Conflict Resolution in Mexican-Origin Couples: Culture, Gender, and Marital Quality

LOREY A. WHEELER Arizona State University

KIMBERLY A. UPDEGRAFF Arizona State University*

SHAWNA M. THAYER Nielsen Company**

Conflict Resolution in Mexican-Origin Couples:

Culture, Gender, and Marital Quality

This study examined associations betweenMexican-origin spouses’ conflict resolutionstrategies (i.e., nonconfrontation, solution ori-entation, and control) and (a) gender-typedqualities and attitudes, (b) cultural orientations,and (c) marital quality in a sample of 227 cou-ples. Results of multilevel modeling revealedthat Mexican cultural orientations were posi-tively associated with solution orientation, andAnglo cultural orientations were negativelyassociated with nonconfrontation. Expressivepersonal qualities were negatively associatedwith control, whereas instrumental qualitieswere positively related to control. Links betweenconflict resolution and marital quality revealedthat control and nonconfrontation were associ-ated with spouses’ ratings of marital negativity.In some cases, different patterns emerged forhusbands and wives. Discussion highlights the

School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona StateUniversity, PO Box 873701, Tempe, AZ, 85287-3701([email protected]).

*School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona StateUniversity, PO Box 873701, Tempe, AZ, 85287-3701([email protected]).

**Nielsen Company, 1402 Pankratz St., Suite 106,Madison, WI, 53704-4046 ([email protected]).

This article was edited by Velma McBride Murry.

Key Words: conflict, culture, dyadic/couple data, gender,Hispanic Americans, marriage and close relationships.

role of culture and gender dynamics in maritalrelationships.

Managing marital conflict is crucial to spouses’perceptions of their overall relationship satisfac-tion, marital functioning, and marital longevity(Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000). In Euro-pean American couples, some researchers havesuggested that maintaining a marriage requiresthat spouses make use of conflict resolutionthat promotes personal growth, enrichment, andforgiveness (Fincham, Beach, & Davila, 2004;Greeff & de Bruyne, 2000). Years of empiricalresearch documenting the correlates of maritalrelationship quality have suggested that con-flict management is a vital skill for maritalsatisfaction (Bradbury et al., 2000). There issome evidence indicating that there are uniqueprocesses that promote relationship stability inEuropean American, African American, andMexican American couples (Osborne, Manning,& Smock, 2007). Yet empirical evidence linkingconflict resolution and marital quality is basedalmost entirely on European American samples.The purpose of the present study was to examinethe correlates of conflict resolution in marriedcouples of Mexican origin.

Marriage is the norm for Hispanic fami-lies, in general, and Mexican-origin familiesspecifically, with married couples being themajority of such families in the United States(U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). Marriage is the

Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (August 2010): 991 – 1005 991DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00744.x

992 Journal of Marriage and Family

central relationship in the family and affectsindividual well-being and parent-child relation-ships (Gottman & Notarius, 2002). Yet there isa paucity of research on the nature and corre-lates of marital conflict resolution strategies inHispanic and Mexican-origin families. In fact, adecade review of marital research in the 1990snoted a scarcity of research on culture and mar-ital quality overall (Bradbury et al., 2000). Inthis study, we focused on Mexican-origin cou-ples only (i.e., an ethnic-homogenous design) toexamine how variability in conflict resolution islinked to variability in gender and cultural pro-cesses in that group. Given that Mexican-originindividuals constitute the majority of Hispanicsin the United States, that Mexican-origin indi-viduals are the largest and fastest-growing ethnicminority group in the United States (U.S. Cen-sus Bureau, 2007), that marriage is normative inthis cultural group, and that cultural processesmay play a role in key marital interactions likeconflict resolution, it is important to understandthese processes for Mexican-origin couples.

The goals of this study were threefold. Thefirst goal was to describe conflict resolutionstrategies that Mexican-origin husbands andwives reported using in their marriages. Drawingon a contingency model of conflict (Putnam &Wilson, 1982) and on ideas about culturallyspecific processes of conflict in MexicanAmerican families (Flores, Tschann, Marin,& Pantoja, 2004), we measured three conflictresolution strategies: nonconfrontation, solutionorientation, and control. We derived thiscontingency model from the idea that conflictstrategies are chosen on the basis of conditionalfactors, such as individual cultural factors, therelationship between individuals in conflict,and the nature of the conflict. Descriptiveinformation on the strategies advances ourunderstanding of conflict resolution in thecontext of Mexican-origin marriages. Next,we drew on gender socialization (Maccoby,1998) and cultural-ecological (McAdoo, 1993)perspectives in exploring how gender andcultural dynamics play a role in spouses’conflict management. Our second goal wasto explore the links between spouses’ conflictresolution strategies and their gender-typedqualities and attitudes and cultural orientations.Finally, research has suggested that the wayspouses choose to manage conflict in maritalrelationships is an important determinant ofoverall relationship quality (e.g., Bradbury

et al., 2000). By drawing on research thatfocuses on spouses’ marital behaviors, ourthird goal was to investigate the associationsbetween spouses’ conflict resolution strategiesand their marital relationship quality afteraccounting for the role of gender and culture.We focused on long-term marriages in familieswith adolescent offspring for two reasons.First, investigations of the nature and correlatesof conflict resolution processes in long-termmarriages provide opportunities to identifypotential strengths that may inform preventiveintervention efforts. Second, because maritalconflicts often increase when adolescents arepresent in the home (Hatch & Bulcroft, 2004),this period of child rearing may be an importanttime to explore marital conflict resolution.

Conflict Resolution Strategies

The resolution of conflict has long beenconceptualized as involving both constructiveand destructive processes (Deutsch, 1973),and research in the area of marital conflicthas focused on these two global aspectsof conflict management (Fincham & Beach,1999). Constructive processes often includeinteractions involving cooperation, problem-solving behaviors, intentions to learn aboutthe other’s needs, willingness to talk aboutdisagreements, and a focus on the relationshiprather than the individual (Hocker & Wilmot,1995), and they are associated with high levels ofmarital satisfaction (Greeff & de Bruyne, 2000).In contrast, destructive processes often includeinteractions that involve manipulation, coercion,escalation, and avoidant patterns of dominationand subordination (Olson & Braithwaite, 2004).

To understand these constructive and destruc-tive aspects of conflict, there is a need to explorespouses’ strategies for managing and resolvingconflicts. Putnam and Wilson (1982) identifiedconflict resolution strategies employed acrossa variety of interpersonal contexts that rep-resented behavioral responses to conflict (i.e.,disagreement or difference of opinion) in a rela-tionship. Specifically, they described three stylesof conflict resolution: solution orientation, con-trol, and nonconfrontation. Solution orientationresembles the constructive styles of problemsolving and compromise that couples employ,including direct communication about conflict,attempts to integrate others’ needs, and theact of compromising. Controlling interactions

Marital Conflict Resolution 993

include attempts to dominate the interactionand persistently promote one’s own position.Nonconfrontation resembles avoidance in that itincludes withdrawal from disagreements, use ofbehaviors such as silence, and the concealmentof ill feelings. Researchers have found differ-ences in these conflict resolution styles acrosscultures (Cai & Fink, 2002). Thus, our first goalwas to describe the extent that Mexican-originhusbands and wives reported using these conflictresolution strategies in their marital relationship.

