The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution 

(iCOR) Study

Author(s): Elizabeth A. Mumford, Ph.D., Bruce G. 

Taylor, Ph.D., Weiwei Liu, Ph.D., Mark 

Berg, Ph.D.

Document Number: 252953 

Date Received: May 2019

Award Number: 2015-VF-GX-0110

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview

The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study*

August 29, 2018

Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice 

Grant # 2015-VF-GX-0110

Elizabeth A. Mumford, Ph.D., NORC at the University of Chicago

Bruce G. Taylor, Ph.D., NORC at the University of Chicago

Weiwei Liu, Ph.D., NORC at the University of Chicago

Mark Berg, Ph.D., University of Iowa

Acknowledgements: Points of views in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent 

the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or any other organization. This study was funded 

by the National Institute of Justice (Grant # 2015-VF-GX-0110) and we are grateful for this funding and how it 

allowed us to collect psychosocial and epidemiological data on interpersonal conflicts, abusive behavior, and 

mitigation strategies. We thank our Project Officer Dr. Carrie Mulford and Senior Grants Management Specialist 

Jessica Highland for their encouragement and support. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the 

young adults who participated in this research for this would not have been possible without their help. Within 

NORC, we would like to thank Stephanie Jwo, Noelle Miesfeld, Maria Bohri, Eva Bahrami and Meghan O’Leary. 

Thanks also to the broader AmeriSpeak team for being such strong research partners in accessing the probabilitybased AmeriSpeak Panel, including Michael Dennis, Stephanie Jwo, Rosalind Koff, and Jennifer Marek. 

Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Financial Disclosure: The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this study to disclose.

* This study (official title: “A Nationally Representative Study of Conflicts, Dyadic Interactions, and the VictimOffender Overlap”) was funded by the National Institute of Justice (Grant # 2015-VF-GX-0110). The views 

expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or the official position of the National 

Institute of Justice or any other organization. 

** Address correspondence to: Elizabeth A. Mumford, Principal Research Scientist, NORC at the University of 

Chicago, 4350 East West Highway, Ste. 800, Bethesda, MD 20814, mumford-elizabeth@norc.org

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

1 

The purpose of the Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) study was to inform research on the prevalence 

and etiology of conflict, victimization, offending and the commonly identified phenomenon referred to as the ‘victimoffender overlap’ in criminology. More specifically, this study was designed to determine the nature, incidence, and 

coincidence of forms of interpersonal conflict and resulting conflict management styles, including physical violence, in 

an existing nationally-representative cohort of 18-32 year old adults. Respondent reports of conflicts involving 

aggressive and violent behavior (offending and victimization) were distinguished for three relationship categories: 

intimate partner relationships, friends/acquaintances, and relatively unknown persons/strangers. Furthermore,

employing a dyadic data collection design, we assessed the nature of conflicts and conflict management behavioral 

patterns within and outside intimate partner dyads, using information reported by both “Prime” respondents 

(members of the general population sample who referred an intimate partner to recruitment for an iCOR survey) and 

three types of counterpart relationships: (1) the Prime’s current intimate partner or spouse, defined as seeing each 

other, dating, living together, or married; (2) friends, defined as people whom the Prime knows well and feels very 

friendly towards and who feels friendly toward the Prime in return; and (3) strangers, defined as people the Prime 

occasionally encounters but doesn’t really know or people whom the Prime has never seen before. The research 

design covered questions about the nature and frequency of conflicts experienced irrespective of whether the 

incidents ended violently; conflict management style/tendencies (remedial actions, apologies, accounts); and

differences between conflicts that turn violent and those that do not. We also assessed the frequency of violence 

during the course of disputes, including experiences with physical (e.g., assaultive behaviors, weapon attacks) 

victimization and the perpetration of violent acts. Finally, we investigated the elements that facilitate conflict 

escalation that are deemed important theoretical constructs in research on aggression, such as adverse childhood 

events, low self-control, negative affect, street code attitudes, routine activities/lifestyles, agreeableness, and alcohol 

and drug use, in addition to demographic and other person-level variables. 

PROJECT DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted three waves of data collection among young adults ages 18-32 (“Primes”). At wave 2, we 

recruited the intimate “Partners” of the prime respondents for a cross-sectional dyadic survey. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

2 

Data source

Prime respondents to the iCOR study were recruited from the AmeriSpeak Panel, a probability-based panel 

nationally representative of U.S. households (detailed methods on panel recruitment available1). The sample frame 

is the NORC National Sample Frame, an area probability sample frame constructed by NORC providing sample 

coverage of over 99% of U.S. households, including a supplemental list of rural households not recorded on the U.S. 

