17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Ateret Gewirtz-Meydan
Ricky Finzi-Dottan
Psychological Abuse as a Mediator Between
Insecure Attachment Orientations and
Relationship Satisfaction
Objective: To test the mediating effect of per-
petrating psychological abuse between insecure
attachment orientations and relationship satis-
faction among couples.
Method: The mediating effect of psycholog-
ical abuse between attachment orientation
and relationship satisfaction was investigated
among 128 couples (N = 256 participants) in
enduring relationships using the actor–partner
interdependence model.
Results: Actor effects indicated men and women
higher in anxious attachment perpetrate more
psychological abuse, which in turn is linked
to their low personal relationship satisfac-
tion. Partner effects revealed two significant
paths: Women higher in anxious attachment
perpetrated more psychological abuse, which
in turn was negatively linked to their partners’
relationship satisfaction. Second, the higher
the women’s attachment anxiety, the more
their partners perpetrated psychological abuse,
which in turn was negatively linked to partners’
relationship satisfaction.
Conclusions: Research on attachment and psy-
chological abuse within romantic relationships
School of Social Work, Sapir Academic College, D. N. Hof
Ashkelon, 79165, Israel (rikifnz@biu.013.net.il).
Key Words: attachment orientation, dyadic perspective, inti-
mate partner violence, psychological abuse, relationship sat-
isfaction.
498 Family Relations 70 (April 2021): 498–513
DOI:10.1111/fare.12490
University of Haifa
Sapir Academic College
could benefit from including a dyadic per-
spective. Although seen as an invisible harm,
psychological abuse is a distinct type of abuse. It
has a unique role in fulfilling attachment needs,
as well as potentially damaging consequences
on the individual and the dyad.
Psychological, mental, or emotional violence,
aggression, and abuse are examples of terms
used to describe a specific behavioral cate-
gory of intimate partner violence (Winstok &
Sowan-Basheer, 2015). These types of vio-
lence are defined as behaviors intended to
harm a partner’s emotional well-being (Yoon
& Lawrence, 2013). Common psychologically
aggressive tactics include frightening, humiliat-
ing, ridiculing, controlling, or silent treatments,
purposefully ignoring, degrading, threatening
to abandon or harm, and damaging personal
property (Follingstad et al., 1990; Sackett &
Saunders, 1990). Studies report that psychologi-
cal abuse is prevalent, especially compared with
physical aggression (Carney & Barner, 2012;
Lawrence et al., 2009; Mills et al., 2018; Taft
et al., 2006) and other types of abuse (Panuzio
& Dilillo, 2010).
Despite its high prevalence, psychological
abuse receives substantially less attention in
the literature than does physical abuse (Kar &
O’Leary, 2013; Yoon & Lawrence, 2013). This
may be attributed to the difficulty in developing

Attachment, psychological abuse, and relationship satisfaction
consensus on an acceptable definition of psycho-
logical abuse (Kar & O’Leary, 2013). Accord-
ing to Follingstad (2007), of all of forms of
abuse, psychological abuse may be the most
difficult to validly and reliably define, as it
ranges along a wide continuum and is less eas-
ily observed than physical abuse. Psychological
abuse includes implicit and explicit behaviors,
as well as visible and invisible behaviors (Jor-
dan, et al., 2010; Maiuro, 2001). For example,
restricting or controlling behaviors, as well as
withholding affection, emotional support, and
nurturing can be considered psychological abuse
(Jordan et al., 2010). Historical social roles and
different cultural norms add to the difficulty
of identifying psychological abuse and defin-
ing its full range of possible behaviors (Jor-
dan et al., 2010). However, although there is no
clear consensus on the definition of psychologi-
cal abuse, it can be generally defined as aggres-
sive acts that are intended to degrade a person
and attack his or her self-worth by making the
person feel guilty, upset, frightened, or inade-
quate (Lawrence et al., 2009).
Psychological abuse also may receive less
empirical and clinical attention because it is
perceived as more socially acceptable (e.g.,
Masci & Sanderson, 2017) and less harmful
than is physical abuse (Arriaga & Schk-
eryantz, 2015; Capezza & Arriaga, 2008;
Hammock et al., 2015, 2017; Masci & Sander-
son, 2017). Yet psychological abuse is more
predictive of posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) symptomology (i.e., intrusive experi-
ences, defensive avoidance, and dissociation),
anxiety, and depression than is physical abuse
(Mills et al., 2018). Studies report psychological
abuse is related to high levels of personal
distress (Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015),
depression (Lawrence et al., 2009; O’Leary,
et al., 2007; Taft et al., 2006), anxiety (Lawrence
et al., 2009; Taft et al., 2006), fearfulness
(O’Leary et al., 2007), PTSD symptoms (Arias
& Pape, 1999; Street & Arias, 2001), illegal
drug use, negative health perceptions, cognitive
impairment (Straight et al., 2003), dysfunctional
conflict resolution strategies (Gonzalez-Mendez
et al., 2018), and adverse reproductive out-
comes (e.g., unwanted pregnancy, termination
of pregnancy, and lack of access to prenatal
care; Tiwari et al., 2018). It was suggested that
there are specific subtypes of psychological
abuse that are associated with psychopathol-
ogy (Follingstad, 2009). For example, abusive
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
499
behaviors that damage a partner’s self-esteem
or self-concept and produce feelings of help-
lessness, submissiveness, passivity, and lack of
sociability are associated with depressive symp-
toms. Abusive behaviors intended to frighten
(e.g., direct threats to harm) are strongly
associated with anxiety.
Psychological Abuse and Attachment Theory
Adult attachment has been found to be an
important predictor of romantic relationship
quality in many empirical studies (Banse, 2004;
Chung, 2014; Molero et al., 2017). The insecure
adult attachment dimensions of anxiety and
avoidance are linked to low marital satisfaction
(Feeney, 2002), overall low relationship sat-
isfaction (Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Lowyck
& Luyten, 2008), more relationship conflicts
(Treboux et al., 2004), and high levels of inter-
personal trust issues and loneliness within
romantic relationships (Givertz et al., 2013).
Insecure attachment has been studied in
relation to the perpetration of relationship vio-
lence (Buck et al., 2012; Bui & Pasalich, 2018;
Fournier et al., 2011; Hellemans et al., 2015;
Henderson et al., 2005; Oka et al., 2016). From
an attachment theory framework, violence
toward one’s partner is understood as a dysfunc-
tional response to perceived attachment threats
that result from unmet attachment needs in the
romantic relationship (Bartholomew & Alli-
son, 2006). It is therefore suggested that partner
abuse is used as an attempt to establish or
maintain a level of personal security within the
relationship (Doumas et al., 2008), to increase
or decrease proximity to the partner (Allison
et al., 2008), and as an attempt to manage con-
flict created by opposing needs for closeness or
distance (Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015). Indi-
viduals who perceive a threat to the attachment
relationship may become alarmed and anxious
(Bowlby, 1984), which may be emotionally reg-
ulated by a violent episode (Buck et al., 2012;
Doumas et al., 2008). Carroll et al. (2010) have
shown that relational aggression, even more than
physical aggression, strikes at core attachment
needs, such as the need for a relationship or the
need to belong to a group.
According to Henderson et al. (2005), anx-
ious individuals who hold negative views of self
and positive views of others are torn between
the need for love and support and the fear
of not having that need met. Thus, they can

