Search results

The primary aims of this research program were to explore the effects that thinking and talking about relationships under various conditions have on the relationship and to examine the underlying factors that determine whether the effects are positive or negative. Satisfying personal relationships contribute to an individual's psychological and physical health. By thinking about what their relationship is like and talking to each other about it, partners can often strengthen their relationship and contribute to their well-being.

The sample is composed of 90 unmarried couples and 148 married couples. Wave 1 is 238 couples (476 individuals) interviewed in 1993. Wave 2 consists of 70 percent of the original sample 2 years later (1995). The average length of time in the relationship is approximately 10 years for all couples (3.3 years for unmarried couples and 13.9 years for married couples).

Studies have been conducted to more fully understand the concept of relationship awareness and to identify the conditions that moderate the influence of relationship awareness on the partners in the relationship. Investigations have also focused on relationship talk as a way to maintain and enhance the relationship, and how social support in close relationships is associated with depression, anxiety, and relationship satisfaction. Gender differences are found not only in the means of relationship awareness variables, but also in the associations of such variables with relationship outcomes. Another goal of this program was to examine the contextual factors, correlates and consequences of relational talk by observing partners as they interact with each other.

By examining partners' tendencies to think and talk about relationships, this research program aimed to uncover the everyday workings of healthy relationships rather than focus on partners in conflict. In so doing, these studies may uncover ways to help couples prevent unnecessary distress not by avoiding the conflicts that are sometimes inevitable, but by articulating the ways that people can negotiate their relationships with one another.

Respondents were asked self-descriptive questions, such as how they find themselves as mature, friendly, and hardworking. Other questions focus on respondents' feelings about their relationship with their spouse/partner and with others.

For this survey, respondents from three counties in the Detroit, Michigan, area were queried about their work, health, marriage and family, finances, political views, religion, and child rearing. With respect to finances, respondent views were elicited on credit card purchases, recording expenditures, and savings and investments. Regarding political views, respondents were questioned about political preferences, presidential values, freedom of speech, nuclear war, and the interest of public officials. Questions also addressed religious beliefs and experiences, including the religiosity of respondents' parents, belief in and relationship with God, the relationship between science and religion, school prayer, divorce, and homosexuality. Additional religious questions -- based on the respondents' religious preference (i.e., Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Other Religion, or No Preference/Agnostic/Atheist Only) -- also were asked, covering topics such as interfaith marriages, religion of friends, and observance of religious holy days. Questions were asked about the views of respondents' religious leaders on issues including drinking, abortion, and test-tube fertilization. Regarding child rearing, views were elicited on issues including religious preference of child(ren) raised, religious training given to child(ren), and frequency of prayer before meals. Background information includes marital status, employment, political orientation, and income.

The purpose of the Early Years of Marriage (EYM) Project was to determine ways in which the early development of marriage for Black couples and White couples affect the mental and physical health of spouses, marital stability, long-term marital outcomes, patterns of family life and, for those who divorce, individual adjustment to family disruption. The EYM Project began in 1986 with 373 newlywed couples--174 White couples and 199 Black couples. The marriages were all intra-racial and it was the first marriage for both spouses.

Year 1 interviews, which queried the couples on various aspects of married life, began after four to nine months into the marriage. Very few respondents who originally participated in Year 1 of the study refused to participate in subsequent phases of the study. In 1986 (Year 1) and 1988 (Year 3) spouses were interviewed in their homes separately and together, with the interviews conducted by interviewers of the same race. In 1987 (Year 2) and 1989 (Year 4) shorter individual telephone interviews were conducted.

In all four years, respondents were queried on a wide variety of topics such as feelings and perceptions of their own family, spouse, in-laws, and their spouse's friends, family planning, how many children they should have, how the children should be reared, childcare, and household roles and responsibilities. A series of questions was asked about reasons for getting married, how satisfying married life was, what, if any, were the special pleasures and good feelings that came from being married, how often arguments and disagreements occurred, main reasons for arguments, and how they were eventually resolved. A series of questions were also asked regarding the mental and physical health of the spouse, job satisfaction, job security, and how the job affected the family. In Year 2 and Year 4 interviews (Parts 2-4), a series of questions regarding separation and divorce were also asked.

Demographic variables include race, gender, age, level of education, occupation, income, and religious preference.