Postal Service Computerized Delivery Sequence (CDS) File but identified through NORC in-person fieldwork. The 

AmeriSpeak panel recruitment response rate is nearly 35% (five times the response rate of the Gallup Panel and 10 

times the response to the American Trends Panel administered by the Pew Research Center). Following an initial 

recruitment phase through the U.S. mail, a second stage of in-person recruitment for initial non-responders is 

implemented to capture harder to reach populations.

To assure national representativeness, we applied statistical weights accounting for recruitment probability; 

these weights are available in the archived dataset. The panel base weight takes into account a range of sampling 

and non-sampling error (e.g., non-response to panel recruitment and panel attrition). This panel base weight is then 

employed in a probability proportional to size (PPS) selection method for drawing sub-samples from the AmeriSpeak 

Panel. Using demographic and geographic distributions from the most recent monthly U.S. Census Current 

Population Survey as benchmarks, we conducted a sample-specific post-stratification process (applying an iterative 

raking procedure) to adjust for survey nonresponse and for any elements related to the study-specific sample design 

(such as subgroup oversamples of households with youth). The demographic variables used were gender, age, 

race/ethnicity, education, and Census region. Our weighting procedures resulted in a weighted sample distribution 

that approximates the US population of 18-32 year old adults, based on the 2016 U.S. Census estimates. 

Following standard survey and IRB protocols, recruited respondents were informed in advance and within the 

online survey that they could refuse to answer any questions or not participate at all. Panelists who consented to 

participate received an invitation by e-mail to complete the baseline and subsequent iCOR surveys. We followed an 

at-risk protocol to aid any respondents who requested a referral for help (toll-free telephone and online resources).

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

3 

Baseline surveys and subjects

The project started with the recruiting of a nationally representative sample of 4,714 households with at least one

household member falling in the target age range (panelist age data is recorded for all panel members facilitating 

recruitment). From this initial sample, 2,284 young adults participated in the baseline (wave 1) survey conducted 

from August 2016 through April 2017. These respondents are the iCOR “Primes.” At wave 2, 1,629 Primes 

completed a survey (conducted from December 2016 – September 2017), among whom 1,328 reported that they 

were in a romantic relationship. Primes who indicated that they were involved in more than one romantic relationship 

were asked to pick the person with whom they spend the most time, who was subsequently selected to the study and 

referenced in ensuing questions. Of these Primes with a confirmed and selected Partner, 50% (829 Primes) 

provided contact information to refer their Partner to the dyadic iCOR survey. Contact information was confirmed 

enabling invitations to 818 Partners, among whom 480 completed cross-sectional surveys (conducted from 

December 2016 – October 2017). In that the IRB protocol required that information about survey completion not be 

shared with the dyads, some Partners completed a survey in instances of the Prime not completing a survey. The 

final count of dyadic pairs (a completed Prime and a completed Partner survey) was n=466. At wave 3, only the 

Prime respondents were surveyed (June 2017 – May 2018). Of the 2,204 respondents invited to the wave 3 survey 

(80 iCOR Primes had permanently refused further participation in AmeriSpeak studies at the time of the wave 3 

invitation), 1,603 Primes completed a 3rd survey for a total follow-up response rate of 70.1% within the iCOR cohort of 

Primes. 

AmeriSpeak panelists are offered a web or a phone interview options for all surveys. Over nine out of 10 

respondents in this young adult sample selected the web-survey option (Primes: 96.9% at wave 1; 98.8% at wave 2; 

99.7% at wave 3. Wave 2 Partners: 100%). The iCOR survey was also offered to recruited respondents in both 

English and Spanish. Nearly all respondents chose to respond to the English language version of survey (Primes: 

99.1% at wave 1; 99.4% at wave 2; 99.4% at wave 3. Wave 2 Partners: 100%). Respondents received incentives 

valued at $15 for the wave 1 survey, $30 for the wave 2 survey, and $50 for the wave 3 survey.

As seen in Appendix Table 1, based on our Wave 1 (baseline) survey, the iCOR Prime sample self-reported as 

White (53%), Hispanic (19%), Black (16%), Asian (4%) or other race/ethnicity (8%). The average age was 26.3

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

4 

years old, and the sample was 62.9% female. Other background characteristics on the household for our Prime 

respondents sample are presented in Table 1. The Partner respondent sample self-reported as White (63%), 

Hispanic (17%), Black (11%), Asian (5%) or other race/ethnicity (4%). As seen in Appendix Table 2, the average age 

for the partner sample was 29.2 years old, and the sample was 61.9% male. 