Gender and Marital Conflict Resolution

The resolution of marital conflict takes placewithin a system marked by gendered behaviors,attributes, and beliefs. Maccoby’s (1998) ideasconcerning learned gender-typed communica-tion behaviors suggest that women and men oftenhave different interpersonal styles and skills thatmay result in different approaches to conflictresolution. For example, in a study of Euro-pean American (57%), African American (23%),and Mexican American (20%) married couples,wives were more likely to employ solution-oriented conflict resolution styles that includedexpressing thoughts and feelings directly, andhusbands were more likely to avoid con-flict (Mackey & O’Brien, 1998). Yet, becausethere are individual differences among hus-bands and wives, it is important to look beyondhusband – wife comparisons to consider thegender-typed characteristics of spouses in effortsto understand their use of conflict resolutionstrategies. Researchers have found that femi-nine gender-typed attributes, such as expressivepersonality qualities (e.g., nurturing, sensitiv-ity), were linked to compromising and avoidantconflict styles, whereas masculine gender-typedattributes, particularly instrumental personalityqualities (e.g., assertiveness), were linked todominating and controlling conflict behaviors(e.g., Brewer, Mitchell, & Weber, 2002).

Gender-typed qualities and attitudes areimportant to study for Mexican-origin couplesbecause of the salient role of gender in Mexicanculture (Cauce & Domenech-Rodrıguez, 2002).Early work describes Mexican values as includ-ing adherence to gender-typed family roles(Madsen, 1964). More recently, researchers havesuggested that traditional gender-typed attitudesare not as prevalent in Mexican American fami-lies as once thought (Valentine & Mosley, 2000);rather, as Mexican American spouses acculturate

to Anglo culture, they tend to endorse less tradi-tional attitudes (Leaper & Valin, 1996). Draw-ing on Maccoby’s (1998) ideas and existingempirical work with European American cou-ples (Brewer et al., 2002), we expected positiveassociations between solution orientation andnonconfrontation with expressive personal qual-ities, whereas we expected a positive associationbetween controlling strategies and instrumentalpersonal qualities. For wives, we hypothesized apositive association between gender-typed atti-tudes and solution orientation; for husbands,we hypothesized a positive association betweengender-typed attitudes and control.

Culture and Marital Conflict Resolution

Understanding how conflict resolution strategiesrelate to spouses’ cultural orientations isan important step in investigating the roleof cultural processes in marital interactions.Scholars interested in the role of cultureunderscore the importance of conceptualizingculture as multidimensional (representing boththe host and ethnic culture) and multifaceted(e.g., orientations, values, behaviors) (Berry,1997). In the present study, we consideredspouses’ global orientations to Mexican andAnglo culture as cultural processes that maybe linked to conflict resolution strategies.

Existing research on conflict managementhas focused on the influence of individual-ism and collectivism on conflict resolution(Holt & DeVore, 2005). Research has sug-gested that individualistic cultures (e.g., UnitedStates) place an emphasis on values of individ-ual achievement and personal freedom, whereascollectivistic cultures (e.g., Mexico) value groupsuccess and harmony (Hofstede, 1980). Fromethnic-comparative studies, we learn that adultsin individualist cultures generally prefer con-frontational strategies to resolve conflict, ascompared to those in collectivistic cultures, whogenerally prefer more passive strategies, suchas avoiding conflict (e.g., Cai & Fink, 2002;Pearson & Stephan, 1998). In contrast to com-parative studies, studies that have examined howcultural orientations in a cultural group relate tovariability in marital partners’ use of conflictresolution strategies are virtually nonexistent.One study with a sample of Mexican Americancouples found that low levels of acculturation(i.e., simultaneously high orientations towardMexican culture and low orientations toward


Anglo culture) were related to avoidance duringconflict, and high levels of acculturation (i.e.,simultaneously high Anglo orientations and lowMexican orientations) were related to the expres-sion of feelings during conflict (Flores et al.,2004). Drawing on these cross-cultural perspec-tives and limited previous work, we hypoth-esized positive associations between spouses’orientations toward Anglo culture and their useof controlling strategies because of the Angloorientation toward individualism. We expectedassociations between spouses’ Mexican orien-tations and their use of nonconfrontation andsolution orientation because of the Mexican ori-entation toward collectivism.

Marital Quality and Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution is a central task in the main-tenance of marital quality for both husbandsand wives (Fincham & Beach, 1999). Researchhas demonstrated a positive link betweenspouses’ marital quality and constructive res-olution strategies, as illustrated by empiricaldata with European American samples showingthat compromising and collaborative behaviorsare related to high marital quality (Greeff &de Bruyne, 2000; Marchand & Hock, 2000).In contrast, there is evidence of an inverserelation between destructive marital conflictstyles (e.g., yelling, insulting the partner), whicheither escalate conflict or cause withdrawal fromconflict, and marital quality (Bradbury & Kar-ney, 2004). With primarily European Americansamples, researchers have found that conflictresolution strategies characterized by attacking,demanding, avoidant, or controlling behaviorsare associated with low levels of marital satis-faction (Johnson et al., 2005). With a sample ofSouth African couples, who had been married atleast 10 years, wives reported the lowest levelsof satisfaction when they used conflict avoidantstrategies (Greeff & de Bruyne, 2000). For Mex-ican American couples, the connections betweenconflict resolution and relationship quality areunknown.

As its third goal, this study explored thelinks between conflict resolution and maritalrelationship quality. Because many researchershave suggested that marital quality requiresmutually gratifying resolutions to conflict(Marchand & Hock, 2000), we anticipated apositive association between solution orientationand the positive aspects of marital quality

(i.e., marital satisfaction and love) and betweennonconfrontation and control and the negativeaspects of marital quality (i.e., negativity),after accounting for the role of gender andculture. Because several important backgroundcharacteristics (e.g., age, length of time married,number of children, family income, povertylevel) are related to conflict resolution andmarital quality, we included control variablesin our models. Specifically, empirical data showthat marital satisfaction is lowest in middle age,that conflict and negativity increase in middle-aged couples, and that economic strain andnumber of children are associated with decreasedmarital quality (Bradbury et al., 2000).

METHOD

Participants

We collected the data during the years2002 – 2003 as part of a larger study of familysocialization and adolescent development inMexican-origin families (Updegraff, McHale,Whiteman, Thayer, & Delgado, 2005) in andaround a southwestern U.S. metropolitan area.Eligible families included those with a biologicalmother of Mexican descent, a biological orlong-term adoptive father, and two adolescentsiblings (i.e., a seventh grader and at leastone older sibling). The family members allhad to be living together, and fathers workedfor pay at least 20 hours per week (becausethe larger study focused on how parental workdynamics relate to family processes). Althoughnot required for participation, most fathers inthe study (93%) also were of Mexican descent.We chose two-parent families so that we couldexamine the roles of both spouses in familydynamics. The focus of our sampling criteriawas on a local population; therefore, the samplewas not representative of all Mexican Americanfamilies.