500
become increasingly demanding and poten-
tially aggressive when attachment needs are
not fulfilled or might stay in an abusive rela-
tionship while excusing their partner’s abuse
due to their fear of abandonment. Conversely,
individuals with avoidant attachment anxi-
ety are motivated by their need for control in
close relationships to protect their autonomy
(Mikulincer, 1998b). This need may be trans-
lated into challenges with independence and be
expressed in passive-aggression and criticism
that is used by one partner to gain and maintain a
comfortable level of relational distance (Allison
et al., 2008).
Psychological abuse was found to be neg-
atively associated with personal and partner’s
relationship satisfaction (Kim et al., 2008),
relationship adjustment (Taft et al., 2006), and
marital satisfaction (Yoon & Lawrence, 2013).
However, despite its clear effect on both mem-
bers of the dyad, research tends to focus on
the unidirectional violence inflicted by men
to women (Lawson & Malnar, 2011), and this
research is mostly conducted among individuals
(Gavin, 2011; Kar & O’Leary, 2013; Manso
et al., 2011). Focusing on the individual alone
means examining only the actor effect on the
dyad, gaining understanding only on an indi-
vidual’s perpetration of psychological abuse
and how it mediates between their own inse-
cure attachment and own levels of relationship
satisfaction. Examining both actor and part-
ner effects enables better understanding of the
dynamic between the couple.
Dyadic Perspective
Previous studies have demonstrated that in
romantic relationships, one partner’s attachment
orientation predicts the other partner’s outcomes
and behaviors. Godbout and Dutton (2009)
conducted a dyadic analysis that illustrated
the importance of partners’ attachment rep-
resentations in predicting early exposure to
violence, intimate violence, and couple adjust-
ment. Lawrence et al. (2009) suggested the
lack of differences between genders found in
their study regarding psychological aggression
could imply that this kind of aggression is likely
bidirectional for many couples and could be
more of a dyadic phenomenon than a sign of
individual psychopathology. A recent longitudi-
nal study among newlyweds found perpetration
of psychological abuse is positively associated
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Family Relations
with being a victim of psychological abuse by
the partner (Jarnecke & South, 2018). On the
basis of studies indicating that partner abuse
is a dyadic problem (Archer, 2002; O’Leary
et al., 2007; Straus, 2008, 2009; Winstok &
Straus, 2011), the concept of psychological
abuse as a possible mediator between attach-
ment insecurities and relationship satisfaction
was constructed from a dyadic perspective,
using an actor–partner interdependence model
(APIM; Kenny et al., 2006). Although many
studies conducted at the individual level allow
examination of some perceived or estimated
dyadic effects, the dyadic analysis conducted in
the current study will enable the understanding
of dyadic patterns (Kenny, 2013).
Israeli Context
The present study was conducted in Israel.
Israeli society is family oriented, characterized
by relatively high marriage and childbearing
rates, and positioned between tradition and
modernity (Lavee & Katz, 2003). Whereas
in many countries (e.g., Spain, France, and
the United Kingdom), psychological abuse
is included in the definition of domestic vio-
lence and is considered a legal offense, in
Israel, psychological abuse is not considered
a legal offense unless it is inflicted on chil-
dren (Ben-David, 2015). While Israeli law
acknowledges psychological abuse can be a
component of domestic violence, legal courts
are still considered to be more sensitive to
the battered woman syndrome (Walker, 1979),
which was the basis for rulings in most cases
of domestic violence (Ben-David, 2015). Israeli
media sites monitor the number of women killed
each year (e.g., www.Haaretz.co.il/st/c/prod/
heb/global/homicide/) in episodes of domestic
violence and reported a 64% increase in mur-
ders of women during 2018. On this basis, in
December 2018 thousands of women engaged
in protests and nationwide strikes to protest
violence against women (Staff, 2018; Yaron
et al., 2018; Zieve, 2018). However, although
physical violence against women receives most
of the attention in Israel, 45% of the petitions
for a protection order filed by women reported
psychological and mental violence, such as
turning children against their mother, verbal
abuse, or threats (Yassour-Borochowitz, 2016).
Reports of physical abuse and violence against
women are widely covered by the media, yet

Attachment, psychological abuse, and relationship satisfaction
Figure 1. Paths Examined in the Present Study.
much less is known about the levels of psycho-
logical abuse perpetrated by men and women.
In the present study, we sought to examine the
levels of psychological abuse perpetrated in
dyads and to gain further understanding of the
dynamics of psychological abuse among couples
in Israel.
Present Study
The present study examined couples who were
coparenting in an enduring relationship. Given
the connections among activation of the attach-
ment system, partner abuse, and relationship
outcomes, we hypothesized that psychological
abuse would mediate the relationship between
insecure attachment and low relationship sat-
isfaction at the personal and dyadic levels. At
the actor level, one’s own perpetration of psy-
chological abuse would mediate between their
own insecure attachment and low relationship
satisfaction. The dyadic level has three paths:
one’s insecure attachment will link to their per-
petration of psychological abuse, which in turn
will negatively link to the partner’s relation-
ship satisfaction; one’s insecure attachment will
link to their partner’s perpetration of psycholog-
ical abuse, which in turn will negatively link to
the partner’s relationship satisfaction; and one’s
insecure attachment will link to their partner’s
perpetration of psychological abuse, which will
negatively link to their own relationship satisfac-
tion. See Figure 1 to view the paths examined in
the current study.
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
501
Method
Participants
Participants were 128 heterosexual couples
(N = 256). Study inclusion criteria were het-
erosexual couples in a relationship (married
or cohabitating) for at least 3 years and par-
ents of at least one child. These criteria were
established to examine the mediating effect
of perpetrating psychological abuse between
insecure attachment and relationship satisfac-
tion among couples in developed stages of
their relationship. Participants’ average age
was 34.38 years (SD = 8.88). Men had an
average age of 35.00 years (SD = 9.04), women
33.76 years (SD = 8.71). The average relation-
ship duration was 11 years (M = 11.19 years,
SD = 8.61). Couples had an average of 2.74
children (SD = 1.55). Couples were highly
educated, with an average of 15.73 years of
education (SD = 2.42). Men had an average of
15.15 years of education (SD = 2.48); women,
16.30 years of education (SD = 2.21). This
means most of the participants in the study had
completed high school (12 years of education)
and a bachelor’s degree (15 years of education).
Most participants were native Israelis (87%).
The remaining participants were immigrants
from Europe, the Unites States, Canada, South
America, and South Africa (10.2%) and places
defined as other (2.4%). The majority of par-
ticipants reported working full time (64%) or
part time (24%), while the rest were engaged
in professional training or academic studies,

