Zembrodt, I.M., & Gunn, L.K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to
dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1230-1242.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1976). A macro- and micro-examination of family power and love: An exchange
model. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 355-362.
Scanzoni, J. (1978). Sex roles, women's work, and marital conflict. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Sillars, A.L. (1980). Attributions and communication in roommate conflicts. Communication Monographs,
47, 180-200.
Sprecher, S. (1985). Sex differences in bases of power in dating relationships. Sex Roles, 12, 449-462.
Steinmetz, S.K. (1977). The cycle of violence: Assertive, aggressive, and abusive family interaction. New York:
Praeger.
Stets, J.E. (1990). Verbal and physical aggression in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52,
501-514.
Stets, J.E., & Henderson, D.A. (1991). Contextual factors surrounding conflict resolution while dating:
Results from a national study. Family Relations, 40, 29-36.
Stets, J.E., & Pirog-Good, M.A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50,
237-246.
Stets, J.E., & Pirog-Good, M.A. (1990). Interpersonal control and courtship aggression. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 7, 371-394.
Stets, J.E., & Straus, M.A. (1990a). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and
psychological consequences. In M.A. Straus & R.J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp.
151-165). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Stets, J.E., & Straus, M.A. (1990b). The marriage license as a hitting license: A comparison of assaults in
dating, cohabiting, and married couples. In M.A. Straus & R.J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in
American families (pp. 227-244). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M.A. (1990a). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. In M.A.
Straus & R.J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 29-47). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Straus, M.A. (1990b). The conflict tactics scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and
reliability. In M.A. Straus & R.J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 49-73). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M.A., & Gelles, R.J. (1990). How violent are American families? Estimates from the national family
violence resurvey and other studies. In M.A. Straus & R.J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American
families (pp. 95-112). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Strube, M.J., & Barbour, L.S. (1984). Factors related to the decision to leave an abusive relationship.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 837-844.
Tedeschi, J.T., Bonoma, T.V., & Schlenker, B.R. (1972). Influence, decision, and compliance. In J.T.
Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence processes (pp. 346-418). Chicago: Aldine/Atherton.
Tedeschi, J.T., Gaes, G.G., & Rivera, A.N. (1977). Aggression and the use of coercive power. Journal of
Social Issues, 33, 101-125.
Turner, C.W., Layton, J.F., & Simons, L.S. (1975). Naturalistic studies of aggressive behavior: Aggressive
stimuli, victim visibility, and horn honking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1098-1108.
Walker, L.E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row.

Cloven 1993

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Cloven 1993

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This article was downloaded by: [Oregon State University]

On: 21 December 2014, At: 19:39

The chilling effect of aggressive

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759309376309

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

A lthough intimate relationships afford ample opportunity for conflict, part-

COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS, Volume 60, September 1993

Given the frequency of conflict avoidance in close relationships and the

POWER AND THE CHILLING EFFECT

good alternatives in conjunction with little commitment to current relationships

dependence power. Indeed, research on interpersonal conflict has thus far

AGGRESSION AND THE CHILLING EFFECT

Although many factors are related to the incidence of aggression in close

to confrontation episodes and anticipate aggressive reactions should be reluc-

tion for rewards to influence whether a partner's aggressive potential inhibits

dating partners, indicated whether they had communicated each complaint to

ipants responded on 6-point Likert scales to four items developed by Rusbult

(items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9). These items were averaged to form a measure

Excessive dependency -.11 -.02

effect were related to additional measures of extradyadic involvement, types of

Y Intercept 0.17*** 0.17***

plaints and anticipating both symbolic and physical aggression. Furthermore,

Y Intercept 0.28*** 0.28***

greater positive relationship with unexpressed control complaints for individu-

YIntercept 0.26*** 0.27***

greater positive slope between anticipating symbolic aggression and withholding

Aggressive potential 0.17** 0.10

alternatives and commitment. The hierarchical regression analyses assessing the

confronting an aggressive partner: They are likely to evoke aggressive repercus-

Despite these deviations from our expectations, this research contributes to

complaints could be problematic, further research is required to clarify what

from 3.67 to 5.17.

151-165). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Potrebbero piacerti anche

Y Intercept 0.17* 0.17*

Y Intercept 0.28* 0.28*

YIntercept 0.26* 0.27*