The 227 couples in the current study werea subsample (92%) of the 246 families thatparticipated in the larger study. The omittedcouples included husbands that were notof Mexican origin. The remaining couplesindicated that they were either legally married(n = 210) or living in a consensual union asif legally married (n = 17). In Latin America,including Mexico, marital unions commonlyreferred to as consensual unions, or common-law marriages in the United States, are publically


recognized (De Vos, 1999). De Vos (1999)suggested that unions of couples from thosecountries be considered a marriage if the unionhas persisted for at least 5 – 10 years. We usedthis criterion for selecting our sample for thisstudy. No differences emerged between thetwo groups of couples on their backgroundcharacteristics. Consistent with our sample, two-parent Mexican-headed households were themost common family type (67.8%) in the countyfrom which we drew our sample (U.S. CensusBureau, 2003). Families represented a rangeof education and income levels, from povertyto upper class. Of families, 21% met federalpoverty guidelines, a figure similar to the 18.6%of two-parent Mexican American families livingin poverty in the county of the larger sample(U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Median familyincome was $38,000 for an average family sizeof 5.99 members. Spouses’ occupations, codedusing the National Opinion Research Center(NORC) system (Nakeo & Treas, 1994), rangedfrom 16.78 (dishwasher) to 86.05 (physician),with a median of 33.9 (office clerk) for wives(n = 146) and 36.1 (supervisor) for husbands(n = 220). Spouses had completed an averageof 10 years of education (M = 10.11, and SD =3.74 for wives; M = 9.66, and SD = 4.31 forhusbands). Most spouses were born in Mexico(75% of wives and husbands) and had livedin the United States for an average of 12.2(SD = 8.57) and 15.03 (SD = 8.77) years,for wives and husbands, respectively. Mostinterviews (71%) were completed in Spanish.Spouses had been together for an average of19.25 years (SD = 4.82) and were 40 years oldon average (M = 39, and SD = 4.57 for wives;M = 42, and SD = 5.54 for husbands).

Procedures

We recruited families in and around a largesouthwestern city from junior high schools infive school districts and from five parochialschools that were selected to represent a rangeof socioeconomic situations, with the proportionof students receiving free or reduced lunchvarying from 8% to 82% across schools.Letters (in English and Spanish) describingthe study were sent to families of seventh-grade adolescents of Hispanic descent (N =1, 856), and bilingual staff made follow-uptelephone calls to determine eligibility andinterest in participation. For 396 families (21%),

the contact information was incorrect andrepeated attempts to find updated informationthrough school personnel or public listingswere unsuccessful, and 146 (8%) refused tobe screened for eligibility. Of the 421 familieswho were eligible (29% of those we were able tocontact and screen for eligibility), 284 families(or 67%) agreed to participate, 95 (23%) refused,and 42 (10%) were unable to be recontactedto determine whether they would participate.Interviews were completed by 246 families (87%of those who were eligible and who agreedto participate). The remaining 38 families thatagreed to participate could not be located at thetime of scheduling or, for repeated home visits,were unwilling to participate when the interviewteam arrived.

We collected data from spouses in theirpreferred language (either English or Spanish)during home interviews, which lasted an averageof 3 hours. Trained bilingual staff conductedinterviews separately with each spouse and readquestions aloud because of the variability inspouses’ reading levels. Families received a$100 honorarium for the participation of fourfamily members in the home interviews.

Measures

Two translators familiar with the local Spanishdialect used the method that Foster and Martinez(1995) outlined to forward- and back-translateall measures into Spanish. Each spouse reportedon family income, place of birth, numberof years living in the United States, numberof children they had together, and level ofeducation. We calculated family poverty levelusing family income and number of children.For all measures described here, alphas wereacceptable for English- and Spanish-speakingwives and husbands; thus, we report the overallalphas for efficiency.

Conflict resolution. We assessed spouses’ con-flict resolution strategies using the three con-structs from the Resolving Conflicts in Relation-ships Scale (RCR) (Thayer, Updegraff, & Del-gado, 2008). The 29-item RCR was developedto assess on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 =very often) how often conflict resolution strate-gies (i.e., solution orientation, nonconfrontation,and control) are used within Mexican-originfamily members’ relationships. The majority ofthe items in the RCR were adapted from the


Organizational Communication Conflict Instru-ment (OCCI) (Putnam & Wilson, 1982). Tomake sure that the measure was culturally validfor a Mexican-origin sample, we chose addi-tional items from a conflict resolution measuredeveloped after focus groups with MexicanAmerican parents (Ruiz, Gonzales, & For-moso, 1998). The items reflect how Mexican-origin families use subtle forms of negotia-tion in conflict resolution and the phenomenonof making peace as a means of managingconflict.

The solution orientation subscale (sevenitems) measures conflict resolution strategiesthat involve cooperation and compromise (e.g.,‘‘I frequently give in a little if my spouse iswilling to do the same’’). The nonconfrontationsubscale (seven items) assesses strategies thatinvolve avoidance and withdrawal from conflict(e.g., ‘‘I keep quiet about my views to avoiddisagreements with my spouse’’). The controlsubscale (nine items) measures strategies thatare competitive and unyielding (e.g., ‘‘I arguewith my spouse without giving up my posi-tion’’). Psychometric assessments of the RCRconducted from pilot data are reported elsewhere(see Thayer et al., 2008). For wives, α = .80,.83, and .76 for nonconfrontation, control, andsolution orientation, respectively; for husbands,α = .71, .81, and .80 for nonconfrontation, con-trol, and solution orientation, respectively.

Cultural orientations. Spouses rated their cul-tural orientations to Mexican (17 items)and Anglo (13 items) culture using theAcculturation Rating Scale for MexicanAmericans-II (ARSMA-II) (Cuellar, Arnold,& Maldonado, 1995). Spouses responded toitems about their family and cultural back-grounds on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, and5 = extremely often or almost always). Sampleitems include ‘‘I enjoy Spanish language TV’’and ‘‘I think in English.’’ The scale was devel-oped specifically for Mexican Americans, hasbeen used extensively, and has been deemedreliable and valid (Cuellar et al., 1995). Forthe current study, α = .86, .89, .87, and .90,for wives’ and husbands’ Mexican and Angloorientations, respectively.

Gender-typed qualities. To assess gender-typedqualities, spouses reported on the Bem SexRole Inventory (BSRI) (Bem, 1974) thatcontained 20 adjectives or short phrases

to indicate instrumental (masculine) qualities(e.g., independent, athletic, assertive) and 20adjectives to indicate expressive (feminine)qualities (e.g., warm, sympathetic, affectionate).Husbands and wives rated how well thesevarious qualities described themselves on a7-point scale (1 = never or almost never true,and 7 = always or almost always true). Harris(1994) validated this scale in a sample of AfricanAmerican, European American, and Hispanicmen and women and demonstrated strongpsychometric properties. In our sample, α = .85,.80, .86, and .79, for wives’ and husbands’instrumentality and expressivity, respectively.