How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) surveyed how Americans met their spouses and romantic partners, and compared traditional to non-traditional couples. This collection covers data that was gathered over five waves. During the first wave, respondents were asked about their relationship status, including the gender, ethnicity, and race of their current partner, as well as the level of education of their parents. They were also asked about their living arrangements with their partner, the country, state, and city the respondent and/or the respondent's partner resided in most from birth to age 16, and whether the couple attended the same high school/college/university, or grew up in the same town. Information was collected on the legal status of the relationship, the city/state where the partnership was legalized, and how many times the respondent had previously been married. Additionally, respondents were asked about how often they visited with relatives, which gender they were most attracted to, their earned income in 2008, and the length of their current relationship. Finally, respondents were asked to recall how, when, and where they met their partner, how their parents felt about their partner, and to describe the perceived quality of their relationship. The second wave followed up with respondents one year after Wave 1. Information was collected on respondents' changes, if any, in marital status, relationship status, living arrangements, and reasons for separation where applicable. The third wave followed up with respondents one year after the second wave, and collected information on respondents' relationships reported in the first two waves, again including any changes in the status of the relationship and reasons for separation. The fourth wave followed up with respondents two years after Wave 3. In addition to information on relationship status and reasons for separation, Wave 4 includes the subjective level of attractiveness for the respondent and their partner. Wave 5 collected updated data on respondents' changes, if any, in marital status, relationship status, and reasons for separation where applicable. Information about respondents' sexual orientations, sex frequencies, and attitudes towards sexual monogamy were also collected. Demographic information includes age, race/ethnicity, gender, level of education, household composition, religion, political party affiliation, and household income.

The data is being released in two parts: part one is available for public use and part two is available for restricted use. The public use data contains Waves 1-5, including the addition of nine variables collecting information such as race, household income, whether the respondent was born outside of the United States, zip code relative to rural area, and respondents' living arrangements between birth and 16 years of age. The restricted use data contains Waves 1-3, and differs from the public use data by including FIPS codes for state of marriage and state of residence, town or city where the respondent was raised, and qualitative variables revised by the Principal Investigator (Waves 1-5), consisting of respondent's answers to how they first met their partner, the quality of their relationship in their own words, why they broke up if applicable and if they have an open relationship.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The major aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that legal representation of the Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) victim in child custody decisions leads to greater legal protections being awarded in these decisions compared to similar cases of unrepresented IPV victims. A retrospective cohort study was conducted among King County couples with minor children filing for marriage dissolution in King County, Washington between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010 who had a history of police or court documented intimate partner violence (IPV). The study examined the separate effects of private legal representation and legal aid representation relative to propensity score-matched, unrepresented comparison subjects. Primary study outcomes were measured at the time the first "Final Parenting Plan" was awarded. Researchers also examined the two-year period post-decree among the subset of cases with filing between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009 for post-decree court proceedings indicative of continued child custody or visitation disputes.

Among divorcing and separating parents referred by family courts to mediation to resolve issues, over half report intimate partner violence (IPV). Whether family mediation can be safely offered to cases with a history of IPV is a major controversy that has not been examined previously with empirically sound research. This study was a randomized controlled trial, the "gold standard" for assessing interventions, of family mediation cases with levels of IPV that would, historically, be considered inappropriate for mediation at our study site, a court-attached mediation center in Washington, D.C. Study cases were randomly assigned to one of three study conditions: traditional court-based litigation (n=67), shuttle mediation (n=49), or videoconferencing mediation (n=50).

Researchers conducted a randomized control trial to compare immediate and one year outcomes for three dispute resolution processes (i.e., traditional court-based litigation, shuttle mediation, and videoconferencing mediation) among family law cases seeking to resolve parenting related issues and self-reporting a level of IPV history that would typically prohibit joint mediation as an option at the court-annexed mediation program where the study was conducted.

The mediation intake interview included an IPV screening measure, the Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC; Holtzworth-Munroe, Beck, and Applegate, 2010). There is initial evidence of the reliability and validity of the MASIC (Pokman et al., 2014) and research demonstrating that the MASIC leads to higher levels of detection of IPV among parents seeking mediation than other methods of IPV screening (Rossi, et al., 2015). The MASIC is a behaviorally specific measure, listing a series of abusive behaviors on subscales (e.g., psychological abuse, coercive control, physical violence, sexual violence, stalking) and consequences of abuse (e.g., fear of the partner, injury). Each item is assessed for occurrence twice-- ever in the relationship and in the past year. The questions ask the party about their victimization from the other party.

Based on party responses to the Multi-Door intake interview, including the MASIC, the DRSs identified cases as being potentially eligible for the study if the level of IPV reported by either or both parties was at a level that the case was considered inappropriate for joint mediation. No specific level of IPV for study eligibility was set, for two reasons. First, no previous empirical data are available to guide decisions regarding what level of IPV would make joint mediation inappropriate. Second, the DRSs were well trained and experienced and wanted to retain the right to use their clinical judgment. However, the Multi-Door staff and research team agreed that DRSs would pay particular attention to level and types of IPV, presence of risk factors empirically related to lethality (e.g., weapons), whether IPV was escalating in frequency or severity, IPV-related injuries, and whether a party was fearful of the other party or expressed IPV-related concerns about participating in mediation.