502
unemployed, or retired (12%). Among men,
78.1% reported working full time, 12.5%
reported working part time, and the rest were
engaged in professional training or academic
studies, unemployed, or retired (9.6%). Among
women, only 49.2% reported working full time,
35.9% reported working part time, and the rest
were engaged in professional training or aca-
demic studies, unemployed, or retired (14.8%).
Participants’ perceived economic status ranged
from very good (17%), good (49%), average
(30%), to very bad (4%).
Measures
Attachment orientation. The Experiences
in Close Relationships Scale—Short Form
(ECR-S; Wei et al., 2007) is a 12-item scale
designed to measure adult attachment orienta-
tions in romantic relationships. The measure has
two subscales: attachment anxiety, representing
a person’s need for approval and anxiety about
rejection from others (sample question: “I need
a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my
partner”); and attachment avoidance, indicating
an individual’s fear of intimacy with others
and reticence to self-disclose (sample question:
“I want to get close to my partner, but I keep
pulling back”). Participants rated their responses
using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) to
indicate their level of agreement with statements
about their romantic relationships.
Scores for anxiety and avoidance domains
were computed by calculating the mean of the
responses in each category. Wei et al. (2007)
reported that the ECR-S possesses a stable
factor structure and acceptable internal consis-
tency (ranging from .77 to .86 for the Anxiety
subscale and from .78 to .88 for the Avoidance
subscale). Test–retest reliability, and construct
validity across six studies were evaluated. In
the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the
Avoidant Attachment subscale was .64, and for
the Anxious Attachment subscale, it was .72.
In general, a Cronbach’s alpha of .60 or higher
is considered the minimum acceptable level for
short instruments used for screening purposes
(e.g., Murphy & Davidshofer, 1998); although
some methodologists apply a stronger standard
of at least .70 (Nunnally, 1978). However,
the reliabilities are similar to those found in
other recent studies using this scale (Hellemans
et al., 2015; Kuijpers et al., 2012; Richman
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Family Relations
et al., 2015; Rodriguez et al., 2018). The ECR
was translated into Hebrew by Mikulincer and
Florian (2000), who also validated its two-factor
structure on an Israeli sample. The translated
version (for the full ECR measure, 36 items)
received a high reliability for avoidant attach-
ment (α = .93) and for anxious attachment
(α = .92; Mikulincer & Florian, 2000).
Psychological abuse. The Non-Physical Abuse
of Partner Scale (NPAPS; Garner & Hud-
son, 1992) is a 25-item scale designed to
measure the degree of perceived, nonphysical
abuse that participants report they have inflicted
on a spouse or partner (sample questions: “I tell
my partner that he or she is dumb or stupid”; “I
make fun of my partner’s ability to do things”;
“I insult or shame my partner in front of others”;
“I carefully control the money I give my part-
ner”; I scream and yell at my partner; I frighten
my partner”; “I demand that my partner stay
home”). For each statement, participants rated
how often in their relationship they perpetrate
nonphysical abusive behavior, using a 7-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7
(all of the time). Higher scores represent higher
perpetration of psychological abuse towards
partner.
Garner and Hudson (1994) provided excel-
lent internal consistency for the NPAPS, with an
alpha greater than .90. The NPAPS is reported
to have good content and factorial validity, and
accumulating evidence supports its construct
validity. It nearly always achieves validity
coefficients of .60 or greater (Garner & Hud-
son, 1992). The NPAPS is unidimensional and
demonstrated high reliability in previous studies
on psychological abuse (α = .94, Rodriguez
et al., 2015; α = .84, Taebi et al., 2016). It is
computed by calculating the mean scores for
all items. The reliability in the current sample
was good (α = .86). The NPAPS was translated
into Hebrew for the present study, using the
forward–backward translation technique.
Relationship satisfaction. The Relationship
Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988) was
designed to measure relationship satisfaction.
It consists of sitems rated on a 7-point Lik-
ert scale (sample question: “In general, how
satisfied are you with your relationship?”).
Higher scores represented greater relationship
satisfaction. The RAS is unidimensional and
is computed by calculating the mean score of

Attachment, psychological abuse, and relationship satisfaction
all items. Psychometrics tests indicate it has
high validity and reliability (Hendrick, 1988,
Vaughn & Matyastik Baier, 1999). The RAS
produced very high reliabilities in recent studies
on partner abuse and relationship satisfaction
(α = .90, Lamotte et al., 2018), dyadic analysis,
and attachment (α = .90 for men, α = .91 for
women; Rodriguez et al., 2018). The reliabil-
ity in the current sample was good (α = .88).
We used a Hebrew version of the RAS used
and validated in previous studies (Birnbaum
et al., 2007; Birnbaum & Reis, 2006).
Procedure
The study received approval from the Ethics
Committee of the School of Social Work at the
authors’ university. The current study is part
of a larger study assessing attachment orienta-
tion, narcissism, and relational and sexual satis-
faction among couples (Gewirtz-Meydan, 2017;
Gewirtz-Meydan & Finzi-Dottan, 2018). The
data were collected from April 2015 to October
2015.
Participants were recruited in two ways:
First, the study was advertised on various social
network platforms (e.g., Facebook pages, social
network groups). An effort was made to adver-
tise in large groups and networks (more than
100,000 participants) with different interests and
different age groups to achieve a diverse sample
that would be generalizable. Second, we used
snowball sampling techniques, such as sending
the study link through lists of e-mail contacts.
Each contact was then asked to forward the
e-mail to his or her contacts (personal and col-
leagues’ email lists, thus providing information
to different communities, such as students or
other interest groups). Both recruitment methods
provided the potential participants with contact
Table 1. Correlations Between Main Study Measures
1 2
1 Attachment avoidance men —
2 Attachment avoidance women –.03 —
3 Attachment anxiety men .21∗ .06
4 Attachment anxiety women .21∗ .16
5 Relationship satisfaction men –.13 –.05
6 Relationship satisfaction women –.02 –.21∗
7 Psychological abuse perpetration by men .23∗ .01
8 Psychological abuse perpetration by women .11 .17∗
Note. * p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
503
details and later with a link to the consent
form and the questionnaires. Participants were
provided brief information about the study and
contact details. As an incentive, all participants
received a lottery ticket for one of several prizes
(in the form of coupons and gift cards). All
couples provided full consent before answering
the questionnaires.
To promote honest responding, each partic-
ipant was given a personal link to the study
and asked to complete it separately from their
partner. Questionnaires were identified by code
numbers only, which enabled linking the cou-
ples. After completing the data collection, 62
individuals with no partner code were excluded.
Data were collected online using Qualtrics
software, which ensured the anonymity of
respondents.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
To examine the pattern of associations between
the main study measures (attachment orienta-
tion, relationship satisfaction, and psychological
abuse), we conducted a series of Pearson corre-
lations. Correlation coefficients are presented in
Table 1. Next, we conducted a series of paired
sample t-test analyses to examine differences
between men and woman in the main study mea-
sures. Means, standard deviations, test statis-
tics, and effect sizes are presented in Table 2.
The analyses indicated that men were higher in
attachment avoidance and lower in anxiety than
were women. The analyses also revealed that
women were higher in psychological abuse per-
petration than men. There were no significant
differences in relationship satisfaction between
men and women.
3 4 5 6 7
—
.22∗ —
–.14 –.26∗∗ —
.00 –.25∗∗ .51∗∗∗ —
.38∗∗∗ .27∗∗ –.35∗∗∗ –.26∗∗ —
.14 .36∗∗∗ –.30∗∗ –.42∗∗∗ .31∗∗∗
 17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
504 Family Relations

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Test Statistics, and Effect Sizes for Examining the Differences Between Partners in
Main Study Measures

Men Women
M SD M SD t(127) Cohen’s d

Attachment avoidance 3.23 0.93 2.71 0.99 4.27∗∗∗ 0.38

Attachment anxiety 2.81 1.03 3.30 1.17 –3.96∗∗∗ –0.34
Relationship satisfaction 5.72 0.97 5.64 1.05 0.94 0.08
Psychological abuse 1.83 0.58 2.15 0.63 –4.85∗∗∗ –0.43
Note. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

Table 3. Correlations Between Main Study Measures and Background Measures

Relationship Education Education Employment Employment Economic Economic

length Children men women men women status men status women

1 Avoidance men –.11 –.06 –.11 .01 –.15 .07 –.18∗ –.09
2 Avoidance women .02 .04 –.03 –.12 –.04 –.04 .03 .13
3 Anxiety men –.08 –.03 –.17 –.09 .03 –.18∗ –.20∗ –.23∗∗
4 Anxiety women –.08 –.03 –.18∗ –.11 .05 –.20∗ –.17 –.12
5 Satisfaction men .10 .10 .15 .02 .07 –.06 .28∗∗ .25∗∗
6 Satisfaction women –.04 –.05 .07 .06 .02 .02 .23∗ .32∗∗
7 Abuse men –.16 –.08 –.04 .01 –.01 –.18∗ –.23∗ –.25∗∗
8 Abuse women –.24∗ –.12 –.08 –.12 –.05 –.18∗ –.05 –.17
Note. Employment: 0 = unemployed; 1 = employed.
* p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