Gender-typed attitudes. Spouses completedHoffman and Kloska’s (1995) 13-item mea-sure that asks spouses to rate a varietyof statements about gender-typed attitudestoward marital roles and child rearing ona 4-point scale (1 = strongly agree, and 4 =strongly disagree). High scores indicate moretraditional attitudes, and sample items include‘‘For a woman, taking care of the children isthe main thing but for a man, his job is’’ and‘‘Men should make the really important deci-sions in the family.’’ This scale was validated ina sample of 167 Mexican American mothers andfathers and demonstrated strong psychometricproperties (Adams, Coltrane, & Parke, 2007).After conducting a confirmatory factor analysiswith our sample, we dropped three items fromthe scale that did not did have factor loadings ator greater than .40. For wives, α = .89, and forhusbands, α = .86.

Marital satisfaction. Spouses reported howsatisfied they are with their marital relationshipon a 16-item scale. Items were rated on a 9-point scale (1 = extremely dissatisfied, and 9 =extremely satisfied) and represented a varietyof different aspects of marriage (e.g., maritalcommunication, spouse support for your workrole, division of housework and child care,spouse’s support for you as a parent, familydecision-making) (Huston, McHale, & Crouter,1986). We added three items to the scalethat were particularly pertinent to MexicanAmerican couples (i.e., family commitment,Mexican culture and traditions, and relatives).An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) withthis sample yielded a single-factor solution(eigenvalues = 9.01 and 7.56 for wives andhusbands, respectively) with factor loadings


greater than .4. For wives, α = .95, and forhusbands, α = .92.

Marital love and negativity. The love andnegativity scales of Braiker and Kelley’s (1979)Relationship Questionnaire were used to assessspouses’ feelings of positive (nine items) andnegative (five items) emotional aspects withinthe marriage. Participants answered questionson a 9-point scale, with higher scores indicatingmore love (e.g., ‘‘To what extent do you loveyour spouse at this stage?’’) and negativity(e.g., ‘‘How often do you feel angry orresentful towards your spouse?’’). Few measuresof marital quality, including these subscales,have been validated in Hispanic samples. Ina small sample of Latina mothers of fifth andsixth graders (Thayer & Updegraff, 2004), aprincipal components analysis revealed that thenegativity scale had strong internal consistencyand represented one underlying construct. AnEFA with this sample yielded a two-factorsolution (eigenvalues for the love scale = 5.33and 5.52, and eigenvalues for the negativityscale = 1.78 and 2.11, for wives and husbands,respectively) with factor loadings greater than .4.Chi-square likelihood difference tests indicatedthat a two-factor solution fit significantly betterthan a one-factor solution (χ2(13) = 141.09,p < .001 for wives; χ2(13) = 187.96, p < .001for husbands). In this sample, α = .84, .67, .90,and .68, for wives’ and husbands’ love andnegativity, respectively.

Analytical Strategy

Goal 1. To describe the types of conflictresolution strategies these couples used, weconducted a 2 Spouse (wife versus husband) × 3Strategy (nonconfrontation, control, and solutionorientation) ANOVA with spouse and strategy asthe within-subjects factors. Dependent variableswere the spouses’ reports of the three conflictresolution strategies. We calculated Cohen’s d(Cohen, 1988) as a measure of effect size forthese analyses.

Goals 2 and 3. When examining dyadic rela-tionships, it is important to correct for theclustered nature of the data. Because indi-vidual spouses are embedded within families,the autocorrelation between respondents’ datawithin these dyadic units violates the assump-tion of independence for ordinary least squares

regression analyses, which potentially shrinksstandard errors and increases Type I error rates(Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). The intraclasscorrelation quantifies the degree of resemblancebetween spouses within couples and ranged from.28 to .46 for the study variables. The results indi-cated a moderate amount of dependence withinLevel 2 units (families), thus confirming thata multilevel modeling (MLM) framework wasappropriate.

We used SAS PROC MIXED to apply a two-intercept approach because we were especiallyinterested in individual spouses’ characteristicsbut wanted to control for the dependence ofobservations (Kenny et al., 2006). The Level 1equation represented each criterion score as afunction of true scores for each dyad memberplus measurement error. The usual commonintercept was replaced by two unique interceptsthat were represented by two dummy variablesfor the wife and the husband. The Level 2equation represented the wives’ and husbands’true scores as outcomes predicted by a setof explanatory variables. This allowed eachdyad member to have a separate regressionequation with potentially different predictors.Wives’ variables were not used to predict thehusbands’ variables, and vice versa. We usedthis method, as we were interested in the patternof associations for husbands as compared towives. To determine whether the pattern ofassociations varied by gender, the husbands’and wives’ slopes were tested to determine ifthey significantly differed from one another.Maximum likelihood estimation was used for allmodels. The proportion of variance explainedwas calculated by using the husband and wifetrue score variance in a baseline model withoutany predictors as compared to the husbandand wife true score variance resulting from theexplanatory models. It can be interpreted in thesame way as a squared multiple correlation.

Before testing our research questions, weadded to the baseline models the demographicvariables (i.e., age, length of time married, num-ber of children, family income, and povertylevel) that previous research has identified asrelated to conflict resolution and marital qual-ity (Bradbury et al., 2000). We found significantassociations between age and number of childrenwith control and marital quality (e.g., satis-faction, love, negativity). Consistent with rec-ommended multilevel model specification, wedropped the nonsignificant effects and retained


only husbands’ and wives’ ages and numberof children in subsequent analyses as controlvariables (Kenny et al., 2006).

RESULTS

Results are organized around three study goals:(a) to describe the conflict resolution strate-gies (i.e., nonconfrontation, control, and solu-tion orientation) that Mexican-origin husbandsand wives report using in their marital rela-tionship; (b) to explore correlates of conflictresolution, including cultural orientations andgender-typed qualities and attitudes; and (c) toinvestigate the links between conflict resolu-tion and marital quality, after accounting forthe role of gender and culture. See Table 1for bivariate relations between study vari-ables, means and standard deviations, and ttests of husband – wife differences for studyvariables.

Goal 1: Describe Conflict Resolution inMexican-Origin Couples

Results from the ANOVA indicated a significantmain effect for strategy, F(2, 206) = 262.01,p < .001. This main effect was qualified bya significant spouse by strategy interaction,F(2, 206) = 10.03, p < .001. Follow-up testsrevealed that husbands used more nonconfronta-tion than wives, whereas wives used morecontrol than husbands (see Table 1).

Goal 2: Culture, Gender, and ConflictResolution

To test the hypothesized relationships amongculture, gender, and conflict resolution, a seriesof MLM models were estimated with spouseself-reports of Anglo orientation, Mexicanorientation, expressive qualities, instrumentalqualities, and gender-typed attitudes as theindependent variables, and nonconfrontation,control, and solution orientation as the dependentvariables, respectively. We included husbands’and wives’ ages and number of children ascontrol variables in the control model.