Finally, to explore whether demographic vari-
ables might account for any obtained effects,
we conducted a series of Pearson correlations
between the main study measures and demo-
graphic variables (Table 3). As can be seen in
Table 3, significant correlations were obtained
for several variables. On the basis of these asso-
ciations, in subsequent analyses, we controlled
for the contribution of relationship length, men’s
years of education, women’s employment status,
and couple’s economic status to ensure they did
not account for any obtained effects.
Examination of the Mediational Model
To examine whether couples’ perpetration
of psychological abuse mediated the links
between attachment orientations (attachment
anxiety, attachment avoidance) and relationship
satisfaction, we conducted an actor–partner
interdependence mediation model (APIMeM;
Ledermann et al. 2011). APIM is a data-analytic
procedure designed to deal with violations
of statistical independence that occur with
dyadic data. The APIM estimates two kinds
of effects: actor effects and partner effects.
In our case, actor effects were the effects of
one member of the dyad’s (man’s or woman’s)
attachment orientation on his or her own reports
of perpetration of psychological abuse and
relationship satisfaction. Partner effects were
the effects of a man’s attachment variables on
his partner’s reports of psychological abuse
perpetration and relationship satisfaction and
the effects of a woman’s attachment variables
on her partner’s psychological abuse perpetra-
tion and her relationship satisfaction. Models
were estimated using MPlus 6.1 (Muthén &
Muthén, 1998–2010) structural equation mod-
eling (SEM) package. The significance of
each mediation path and of the k parameters
was estimated using bias-corrected bootstrap
analysis with 5,000 resampling, as recom-
mended by Kenny (2013). Because the model
comprised only observed variables, it was
saturated; no model fit indices are reported.
APIM mediation analyses have eight possi-
ble mediation routes: two actor–actor–actor
paths, two actor–actor–partner paths,
two actor–partner–partner paths, and two
actor–partner–actor paths. Results are summa-
rized in Figure 2.

Attachment, psychological abuse, and relationship satisfaction
Figure 2. Actor–Partner Model Presenting Psychological Abuse as a Mediator Between Attachment
Orientation and Relationship Satisfaction.
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
The analyses revealed three mediation paths
affecting men’s relationship satisfaction: (a) the
higher men’s attachment anxiety, the higher their
own perpetration of psychological abuse, which,
in turn, was negatively associated with their own
relationship satisfaction, 95% bias-corrected
(BC) confidence interval (CI): [–0.17, –0.04]).
This mediation path did not include the effect of
the man’s partner (women) but was only an actor
effect; two additional mediation paths on men’s
relationship satisfaction involved partner effects:
(b) the higher women’s attachment anxiety, the
higher the women’s perpetration of psycholog-
ical abuse, which, in turn, was negatively linked
with women’s partners’ (men’s) relationship
satisfaction, 95% BC CI: [–0.12, –0.01]; and
(c) the higher women’s attachment anxiety, the
higher their partners’ (men’s) perpetration of
psychological abuse, which, in turn, was nega-
tively linked with partners’ (men’s) relationship
satisfaction, 95% BC CI: [–0.11, –0.01].
The analyses also revealed one mediation
path affecting women’s relationship satisfaction.
The higher women’s attachment anxiety, the
higher the women’s perpetration of PA, which,
in turn, was negatively associated with their own
(women’s) relationship satisfaction, 95% BC CI:
[–0.18, –0.04].
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
505
In addition, we reestimated the APIMeM
model while controlling for the contribution of
relationship duration, men’s years of education,
women’s employment status, and couple’s eco-
nomic status. All paths and mediation paths
remained unchanged.
Discussion
Actor Effects
This study revealed two main actor effects
between attachment orientation and relationship
satisfaction, mediated by psychological abuse.
On the basis of findings related to actor effects,
this research supported a relation between
attachment anxiety and perpetration of psycho-
logical abuse. This was indicated by the fact
that both men’s and women’s high attachment
anxiety led to perpetration of more psycho-
logical abuse and their own low relationship
satisfaction. This association between anxiety
and perpetration of abuse may suggest that indi-
viduals who are more anxious can feel constant
fear of abandonment and rejection (Hazan &
Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
These individuals may fail to effectively com-
municate their need for reassurance in functional
ways, which can cause them to strike out in

506
abusive anger to gain or regain proximity to
their partner (Allison et al., 2008; Bartholomew
& Allison, 2006). Our study results also were
supported by previous studies indicating psy-
chological abuse has been found to be associated
with attachment proximity seeking, separation
protest, feared loss, and compulsive care seeking
(Murphy & Hoover, 1999). However, psycho-
logical abuse eventually results in diminished
marriage quality and greater likelihood of
divorce (Carroll et al., 2010).
Partner Effects
The partner effects paths demonstrate a strong
connection between women’s anxious attach-
ment and their partner’s perpetration of psy-
chological abuse, which is associated with low
levels of relationship satisfaction among men.
These paths also correspond with the study
of Hellemans et al. (2015), which found that
although psychological abuse was related to both
men’s and women’s insecure attachment, the
correlation was more detrimental for women
than it was for men. Perhaps women high in
anxious attachment are vigilant to actual or
perceived relationship threats, such as conflict,
separation, or abandonment; demonstrate more
neediness; and are highly motivated to preserve
the relationship and avoid abandonment (Del
Giudice, 2016; Finzi-Dottan et al., 2004). As
a result, they could demand more involvement
from their partner and are insistent and intrusive
about it, which may lead to psychological abuse
or affect the partner’s perpetration of psycholog-
ical abuse, which in turn reflects on relationship
satisfaction (Godbout & Dutton, 2009).
Although avoidant attachment orientation
was correlated with psychological abuse in the
current study, no mediating paths were found.
Avoidant attachment has been linked to hostility
and aggressive behavior, and studies suggest it
predicts partner abuse (Bélanger et al., 2015;
Gormley & Lopez, 2010). However, individuals
with more of an avoidant orientation were more
likely to threaten to leave or actually to leave the
relationship when confronted with relationship
distress (Gaines et al., 2000).
Other studies strengthen our interpretation of
the results because the studies demonstrate the
role of anxious attachment in the perpetration
of partner abuse (Fournier et al., 2011; Smith
& Stover, 2016). McDermot et al. (2016) found
that anxious attachment in adults was associated
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Family Relations
with restrictive engulfment, denigration, hostile
withdrawal and dominance/intimidation for both
men and women, whereas avoidant attachment
was associated with hostile withdrawal for both
men and women and with denigration in the
male sample only. Research suggests that indi-
viduals higher in attachment anxiety are char-
acterized by a persistent need for reassurance
and doubts about partner availability and their
own worthiness (Mikulincer, 2006). Therefore,
these individuals respond to signs of disinter-
est or betrayal from their partners with panic,
anger, and aggression (Campbell et al., 2005)
and are prone to engage in maladaptive attempts
to smother or draw their partners closer (Doumas
et al., 2008; Follingstad, et al., 2002).
Anxiously attached individuals may obtain
sufficient interest, commitment, and support
from their partners through violent or abusive
behaviors (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for
a review). In contrast, to preserve self-control,
avoidantly attached individuals are likely to
respond to relationship threats with withdrawal,
tight control over their feelings, and expres-
sions of anger (Mikulincer et al., 1998, 2002).
These patterns of withdrawal response are
typical for avoidantly attached individu-
als when confronted with relational distress
(Nisenbaum & Lopez, 2015). However, hyper-
activation strategies (e.g., excessive arousal
and proximity-seeking), which are typical of
anxiously attached individuals when confronted
with relational distress, may explain the effect
of anxious attachment on perpetration of psy-
chological abuse and relationship satisfaction
found in the present study.
Gender Differences
Gender differences related to attachment orien-
tation replicated findings from previous studies:
Women reported more indication of attachment
anxiety than men, whereas men reported more
indication of avoidant attachment than women
(see Brassard et al., 2013; Del Giudice, 2016;
Schmitt et al., 2003). The current study mea-
sured attachment on a continuum, and therefore,
cannot determine attachment orientation defini-
tively. However, a large-scale study of couples
found that relationships between a man with an
avoidant attachment style and a woman with an
anxious attachment style was a relatively com-
mon, and surprisingly stable, relationship type,
despite low levels of relationship satisfaction
(Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994).