As summarized in Table 2, for the non-confrontation model, there was a main effectfor Anglo orientation for wives but not hus-bands, indicating a negative association betweenAnglo orientation and nonconfrontation. This

association was significantly different for hus-bands and wives, t (435) = −3.99, p < .001.With respect to control, there was a significant,negative relationship between expressive quali-ties and control for both spouses. There also wasa main effect for instrumental qualities for bothspouses, which indicates a positive associationbetween instrumental qualities and control. Forhusbands but not wives, there was a main effectfor gender-typed attitudes, which indicates apositive relationship between traditional gender-typed attitudes and control. This association wassignificantly different for husbands and wives,t (435) = −3.32, p < .01. For the solution ori-entation model, there was a positive relationshipbetween Anglo orientation and solution orien-tation for wives but not husbands, althoughthe association was not significantly differentbetween spouses. For Mexican orientation, therewas a main effect for both spouses, indicatinga positive association between Mexican orien-tation and solution orientation. In addition, forwives but not husbands, there was a positiveassociation between instrumental qualities andsolution orientation, although the slopes werenot significantly different.

Additional analyses. To investigate further whywe found an effect for wives for instrumen-tal but not for expressive qualities, we testedthe equality of variance between the two vari-ables. We found that instrumental qualitieshad significantly more variance than expres-sive qualities for wives, F(1, 408) = 16.42,p < .001.

Further, given that wives’ Anglo orientationsand husbands’ and wives’ Mexican orientationsboth predicted use of solution orientation stra-tegies, but the slopes for Anglo orientations werenot significantly different between spouses, weconducted follow-up analyses with both spousesto test whether the effect might be attributed to abicultural orientation. We divided spouses intotwo groups: (a) bicultural-oriented spouses (i.e.,spouses who fell above the median on Angloand Mexican orientations) and (b) spouses whowere not categorized as bicultural. Performinga univariate ANOVA, we found a significantcultural group effect, F(1, 901) = 16.80, p <.01, d = .33), with bicultural spouses (M =3.65, SD = 0.74) using solution orientationmore than spouses who were not bicultural(M = 3.40, SD = 0.77).


Tab

le1.

Hus

band

and

Wife

Rep

orts

ofSt

udy

Var

iabl

es:

Cor

rela

tions

and

Des

crip

tive

Stat

istic

s(N

=22

7C

oupl

es)

Var

iabl

es1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1.N

onco

nfro

ntat

ion

—−.

14∗

.28∗

∗∗−.

29∗∗

∗.2

0∗∗

−.05

−.22

∗∗.1

9∗∗

−.38

∗∗∗

−.28

∗∗∗

.42∗

∗∗−.

12†

.03

2.So

lutio

nor

ient

atio

n.0

3—

.14∗

.23∗

∗.0

4.1

1†.2

4∗∗∗

−.14

∗.3

3∗∗∗

.26∗

∗∗−.

12†

.01

−.04

3.C

ontr

ol.3

4∗∗∗

−.04

—.2

0∗∗

−.15

∗−.

09.2

3∗∗∗

−.18

∗−.

25∗∗

∗−.

23∗∗

∗.5

1∗∗∗

−.11

†−.

13†

4.A

nglo

orie

ntat

ion

.01

.12†

.07

—−.

46∗∗

∗.1

9∗∗

.41∗

∗∗−.

44∗∗

∗.1

3∗.0

1−.

01.1

2†−.

20∗∗

5.M

exic

anor

ient

atio

n−.

00.1

1−.

10−.

47∗∗

∗—

.04

−.13

†.2

5∗∗∗

.03

.04

.02

−.13

.02

6.E

xpre

ssiv

ity−.

12†

.23∗

∗−.

26∗∗

.06

.18∗

∗—

.44∗

∗∗−.

03.1

5∗.1

9∗∗

−.09

.01

.07

7.In

stru

men

talit

y−.

04.1

7∗∗.1

1.2

3∗∗∗

−.10

.50∗∗

∗—

−.31

∗∗.1

2†.1

1.0

8.0

6−.

12†

8.G

ende

r-ty

ped

attit

udes

.10

−.16

∗∗.2

4∗∗∗

−.42

∗∗∗

.31∗

∗∗.0

3−.

17∗

—−.

00.1

4∗−.

03.0

1.1

5∗

9.M

arita

lsat

isfa

ctio

n−.

23∗∗

∗.4

3∗∗∗

−.19

∗∗.0

5.1

7∗.2

6∗∗∗

.09

.02

—.5

5∗∗∗

−.48

∗∗∗

.04

.03

10.L

ove

−.21

∗∗.2

7∗∗−.

16∗

−.11

†.1

6∗.2

2∗∗.0

2.1

2†.4

8∗∗∗

—−.

44∗∗

∗−.

04.1

111

.Neg

ativ

ity.3

3∗∗∗

.07

.33∗

∗∗.0

8.0

4−.

16∗

.10

−.10

−.11

−.26

∗∗∗

—−.

02−.

13∗

12.A

ge−.

01−.

02−.

10−.

05−.

07.0

3−.

08.1

1.0

4.0

2−.

09—

.20∗

13.N

umbe

rof

child

ren

−.07

−.05

−.09

−.19

∗∗.1

1.1

8∗∗−.

01.1

0.0

3.1

1†−.

04.2

4∗∗—

M(W

ives

)2.

32a

3.49

2.49

a2.

844.

075.

03a

4.59

a2.

066.

80a

8.03

a4.

45a

39.0

1a3.

84M

(Hus

band

s)2.

52a

3.47

2.29

a2.

894.

024.

67a

5.02

a2.

077.

34a

8.19

a4.

01a

41.5

5a3.

84SD

(Wiv

es)

.78

.69

.74

.92

.66

.68

.92

.65

1.56

1.03

1.70

4.57

1.63

SD(H

usba

nds)

.67

.71

.68

.88

.66

.67

.86

.57

1.20

1.04

1.65

5.54

1.63

Not

e:W

ives

are

abov

eth

edi

agon

al(N

=22

1–

225)

,and

husb

ands

are

belo

wth

edi

agon

al.(

N=

225

–22

7).M

eans

inea

chco

lum

nw

ithsu

pers

crip

tsin

dica

tesi

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

husb

ands

and

wiv

esat

p<

.05.

†p

<.1

0.∗ p

<.0

5.∗∗

p<

.01.

∗∗∗ p

<.0

01.


Table 2. Multilevel Models Predicting Conflict Resolution From Gender and Culture (N = 226 Couples)

Nonconfrontation Control Solution Orientation

Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband

Predictors γ SE γ SE γ SE γ SE γ SE γ SE

Intercept 2.30∗∗∗ .05 2.52∗∗∗ .05 2.51∗∗∗ .05 2.27∗∗∗ .04 3.52∗∗∗ .05 3.41∗∗∗ .05Age −.02† .01 −.01 .01Number of children −.05 .03 −.02 .03Expressive qualities .04 .06 −.03 .05 −.14∗∗ .05 −.13∗∗ .05 .02 .05 .08† .04Instrumental qualities −.06 .05 .01 .04 .16∗∗∗ .05 .09∗ .04 .11∗∗ .04 .06 .04Gender-typed attitudes .03 .07 .11† .06 −.05 .06 .22∗∗∗ .06 −.01 .05 −.04 .05Anglo orientation −.21∗∗∗ .04 .04 .05 −.01 .04 .07† .04 .08∗ .04 .08† .04Mexican orientation .05 .06 .03 .06 −.04 .06 −.00 .05 .11∗ .05 .18∗∗∗ .05Proportion of variance

explained.13 .00 .15 .22 .08 .08

†p < .10. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

Goal 3: Conflict Resolution and Marital Quality

To examine the relations between conflict res-olution and marital quality, we estimated aseries of MLM models with wife and hus-band self-reports of nonconfrontation, control,and solution orientation as independent vari-ables, and marital satisfaction, love, and nega-tivity as dependent variables, respectively. Wealso included expressive and instrumental quali-ties, gender-typed attitudes, Anglo and Mexicanorientations, husbands’ and wives’ ages, and

number of children in the models as controlvariables.

As summarized in Table 3, for marital sat-isfaction, there were main effects for noncon-frontation for both spouses, which indicate anegative association between nonconfrontationand marital satisfaction. There was a negativeassociation between control and marital satis-faction for wives but not for husbands, but theslopes were not significantly different. Therewas also a main effect for solution orientation forboth spouses, which indicates a positive relation

Table 3. Multilevel Models Predicting Relationship Qualities From Gender, Culture, and Conflict Resolution(N = 226 Couples)

Satisfaction Love Negativity

Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband

Predictors γ SE γ SE γ SE γ SE γ SE γ SE

Intercept 6.80∗∗∗ .10 7.37∗∗∗ .08 7.97∗∗∗ .07 8.19∗∗∗ .07 4.55∗∗∗ .11 4.01∗∗∗ .11Age .01 .02 .01 .01 −.02 .01 −.00 .01 .02 .02 −.02 .02Number of children .01 .07 −.01 .05 .05 .04 .05 .04 −.12† .07 .03 .07Expressive qualities .02 .07 .15∗ .06 .18∗∗ .06 .01 .06 −.18 .13 −.21 .13Instrumental qualities .08 .07 −.01 .05 .06 .05 .05 .05 .16 .11 .15 .11Gender-typed attitudes .05 .09 .03 .08 .20∗∗ .07 .19∗ .07 −.09 .14 −.34∗ .16Anglo orientation −.04 .06 .01 .06 .07 .05 .01 .05 −.02 .10 .12 .11Mexican orientation −.00 .08 .05 .07 .02 .07 .01 .07 −.03 .13 .22 .14Nonconfrontation −.13∗ .06 −.16∗∗ .05 −.20∗∗∗ .05 −.14∗∗ .05 .58∗∗∗ .11 .25∗ .11Control −.15∗ .07 −.11† .06 −.11† .06 −.13∗ .06 .68∗∗∗ .11 .53∗∗∗ .12Solution orientation .14∗ .06 .27∗∗∗ .08 .17∗∗ .05 .23∗∗ .07 −.20† .11 .15 .13Proportion of variance

explained.15 .22 .27 .12 .54 .31

†p < .10. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.


between solution orientation and marital satis-faction. With respect to love, there were maineffects of gender-typed attitudes for both spousesand expressive qualities for wives, which indi-cate positive associations between gender-typedattitudes and expressive qualities with love. Theassociation between expressive qualities andlove was significantly different for husbandsand wives, t (429) = 2.04, p < .05. There werealso main effects for nonconfrontation and solu-tion orientation for both spouses, which indicatenegative links between nonconfrontation andsolution orientation with love. There was anegative association between control and lovefor husbands but not for wives, but the slopeswere not significantly different. For negativity,there was a main effect for gender-typed atti-tudes for husbands but not for wives, whichindicates a negative relation between gender-typed attitudes and negativity. Nonetheless, thisassociation was not significantly different forhusbands and wives. There were also maineffects of nonconfrontation and control for bothspouses, which indicate positive links betweennonconfrontation and control with negativity.The association between nonconfrontation andcontrol was significantly different for husbandsand wives, t (429) = 2.08, p < .05.

DISCUSSION

The present findings contribute to the literatureon marital conflict resolution in Hispanic couplesby providing descriptive information aboutMexican-origin spouses’ conflict managementand by exploring the associations of gender,culture, and marital quality with conflictresolution strategies. Mexican-origin husbandsand wives in long-term marriages used solution-oriented conflict resolution strategies moreoften than other strategies. This is consistentwith the premise that Mexican-origin familiesoften place an emphasis on group harmonyand familism values (Cauce & Domenech-Rodrıguez, 2002) and thus may endorse conflictresolution strategies that promote mutuallysatisfying conflict outcomes for both membersof the marital dyad. Individual conflict episodeshave short-term negative effects but will mostlikely not have a long-term negative impacton the relationship if conflict is resolved ina constructive manner when couples are inlong-lasting relationships (Burman, Mangolin,& John, 1993).

In relation to the overall use of controland nonconfrontation, there were consistentdifferences between husbands and wives inthe sample. Similar to previous research withEuropean American couples that found thatwives tend to demand and husbands tend towithdraw during marital conflict (Christensen &Heavey, 1990), wives used controlling strategiesmore often than husbands, and husbands usednonconfrontational (e.g., avoidance) strategiesmore often than wives. Mexican-origin familiesoften have traditional gender-typed attitudesabout family roles, and relationship maintenanceoften is a role of women (Cauce & Domenech-Rodrıguez, 2002). Thus, wives may feel moreresponsible for the maintenance of their maritalrelationships (Maccoby, 1998) and often wantmore change in their relationships (Heyman,Hunt-Martorano, Malik, & Smith Slep, 2009),and thus they use controlling strategies tomanage conflicts.

The results of our study also highlight theimportance of the role of gendered qualitiesand attitudes and cultural orientations in rela-tion to the conflict resolution strategies thatMexican-origin spouses use, despite the scarcityof empirical work on these constructs (Bradburyet al., 2000). For nonconfrontational resolutionstrategies, cultural orientation was an impor-tant correlate, whereas gender-typed qualitiesand attitudes were not. Wives with a strongorientation toward Anglo culture reported lessfrequent use of nonconfrontational strategies,consistent with research on primarily EuropeanAmerican couples that found that wives are lesslikely to withdraw from conflict (Christensen& Heavey, 1990). In contrast, gendered qual-ities and cultural orientations did not explainvariance in husbands’ use of nonconfrontation.Some evidence suggests that husbands use non-confrontational behaviors in response to wives’critical behavior, as indicated by research on thedemand – withdraw interaction pattern (Chris-tensen & Heavey, 1990). Thus, husbands mayuse nonconfrontational strategies under differ-ent circumstances than wives do. These findingsunderscore the importance of understandingthe differential effect of the cultural contextof marriage for husbands and wives. Futureresearch should investigate the impact of eachspouse’s choice of nonconfrontational strategieson the other spouse’s behavior within the cul-tural and gendered context of these couples’relationships.