Attachment, psychological abuse, and relationship satisfaction
In this study, no differences were found
between men and women regarding relationship
satisfaction. However, consistent with previous
studies (e.g. Mondor et al., 2011), personal
relationship satisfaction was positively related
to partner’s relationship satisfaction. Consistent
with studies that indicated individuals with inse-
cure attachment orientation were significantly
less satisfied with their relationship than secure
attached individuals were, we found women’s
personal insecure attachment orientation (anx-
ious or avoidant) was negatively related to their
own levels of relationship satisfaction. However,
unexpectedly, men’s relationship satisfaction
was negatively related to their partner’s anxiety
attachment orientation but not to their own.
These findings contradict most studies indicat-
ing a close relationship between insecure attach-
ment and relationship satisfaction (e.g. Butzer
& Campbell, 2008; Lowyck & Luyten, 2008;
Stackert & Bursik, 2003), but agree with some
that indicated anxiety attachment was more
detrimental to relationship satisfaction than was
avoidance (Birnbaum, 2007; Feeney, 2002).
Data from the present study indicate that
women were significantly more psychologically
abusive than were men. These findings were con-
sistent with those of other studies (Denise &
Kimberly, 2003; Kar & O’Leary, 2013). How-
ever, the results herein indicated that men who
reported inflicting higher levels of psycholog-
ical abuse on their partners had partners who
were higher in attachment anxiety, or were them-
selves higher in anxiety and avoidance. Women,
in contrast, demonstrated more psychological
abuse only when they had insecure attachment
orientation (anxiety or avoidance). These find-
ings are consistent with other studies that found
that insecure attachment is predictive of rela-
tional aggression (Fournier et al., 2011; Oka
et al., 2016) and is associated with partner
abuse victimization and perpetration (Allison
et al., 2008; Doumas et al., 2008).
The results of the current study also indi-
cated that men’s and women’s perpetration of
psychological abuse was related, indicating the
complex and bidirectional nature of partner
abuse, in which both partners are alternately
victims and perpetrators (Straus, 2011; Winstok
& Straus, 2011). This is concerning because
although men and women both inflict psy-
chological abuse, it is still common to view
perpetrators who are men more negatively and
as capable of inflicting more harm than women
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
507
would when engaging in aggressive behav-
iors (Hammock et al., 2017). Yet, consistent
with previous studies (Kim et al., 2008; Taft
et al., 2006), the current study indicated that the
more men or women perpetrated psychological
abuse, the less satisfied they and their partners
were with the relationship.
Limitations and Directions for Further
Research
This study had several limitations. The sample
was not randomized and, therefore, might not
be representative of the general population. Fur-
ther, participants predominantly had high levels
of education. Therefore, these results may not
generalize well to other populations. The data
were based on participants’ self-reports of their
own perceptions of attachment, abuse perpetra-
tion, and satisfaction. Self-report measures are
highly subjective and increase the possibility of
social-desirability biases, especially in question-
naires that address abusive behaviors.
The study’s cross-sectional nature enabled us
to learn about associations between variables
but not about causality. It is also possible vari-
ables can be set differently within the model.
For example, relationship satisfaction can also
mediate the relation between attachment inse-
curity and psychological abuse (e.g., Fournier
et al., 2011). It should be noted that although we
obtained a low alpha reliability for the avoidant
subscale of the ECR-S measure, it is similar
to the reliability found in other recent studies
using this scale (Hellemans et al., 2015; Kui-
jpers et al., 2012; Richman et al., 2015). Future
research could examine additional correlations
between psychological abuse and other aspects
of relationships (e.g., romantic commitment,
communication, sexual satisfaction). In addi-
tion, the present study only examined the per-
petration of psychological abuse, which can be
very subjective. Further research should collect
reports of the receipt of psychological abuse as
well to obtain a more reliable and accurate pic-
ture of the psychological abuse dynamic among
couples and to identify whether a similar pattern
of results emerges from victims and perpetrators.
Theoretical Contribution
Despite these limitations, the present study has
several important and unique contributions.

508
It is one of the first to demonstrate the medi-
ating effect of psychological abuse between
insecure attachment orientation and relation-
ship satisfaction from a dyadic perspective.
Research regarding psychological abuse tends
to focus on individuals, despite the obviously
dyadic nature of this phenomenon. Many stud-
ies in this area have focused on dating stages
and undergraduates, who likely have not yet
become involved in long-term, committed
relationships.
The findings among couples in the present
study indicate that psychological abuse has com-
plex, bidirectional tendencies, similar to other
forms of partner abuse (Bélanger et al., 2015;
Winstok & Straus, 2011). It was found that
women, even more than men, perpetrate psy-
chological abuse in the relationship. For various
reasons, many researchers tend to focus on phys-
ical abuse rather than psychological abuse. The
present study addressed psychological abuse as
a distinct category of partner abuse and sheds
some light on its contribution to the field of part-
ner violence and to our understanding of rela-
tionship satisfaction among nonclinical, adult
couples in long-term relationships.
Clinical Implications
The results of the present study have potentially
important clinical implications. Perhaps one of
the most significant findings to emerge from
this study is the importance of psychological
abuse as an intervention target. Despite being
correlated with negative marital outcomes and
decreased relationship satisfaction, psychologi-
cal abuse is still considered an “invisible harm”
because it is not always perceived as harmful by
clinicians (Follingstad & DeHart, 2000) or by
its victims (Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015). The
current study indicates that psychological abuse
is highly prevalent among couples and mediates
the relationship between attachment insecuri-
ties and low relationship satisfaction. Therefore,
clinicians should address psychological abuse
as a distinct type of abuse and acknowledge its
unique role in fulfilling attachment needs. It is
the clinician’s task to recognize the presence of
psychological abuse in the relationship and to be
aware of its effects on relationship satisfaction. It
is then that alternative and more adaptive ways of
obtaining security and stability within the rela-
tionship can be discussed.
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Family Relations
Conclusion
Although partner abuse has been previously
explained in terms of attachment at the indi-
vidual level for male-to-female perpetrated
violence, the current study improved on previous
research by taking into account the influence of
both individuals on the phenomenon of partner
abuse, no matter the gender of the perpetrator.
Research on attachment and psychological
abuse within romantic relationships would ben-
efit from including a dyadic perspective. Despite
its correlation with negative marital outcomes
and decreased relationship satisfaction, psycho-
logical abuse is still seen as an “invisible harm”
because it is not always perceived as damaging
by clinicians (Follingstad & DeHart, 2000),
victims (Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015), and
perpetrators (Masci & Sanderson, 2017). Our
findings show the importance of the mediational
process in which anxious attachment of both
partners promotes psychological abuse, which
in turn has negative effects on satisfaction.
Furthermore, our results lend further support to
the mutuality of partner abuse by identifying
partner effects in the process of psychological
abuse mediating between attachment anxiety
and relationship satisfaction.
References
Allison, C. J., Bartholomew, K., Mayseless, O., &
Dutton, D. G. (2008). Love as a battlefield: Attach-
ment and relationships dynamics in couples iden-
tified for male partner violence. Journal of Family
Issues, 29, 125–150.
Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically
aggressive acts between heterosexual partners
A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 7, 313–351.
Arias, I., & Pape, K. T. (1999). Psychological abuse:
Implications for adjustment and commitment to
leave violent partners. Violence and Victims, 14(1),
55–67.
Arriaga, X. B., & Schkeryantz, E. L. (2015). Intimate
relationships and personal distress: The invisible
harm of psychological aggression. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1332–1344.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215594123
Banse, R. (2004). Adult attachment and marital
satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic configuration
effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 21(2), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407504041388
Bartholomew, K., & Allison, C. J. (2006). An attach-
ment perspective on abusive dynamics in intimate
relationships. In M. Mario & S. G. Gail (Eds.),