In exploring factors that relate to spouses’use of controlling strategies, we found thatgender-typed qualities and attitudes were relatedto control, whereas cultural orientations werenot. Husbands and wives with high levelsof instrumental personality qualities (e.g.,domination, competitiveness) reported usingcontrol, whereas those with high levels ofexpressive personality qualities (e.g., nurturing,sensitivity) reported using low levels of control.This is consistent with previous research ongender-typed attributes and conflict behaviors(Brewer et al., 2002). In addition, husbands,but not wives, with gender-typed attitudesreported using controlling strategies. Husbands’traditional attitudes about gender may indicate,in part, that they feel they should be theauthority or dominant figure in their family(Casas, Wagenheim, Banchero, & Mendoza-Romero, 1994). This may facilitate their useof controlling strategies when conflicts arise.This is consistent with the limited researchon hypermasculinized attitudes (machismo) ofHispanic men that stereotypically portraysthem as authoritarian, emotionally restrictive,and controlling (Torres, Solberg, & Carlstrom,2002). These findings demonstrate the need tolook beyond stereotypical views of gender inmarriage when explaining variation in conflictresolution for Mexican-origin couples.

Gendered qualities and cultural orientationswere important in explaining patterns ofsolution orientation, although between-spousedifferences emerged. Wives, but not husbands,with high levels of instrumental qualities usedsolution-orientated strategies. Mexican-originwives who report high levels of instrumentalqualities may feel relatively more power andinfluence in their marriages possibly becauseof work-related experiences (e.g., occupationalprestige, income), and thus feel that theycan express themselves during conflicts. Inaddition, both wives oriented toward Angloculture and husbands and wives orientedtoward Mexican culture reported using solution-orientated strategies. Follow-up analyses ofthose results revealed that spouses with abicultural orientation (i.e., strong orientationstoward Anglo and Mexican culture), a formof cultural adaptation that has been linkedto positive well-being (Padilla, 2006), usedsolution-oriented strategies more often thanspouses who were not bicultural.

Looking across the three dimensions of con-flict resolution, the findings suggest that genderand culture processes may be differentiallyimportant for different conflict resolution strate-gies. For example, only wives’ cultural orienta-tions were linked to nonconfrontation, whereasonly gender-typed qualities and attitudes wereassociated with spouses’ reports of control. Forhusbands, in particular, gender-typed attitudesand qualities in the control model explainedmore variance than did culture or gender char-acteristics in either of the other models. Thesefindings highlight both similarities and differ-ences in the gender and cultural characteristicsthat are linked to husbands’ and wives’ conflictresolution strategies. More generally, additionalresearch is needed using designs that examinewithin-culture variability in marital processesfor Mexican-origin couples.

Consistent with the ideas that conflict inmarital relationships is inevitable and thateffective conflict resolution skills are importantin maintaining marital quality (Fincham &Beach, 1999), our findings revealed that the threeconflict resolution strategies were associatedwith spouses’ marital satisfaction and lovein the expected directions in these long-termmarriages and consensual unions. When spousesused more solution-oriented strategies and lessnonconfrontation and control, there was moresatisfaction and love in the marriage. Previousresearch has found that there are reparativeprocesses that occur during marital conflictthat distinguish distressed and nondistressedcouples (Gottman, 1998). Such reparativeprocesses could be present for couples thatemploy solution-oriented strategies. Conversely,it has been proposed that spouses’ reciprocalnegativity may be the result of the failureof repair processes during conflict (Gottman,1998). This failure may occur when spousesuse less adaptive conflict strategies, specificallycontrol and nonconfrontation, which we foundto be related to higher levels of negativity.Indeed, spouses’ conflict resolution strategiesresult in higher levels of explained variancein reports of negativity as compared to theirreports of love and satisfaction. Future researchis needed to learn more about these processes,particularly in different cultural contexts. Thesefindings provide a foundation for future appliedresearch and practice directed at promotingpositive marital relationships for Mexican-origincouples.


Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Our findings must be interpreted with their lim-itations in mind. First, our results come froma specific sample of Mexican-origin families(two-parent families in the Southwest). As such,we have taken a first step in describing thecorrelates of spouses’ conflict resolution in thiscultural group. Future studies could incorporateMexican-origin families from different geo-graphic locations and from a wider range ofmarital statuses. Our results also are specific tocouples with adolescents who have been marriedor in consensual unions for a long time; under-standing the connections between the correlatesof conflict resolution in Mexican-origin couplesat various developmental stages of marriage isimportant. In addition, the cross-sectional designdoes not allow for an understanding of the direc-tions of effects. Future longitudinal work shouldinclude multiple assessments of spouses’ cul-tural values, gender, conflict resolution, andmarital qualities, as they will be important inshedding light on whether strong marriages pro-duce better conflict resolution or whether betterconflict resolution strategies promote strongerrelationships. Longitudinal data would also aidin teasing apart the causal mechanisms andpotential mediating processes. Finally, an impor-tant next step is to look at the interactionalrelations between husbands’ and wives’ conflictprocesses and marital quality.

Conclusions

The present study contributes to the literatureon marital conflict resolution in several ways.First, we took an important step in exam-ining within-culture variability in relation todifferences in husbands’ and wives’ conflict res-olution strategies. We provided insights into theassociations between specific elements of Mex-ican culture and marital relationship processes.We also identified some of the conflict resolu-tion strategies that may be central to long-termhealthy marriages for Mexican-origin couples.Understanding the cultural and gendered con-text of marital relationships is an important stepin developing a foundation of knowledge aboutrelationship processes in ethnic minority cou-ples. Keeping these diverse contexts in mind asrelated to conflict resolution would substantiallyadd to the effectiveness of preventive interven-tions aimed to improve marital communicationskills.

NOTE

We are grateful to the families and adolescents whoparticipated in this project and to the following schools anddistricts that collaborated: Osborn, Mesa, and Gilbert schooldistricts; Willis Junior High School; Sepia and InglesideMiddle Schools; and St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Gregory,St. Francis Xavier, St. Mary-Basha, and St. John Boscoschools. We thank Susan McHale, Ann Crouter, Mark Roosa,Nancy Gonzales, Roger Millsap, Jennifer Kennedy, DevonHageman, Melissa Delgado, Sarah Killoren, Emily Cansler,and Lilly Shanahan for their assistance in conductingthis investigation. We are also grateful to Susan McHalefor her comments on an earlier draft of the article. TheNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development(R01HD39666) and the Cowden Fund to the School of Socialand Family Dynamics at Arizona State University providedfunding for this research project.

REFERENCES

Adams, M., Coltrane, S., & Parke, R. D. (2007).Cross-ethnic applicability of the gender-basedattitudes toward marriage and child rearing scales.Sex Roles, 56, 325 – 339.

Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychologicalandrogyny. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 42, 155 – 162.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, andadaptation. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 46, 5 – 34.

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H.(2000). Research on the nature and determinantsof marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 62, 964 – 980.

Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Under-standing and altering the longitudinal course ofmarriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66,862 – 879.

Braiker, H. B., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict inthe development of close relationships. In R. L.Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchangein developing relationships (pp. 135 – 168). NewYork: Academic Press.

Brewer, N., Mitchell, P., & Weber, N. (2002). Genderrole, organization status, and conflict managementstyles. International Journal of Conflict Manage-ment, 13, 78 – 94.