Attachment, psychological abuse, and relationship satisfaction
Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiv-
ing and sex (pp. 102–127). The Guilford Press.
Bélanger, C., Mathieu, C., Dugal, C., & Courchesne,
C. (2015). The impact of attachment on intimate
partner violence perpetrated by women. The Amer-
ican Journal of Family Therapy, 43, 441–453.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2015.1080130
Ben-David, L. (2015). Legislation regarding
emotional and financial abuse in fighting
domestic violence. https://fs.knesset.gov.il/
globaldocs/MMM/b370aa75-2f7b-e511-80d1-
00155d0ad6b2/2_b370aa75-2f7b-e511-80d1-
00155d0ad6b2_11_9244.pdf
Birnbaum, G. E. (2007). Attachment orientations,
sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction in
a community sample of women. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 21–35. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0265407507072576
Birnbaum, G. E., Cohen, O., & Wertheimer, V. (2007).
Is it all about intimacy? Age, menopausal status,
and women’s sexuality. Personal Relationships,
14, 167–185.
Birnbaum, G. E., & Reis, H. T. (2006). Women’s sex-
ual working models: an evolutionary-attachment
perspective. Journal of Sex Research,
43(4), 328–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224490609552332
Bowlby, J. (1984). Violence in the family as a disorder
of the attachment and caregiving systems. Ameri-
can Journal of Psychoanalysis, 44(1), 9–27.
Brassard, A., Dupuy, E., Bergeron, S., & Shaver,
P. R. (2013). Attachment insecurities and women’s
sexual function and satisfaction: The mediating
roles of sexual self-esteem, sexual anxiety, and
sexual assertiveness. Journal of Sex Research,
52(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499
.2013.838744
Buck, N. M. L., Leenaars, E. P. E. M., Emmelkamp,
P. M. G., & Marle, H. J. C. Van. (2012). Explain-
ing the relationship between insecure attachment
and partner abuse: The role of personality char-
acteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
27(16), 3149–3170. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260512441258
Bui, N. H., & Pasalich, D. S. (2018). Insecure attach-
ment, maladaptive personality traits, and the perpe-
tration of in-person and cyber psychological abuse.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–23. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0886260518760332
Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment,
sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction:
A study of married couples. Personal Relation-
ships, 15(1), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1475-6811.2007.00189.x
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy,
D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in
romantic relationships: The role of attachment anx-
iety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
88(3), 510–531.
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
509
Capezza, N. M., & Arriaga, X. B. (2008). You
can degrade but you can’t hit: Differences in
perceptions of psychological versus physical
aggression. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 25(2), 225–245. https://doi.org/10
.1177/0265407507087957
Carney, M. M., & Barner, J. R. (2012). Prevalence
of partner abuse: Rates of emotional abuse and
control. Partner Abuse, 3(3), 286–335.
Carroll, J. S., Nelson, D. A., Yorgason, J. B., Harper,
J. M., Ashton, R. H., & Jensen, A. C. (2010).
Relational aggression in marriage. Aggressive
Behavior, 36(5), 315–329. https://doi.org/10
.1002/ab.20349
Chung, M.-S. (2014). Pathways between attachment
and marital satisfaction: The mediating roles of
rumination, empathy, and forgiveness. Personality
and Individual Differences, 70, 246–251. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2014.06.032
Del Giudice, M. (2016). Sex differences in romantic
attachment: A facet-level analysis. Personality and
Individual Differences, 88, 125–128.
Denise, H. A., & Kimberly, S. J. (2003). Gender
differences in psychological, physical, and sex-
ual aggression among college students using the
revised conflict tactics scales. Violence and Vic-
tims, 18(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi
.2003.18.2.197
Doumas, D. M., Pearson, C. L., Elgin, J. E., & McKin-
ley, L. L. (2008). Adult attachment as a risk factor
for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 23(5), 616–634.
Feeney, J. A. (2002). Attachment, marital interaction,
and relationship satisfaction: A diary study. Per-
sonal Relationships, 9, 39–55.
Finzi-Dottan, R., Cohen, O., & Tyano, S. (2004). Le
couple: Sa formation, sa destruction et ce qu’il
y a entre les deux. Perspective Psychology, 43,
310–317.
Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R. G., Helff, C. M., &
Laughlin, J. E. (2002). A model for predicting dat-
ing violence: Anxious attachment, angry temper-
ament, and need for relationship control. Violence
and Victims, 17, 35–47.
Follingstad, D. R., & DeHart, D. D. (2000). Defining
psychological abuse of husbands toward wives:
Contexts, behaviors, and typologies. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 15(9), 891–920. https://
doi.org/10.1177/088626000015009001
Follingstad, D. R. (2007). Rethinking current
approaches to psychological abuse: Conceptual
and methodological issues. Aggression and Vio-
lent Behavior, 12(4), 439–458. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.avb.2006.07.004
Follingstad, D. R. (2009). The impact of psycho-
logical aggression on women’s mental health and
behavior: The status of the field. Trauma, Vio-
lence, and Abuse, 10(3), 271–289. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1524838009334453

510
Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause,
E. S., & Polek, D. S. (1990). The role of emotional
abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal
of Family Violence, 5(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF00978514
Fournier, B., Brassard, A., & Shaver, P. R. (2011).
Adult attachment and male aggression in couple
relationships: The communication pattern and rela-
tionship satisfaction as mediators. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence, 26, 1982–2003. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0886260510372930
Gaines, S. O. J., Work, C., Johnson, H., Youn,
M. S. P., & Lai, K. (2000). Impact of attach-
ment style and self-monitoring on individuals’
responses to accommodative dilemmas across
relationship types. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 17, 767–789.
Garner, J. W., & Hudson, W. W. (1992). Physical
Abuse of Partner Scale (NPAPS). In W. W. Hudson
(Ed.), The WALMYR Assessment Scales Scoring
Manual. The WALMYR. WALMYR Publishing
Co.
Garner, J. W., & Hudson, W. W. (1994). Non-Physical
Abuse of Partner Scale (NPAPS). In J. Fischer
& K. J. Corcoran (Eds.), Measures for clinical
practice: Couples, families, and children (pp.
152–153). The Free Press.
Gavin, H. (2011). Sticks and stones may break my
bones: The effects of emotional abuse. Journal
of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20(5),
503–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2011
.592179
Gewirtz-Meydan, A., & Finzi-Dottan, R. (2018). Nar-
cissism and relationship satisfaction from a dyadic
perspective: The mediating role of psychological
aggression. Marriage & Family Review, 54(3),
296–312. http://www.tandfonline.com.proxy1
.athensams.net/doi/pdf/10.1080/01494929.2017
.1359814?needAccess=true
Gewirtz-Meydan, A. (2017). Why do narcissistic indi-
viduals engage in sex? Exploring sexual motives
as a mediator for sexual satisfaction and function.
Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 7–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.009
Gewirtz-Meydan, A., & Finzi-Dottan, R. (2018). Sex-
ual satisfaction among couples: The role of attach-
ment orientation and sexual motives. Journal of
Sex Research, 55(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10
.1080/00224499.2016.1276880
Givertz, M., Woszidlo, A., Segrin, C., & Knutson, K.
(2013). Direct and indirect effects of attachment
orientation on relationship quality and loneliness
in married couples. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 30(8), 1096–1120. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0265407513482445
Godbout, N., & Dutton, D. G. (2009). Early exposure
to violence, domestic violence, attachment repre-
sentations, and marital adjustment. Personal Rela-
tionships, 16, 365–384.
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Family Relations
Gonzalez-Mendez, R., Rojas-Solís, J. L., &
Ramírez-Santan, G. (2018). Exploring con-
flict resolution and psychological abuse across
romantic relationships. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 27(2), 220–235. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1327912
Gormley, B., & Lopez, F. G. (2010). Psychologi-
cal abuse perpetration in college dating relation-
ships: Contributions of gender, stress, and adult
attachment orientations. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 25(2), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260509334404
Haaretz. (2020). Violence against women in Israel.
https://www.haaretz.co.il/st/c/prod/heb/global/
homicide/
Hammock, G. S., Richardson, D. S., Lamm, K. B.,
Taylor, E., & Verlaque, L. (2017). The effect of
gender of perpetrator and victim on perceptions
of psychological and physical intimate partner
aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 32,
357–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-
9850-y
Hammock, G. S., Richardson, D. S., Williams, C.,
& Janit, A. S. (2015). Perceptions of psychologi-
cal and physical aggression between heterosexual
partners. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 13–26.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9645-y
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love
conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3),
511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3
.511
Hellemans, S., Loeys, T., Dewitte, M., De Smet, O.,
& Buysse, A. (2015). Prevalence of intimate part-
ner violence victimization and victims’ relational
and sexual well-being. Journal of Family Violence,
30(6), 685–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-
015-9712-z
Henderson, A. J. Z., Bartholomew, K., Trinke, S. J., &
Kwong, M. J. (2005). When loving means hurting:
An exploration of attachment and intimate abuse in
a community sample. Journal of Family Violence,
20(4), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-
005-5985-y
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relation-
ship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family,
50(1), 93–98.
Jarnecke, A. M., & South, S. C. (2018). Autore-
gressive and cross-lagged associations between
psychological intimate partner aggression and
psychopathology in newlyweds. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260518764105
Jordan, C. E., Campbell, R., & Follingstad, D. (2010).
Violence and women’s mental health: The impact
of physical, sexual, and psychological aggres-
sion. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,
6, 607–628. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
clinpsy-090209-151437

Attachment, psychological abuse, and relationship satisfaction
Kar, H. L., & O’Leary, K. D. (2013). Patterns of
psychological aggression, dominance, and jeal-
ousy within marriage. Journal of Family Violence,
28(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-
012-9492-7
Kenny, D. A. (2013). Using k for estimate and test pat-
terns in APIM. http://davidakenny.net/webinars/
Dyad/k/k.html.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. (2006).
Dyadic data analysis. The Guilford Press.
Kim, H. K., Laurent, H. k., Capaldi, D. M., & Fein-
gold, A. (2008). Men’s aggression toward women:
A 10-year panel study. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 70, 1169–1187.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment
style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitu-
dinal analysis. Interpersonal Relations and Group
Processes, 66(3), 502–512.
Kuijpers, K. F., van der Knaap, L. M., & Winkel,
F. W. (2012). Risk of revictimization of intimate
partner violence: The role of attachment, anger and
violent behavior of the victim. Journal of Family
Violence, 27(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10896-011-9399-8
Lamotte, A. D., Meis, L. A., Winters, J. J., Barry,
R. A., & Murphy, C. M. (2018). Relationship
problems among men in treatment for engaging
in intimate partner violence. Journal of Family
Violence, 33(1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10896-017-9920-9
Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. (2003). The family in Israel:
Between tradition and modernity. Marriage and
Family Review, 35(1–2), 193–217. https://doi.org/
10.1300/J002v35n01
Lawrence, E., Yoon, J., Langer, A., & Ro, E. (2009).
Is psychological aggression as detrimental as phys-
ical aggression? the independent effects of psy-
chological aggression on depression and anxiety
symptoms. Violence and Victims, 24(1), 20–35.
https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.1.20
Lawson, D. M., & Malnar, S. G. (2011). Interper-
sonal problems as a mediator between attachment
and intimate partner violence. Journal of Fam-
ily Violence, 26, 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10896-011-9376-2
Ledermann, T., Macho, S., & Kenny, D. a. (2011).
Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the
actor–partner interdependence model. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Jour-
nal, 18(4), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705511.2011.607099
Lowyck, B., & Luyten, P. (2008). The role of romantic
attachment and self-criticism and dependency for
the relationship satisfaction of community adults.
The Association for Family Therapy, 4445, 78–95.
Maiuro, R. D. (2001). Sticks and stones may break
my bones, but names will also hurt me: psycholog-
ical abuse in domestically violent relationships. In
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
511
K. D. O’Leary & R. D. Maiuro (Eds.), Psychologi-
cal abuse in violent domestic relations (pp. ix–xx).
Springer.
Manso, J. M. M., Alonso, M. B., Sánchez,
M. E. G.-B. B., & Barona, E. G. (2011). Psy-
chological abuse in young couples: Risk factors.
Journal of Social Service Research, 37(5),
555–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011
.608339
Masci, B. S. S., & Sanderson, S. (2017). Perceptions
of psychological abuse versus physical abuse and
their relationship with mental health outcomes.
Violence and Victims, 32(2), 362–376. https://doi
.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-15-00180
McDermott, R. C., Lopez, F. G., McKelvey, D.,
& Bateman, L. S. (2016). Dominance orienta-
tions and psychological aggression in college
student relationships: A test of an attachment
theory-guided model. Psychology of Violence,
6(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000061
Mikulincer, M. (1998a). Adult attachment style and
individual differences in functional versus dys-
functional experiences of anger. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 513–524.
Mikulincer, M. (1998b). Attachment working models
and the sense of trust: An exploration of interaction
goals and affect regulation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 5(74), 1209–1224.
Mikulincer, M. (2006). Attachment, caregiving, and
sex within romantic relationships: A behavioral
systems perspective. In M. Mikulincer & G. Good-
man (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attach-
ment, caregiving, and sex (pp. 23–44). The Guil-
ford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2000). Exploring
individual differences in reactions to mortality
salience: Does attachment style regulate terror
management mechanisms? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 79(2), 260–273. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.260
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan,
C. P. (2002). Attachment security in couple rela-
tionships. Family Process, 41(3), 405–434.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in
adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. The
Guilford Press.
Mills, C. P., Hill, H. M., & Johnson, J. A. D. (2018).
Mediated effects of coping on mental health
outcomes of African American women exposed
to physical and psychological abuse. Violence
Against Women, 24(2), 186–206. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1077801216686219
Molero, F., Shaver, P. R., Fernández, I., & Recio, P.
(2017). Attachment insecurities, life satisfaction,
and relationship satisfaction from a dyadic per-
spective: The role of positive and negative affect.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3),
337–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2276