Burman, B., Mangolin, R., & John, R. S. (1993).America’s angriest home video: Behavioral contin-gencies observed in home re-enactments of maritalconflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-chology, 61, 28 – 39.

Cai, D. A., & Fink, E. L. (2002). Conflict style dif-ferences between individualists and collectivists.Communication Monographs, 69, 67 – 87.

Casas, J. M., Wagenheim, B. R., Banchero, R., &Mendoza-Romero, J. (1994). Hispanic masculin-ity: Myth or psychological schema meriting clini-cal considerations. Hispanic Journal of BehavioralSciences, 16, 315 – 331.


Cauce, A. M., & Domenech-Rodrıguez, M. (2002).Latino families: Myths and realities. In J. M.Contreras, K. A. Kerns, & A. M. Neal-Barnett(Eds.), Latino children and families in the UnitedStates: Current research and future directions(pp. 3 – 25). Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood.

Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender andsocial structure in demand/withdraw patterns ofmarital conflict. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 59, 458 – 463.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis forthe behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York:Erlbaum.

Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995).Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Ameri-cans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17,275 – 304.

De Vos, S. (1999). Comment of coding marital statusin Latin America. Journal of Comparative FamilyStudies, 30, 79 – 93.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict:Constructive and destructive processes. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (1999). Conflict inmarriage: Implications for working with couples.Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 47 – 77.

Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2004).Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage.Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 72 – 81.

Flores, E., Tschann, J. M., Marin, B. V., & Pan-toja, P. (2004). Marital conflict and acculturationamong Mexican American husbands and wives.Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychol-ogy, 10, 39 – 52.

Foster, S. L., & Martinez, C. R. (1995). Ethnicity:Conceptual and methodological issues in childclinical research. Journal of Clinical ChildPsychology, 24, 214 – 226.

Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the studyof the marital processes. Annual Review ofPsychology, 49, 169 – 197.

Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. I. (2002). Maritalresearch in the 20th century and a research agendafor the 21st century. Family Process, 41, 159 – 197.

Greeff, A. P., & de Bruyne, T. (2000). Conflictmanagement style and marital satisfaction. Journalof Sex and Marital Therapy, 26, 321 – 334.

Harris, A. C. (1994). Ethnicity as a determinant of sexrole identity: A replication study of item selectionfor the Bem sex role inventory. Sex Roles, 31,241 – 273.

Hatch, L. R., & Bulcroft, K. (2004). Does long-termmarriage bring less frequent disagreements? Fiveexplanatory frameworks. Journal of Family Issues,25, 465 – 495.

Heyman, R. E., Hunt-Martorano, A. N., Malik, J., &Smith Slep, A. M. (2009). Desired change incouples: Gender differences and effects on

communication. Journal of Family Psychology,23, 474 – 484.

Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1995). Interpersonalconflict (4th ed.). Madison, WI: Brown &Benchmark.

Hoffman, L. W., & Kloska, D. D. (1995). Parents’gender-based attitudes toward marital roles andchild rearing: Development and validation of newmeasures. Sex Roles, 32, 273 – 295.

Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences:International differences in work-related values.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Holt, J. L., & DeVore, C. J. (2005). Culture, gender,organizational role, and styles of conflict reso-lution: A meta-analysis. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 29, 165 – 196.

Huston, T. L., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C.(1986). Changes in the marital relationship dur-ing the first year of marriage. In R. Gilmour& S. Duck (Eds.), The emerging field of per-sonal relationships (pp. 109 – 132). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Johnson, M. D., Cohan, C. L., Davila, J., Lawrence,E., Rogge, R. D., Karney, B. R., et al. (2005).Problem-solving skills and affective expressionsas predictors of change in marital satisfaction.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,73, 15 – 27.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006).Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

Leaper, C., & Valin, D. (1996). Predictors of MexicanAmerican mothers’ and fathers’ attitudes towardgender equality. Hispanic Journal of BehavioralSciences, 18, 343 – 355.

Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing upapart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Mackey, R. A., & O’Brien, B. A. (1998). Marital con-flict management: Gender and ethnic differences.Social Work, 43, 128 – 141.

Madsen, W. (1964). Value conflicts and folk psychi-atry in South Texas. In A. Kiev (Ed.), Magic,faith, and healing (pp. 420 – 440). New York: FreePress.

Marchand, J. F., & Hock, E. (2000). Avoidance andattacking conflict-resolution strategies among mar-ried couples: Relations to depressive symptomsand marital satisfaction. Family Relations, 49,201 – 206.

McAdoo, H. P. (1993). Family ethnicity: Strength indiversity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Nakeo, K., & Treas, J. (1994). Updating occupationalprestige and socioeconomic scores: How the newmeasures measure up. Sociological Methodology,24, 1 – 72.

Olson, L. N., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2004). ‘‘If you hitme again, I’ll hit you back’’: Conflict managementstrategies of individuals experiencing aggressionduring conflicts. Communication Studies, 55,271 – 285.


Osborne, C., Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2007).Married and cohabiting parents’ relationshipstability: A focus on race and ethnicity. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 69, 1345 – 1366.

Padilla, A. M. (2006). Bicultural social development.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28,467 – 497.

Pearson, V. M. S., & Stephan, W. G. (1998). Pref-erences for styles of negotiation: A comparisonof Brazil and the U.S. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 22, 67 – 83.

Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communica-tive strategies in organizational conflicts: Reliabil-ity and validity of a measurement scale. Organiza-tional Communication, 4, 629 – 652.

Ruiz, S. Y., Gonzales, N. A., & Formoso, D. (1998,March). Multicultural, multidimensional assess-ment of parent-adolescent conflict. Poster pre-sented at the biennial meeting of the Society forResearch on Adolescence, San Diego, CA.

Thayer, S. M., & Updegraff, K. A. (2004, Novem-ber). Conflict resolution in Mexican Americancouples. Poster presented at the annual meetingof the National Council on Family Relations,Orlando, FL.

Thayer, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Delgado, M. Y.(2008). Conflict resolution in Mexican Americans’friendships: Links with gender, culture, and friend-ship quality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,37, 783 – 797.

Torres, J. B., Solberg, S. H., & Carlstrom, A. H.(2002). The myth of sameness among Latinomen and their machismo. American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 72, 163 – 181.

Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Whiteman, S. D.,Thayer, S. M., & Delgado, M. Y. (2005). Adoles-cent sibling relationships in Mexican Americanfamilies: Exploring the role of familism. Journalof Family Psychology, 19, 512 – 522.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). The Hispanic populationin the United States: March 2002 (PC PublicationNo. P20 – 545). Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office.

U.S. Census Bureau (2007). The American Commu-nity—Hispanics: 2004. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/acs-03.pdf

Valentine, S., & Mosley, G. (2000). Acculturationand sex-role attitudes among Mexican Americans:A longitudinal Analysis. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral Sciences, 22, 104 – 113.

Conflict Resolution in Mexican-Origin Couples: Culture, Gender, and Marital Quality

Documents

Transcript of Conflict Resolution in Mexican-Origin Couples: Culture, Gender, and Marital Quality