512
Mondor, J., McDuff, P., Lussier, Y., & Wright, J.
(2011). Couples in therapy: Actor-partner analyses
of the relationships between adult romantic attach-
ment and marital satisfaction. The American Jour-
nal of Family Therapy, 39(2), 112–123. https://doi
.org/10.1080/01926187.2010.530163
Murphy, C. M., & Hoover, S. A. (1999). Measuring
emotional abuse in dating relationships as a mul-
tifactorial construct. Violence and Victims, 14(1),
39–53.
Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1998). Psycho-
logical testing: Principles and applications (4th
ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus
user’s guide (6th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Nisenbaum, M. G., & Lopez, F. G. (2015). Adult
attachment orientations and anger expression in
romantic relationships: A dyadic analysis. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 62(1), 63–72. https://
doi.org/10.1037/cou0000047
Nunnally, J. C. P. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd
ed.). McGraw-Hill.
O’Leary, K. D., Smith Slep, A. M., & O’Leary,
S. G. O. (2007). Multivariate models of men’s and
women’s partner aggression. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 75(5), 752–764. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.752
Oka, M., Brown, C. C., Miller, R. B., Oka, M.,
Brown, C. C., & Attachment, R. B. M. (2016).
Attachment and relational aggression: Power as a
mediating variable. The American Journal of Fam-
ily Therapy, 44(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01926187.2015.1105716
Panuzio, J., & Dilillo, D. (2010). Physical, psy-
chological, and sexual intimate partner aggres-
sion among newlywed couples: Longitudinal pre-
diction of marital satisfaction. Journal of Fam-
ily Violence, 25, 689–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10896-010-9328-2
Richman, S. B., DeWall, C. N., & Wolff, M. N.
(2015). Avoiding affection, avoiding altruism:
Why is avoidant attachment related to less help-
ing? Personality and Individual Differences, 76,
193–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12
.018
Rodriguez, L. M., DiBello, A. M., Øverup, C. S., &
Neighbors, C. (2015). The price of distrust: Trust,
anxious attachment, jealousy, and partner abuse.
Partner Abuse, 6(3), 298–319. https://doi.org/10
.1891/1946-6560.6.3.298
Rodriguez, L. M., Fillo, J., Hadden, B. W., Øverup,
C. S., Baker, Z. G., & DiBello, A. M. (2018). Do
you see what I see? Actor and partner attachment
shape biased perceptions of partners. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(4), 587–602.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218791782
Sackett, L. A., & Saunders, D. G. (1990). The impact
of different forms of psychological abuse on
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Family Relations
battered women. Violence and Victims, 14(1),
105–117.
Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik,
J., Ault, L., Austers, I., & et al. (2003). Are
men universally more dismissing than women?
Gender differences in romantic attachment across
62 cultural regions. Personal Relationships, 10,
307–331.
Smith, L. S., & Stover, C. S. (2016). The mod-
erating role of attachment on the relationship
between history of trauma and intimate part-
ner violence victimization. Violence Against
Women, 22(6), 745–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1077801215610863
Stackert, R. A., & Bursik, K. (2003). Why am I unsat-
isfied? Adult attachment style, gendered irrational
relationship beliefs, and young adult romantic rela-
tionship satisfaction. Personality and Individual
Differences, 34, 1419–1429.
Staff, T. (2018). Thousands strike to protest inaction
over violence against women. The Times of Israel.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/thousands-strike-
to-protest-authorities-inaction-over-violence-
against-women/
Straight, E. S., Harper, F. W. K., & Arias, I. (2003).
The impact of partner psychological abuse on
health behaviors and health status in college
women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
18(9), 1035–1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260503254512
Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry
in partner violence by male and female univer-
sity students in 32 nations. Children and Youth
Services Review, 30, 252–275. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.004
Straus, M. A. (2009). Why the overwhelming evi-
dence on partner physical violence by women has
not been perceived and is often denied concerning
female offenders. Journal of Aggression, Maltreat-
ment & Trauma, 18(6), 552–571. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10926770903103081
Straus, M. A. (2011). Aggression and violent behavior
gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of
clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence
and implications for prevention and treatment.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 279–288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.010
Street, A. E., & Arias, I. (2001). Psychological
abuse and posttraumatic stress disorder in battered
women: Examining the roles of shame and guilt.
Violence and Victims, 16(1), 65–78.
Taebi, M., Gandomani, S., Nilforoushan, P., & Gho-
lamiDehaghi, A. (2016). Association between
infertility factors and non-physical partner abuse
in infertile couples. Iranian Journal of Nursing
and Midwifery Research, 21(4), 368–371. https://
doi.org/10.4103/1735-9066.185577
Taft, C. T., O’Farrell, T. J., Torres, S. E., Panuzio, J.,
Monson, C. M., Murphy, M., & Murphy, C. M.

Attachment, psychological abuse, and relationship satisfaction
(2006). Examining the correlates of psychological
aggression among a community sample of couples.
Journal of Family Psychology, 20(4), 581–588.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.581
Tiwari, S., Gray, R., Jenkinson, C., & Carson, C.
(2018). Association between spousal emotional
abuse and reproductive outcomes of women in
India: findings from cross-sectional analysis of the
2005–2006 national family health survey. Social
Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 53,
509–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-018-
1504-3
Treboux, D., Crowell, J. A., & Waters, E. (2004).
When “new” meets “old”: Configurations of adult
attachment representations and their implications
for marital functioning. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 40(2), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0012-1649.40.2.295
Vaughn, M. J., & Matyastik Baier, M. E. (1999).
Reliability and validity of the relationship
assessment scale. American Journal of Fam-
ily Therapy, 27(2), 137–147. https://doi.org/10
.1080/019261899262023
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel,
D. L. (2007). The Experiences in Close Rela-
tionship Scale (ECR)—short form: Reliability,
validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personal-
ity Assessment, 88(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10
.1080/00223890701268041
17413729, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12490 by University Of Macau Wu Yee Sun Library (E2), Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
513
Winstok, Z., & Sowan-Basheer, W. (2015). Does
psychological violence contribute to partner vio-
lence research? A historical, conceptual and criti-
cal review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21,
5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.003
Winstok, Z., & Straus, M. A. (2011). Gender differ-
ences in intended escalatory tendencies among
marital partners. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence, 26(18), 3599–3617. https://doi.org/10
.1177/0886260511403750
Yaron, L., Rabinowitz, A., Shpigel, N., Peleg, B.,
& Ben-Zikri, A. (2018). Over 300 Israeli insti-
tutions back strike over violence against women.
Israel News—Haaretz.com. https://www.haaretz
.com/israel-news/.premium-over-300-israeli-
institutions-back-strike-over-violence-against-
women-1.6704126
Yassour-Borochowitz, D. (2016). Protection orders
for battered women in Israel. Laws, 5(3), 32-44.
https://doi.org/10.3390/laws5030032
Yoon, J. E., & Lawrence, E. (2013). Psychological
victimization as a risk factor for the developmental
course of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology,
27(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031137
Zieve, T. (2018). Women set to strike on Tuesday on
heels of wave of murders. Israel News—Jerusalem
Post. https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/
Women-set-to-strike-on-Tuesday-on-heels-
of-wave-of-murders-573123