Measures

Measures included in the iCOR survey instrumentation were selected for inclusion based on theory and past 

empirical research identifying correlates of aggressive and violent behavior. The general population literature 

regarding aggression and violence is largely centered on intimate partner violence and youth violence, with additional 

evidence coming from criminal justice and other at-risk samples. The core outcome measures in the Prime 

instrumentation assessed verbally aggressive communications as well as physical threats and violence, 

distinguishing perpetration and victimization (with recognition that mutual aggression and violence in interpersonal 

conflicts is common). These outcomes were assessed for each of three types of relationships: (1) the Prime’s 

current intimate partner, defined as seeing each other, dating, living together, or married; (2) friends, defined as 

people whom the Prime knows well and feels very friendly towards and who feel friendly toward the Prime in return; 

and (3) strangers, defined as people the Prime occasionally encounters but doesn’t really know or people whom the 

Prime has never seen before. The wording and coding of the aggression and violence outcomes were developed for 

the iCOR study based on prior research.2,3 Additional measures of IPV perpetration and victimization were drawn 

from the Revised Conflicts Tactics Scale.4 

Key explanatory variables measured for Primes include measures of conflict management strategies, selfcontrol/impulsivity,5 agreeableness,6 depression symptomology,7 routine activities,8 street code/honor culture,9

alcohol use,10 drug use,11 exposure to violence,12,13 exposure to violence in neighborhood9 and to adverse childhood 

events (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System [BRFSS] adverse 

life events [ACE] module), recent life stressors,14 and peer relations.15,16 The iCOR data incorporate additional 

control measures including common sociodemographic variables, measures of partner communications and 

cohabitation, and parenting status. The Partner instrument assessed these same measures with the exception of 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

5 

routine activities and peer relations. In addition to these measures, the partner instrument also assessed relationship 

care, jealousy, and conflict. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

6 

DATA ANALYSIS

The iCOR data were cleaned and recoded using SPSS 23.0. We examined each wave of data for errors or 

inconsistencies and verified that the data values were correct and conformed to a set of rules. Errors were detected 

by checking skip patterns, using scatterplots, and histograms. The statistical software packages used in our analyses 

(SPSS 23.0, Mplus 6.0, 7.0, and Stata 14, 15) allow for the use of sampling weights, adjust for complex sampling, 

handle missing data, address highly skewed indicators (e.g., % of young adults reporting any physical violence 

perpetration), and support analysis of variables with different levels of measurement (i.e., nominal to continuous 

data). 

Descriptive/exploratory analyses of survey data

We examined the distribution of our data with and without statistical weights and ran frequencies, measures of 

central tendency, and measures of dispersion for all study variables. To address the research questions laid out 

above, we employed bivariate cross-tabulations, comparison of means, and correlations to describe each study 

sample and the associations between sample variables, including issues of multicollinearity. We performed a variety 

of bivariate analyses on relevant background variables to determine whether there were statistically significant 

relationships between the principle explanatory variables (adverse childhood events, recent stressors, alcohol and 

other drug use, attitudes, affect, conflict management strategies) and the key outcome variables. 

Multivariate models 

A variety of multivariate analytic techniques were employed to address the research questions, including linear, 

logistic, tobit, and multinomial regression models; latent class analyses (LCA), structural equation models, and actor 

partner interdependence models (APIM). For example, many Primes reported no verbal aggression outcomes in 

terms of the frequency of perpetration and/or victimization, resulting in a distribution marked by left-truncation such 

that the data were best fit with a tobit model, whereas a physical violence outcome was fit with logit models to 

accommodate the binary distribution of the data.

17-19 Multinomial regressions, a classification method that 

generalizes logistic regression to multiclass problems beyond two categories,

20 were estimated to model outcomes 

associated with the victim/offender overlap (victimization only, offender only, and victimization and offending, 

compared to the reference group: no aggression/no abuse).21 Baseline typologies of verbally aggressive behavior 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

7 

were modeled with a person-centered approach, latent class analysis (LCA), and these profiles were subsequently 

entered into models as predictors of physical violence victimization and perpetration overall and by relationship 

contexts (partners, friends, strangers).22 A study of conflict management strategies as potential mediators of the 

association between (mutual) verbal conflicts and subsequent physical violence (victimization and perpetration 

modeled as separate outcomes) applied structural equation models.23 Dyadic analyses, drawing on response data 

replied independently by Primes and their linked Partners, are modeled using APIM24 in one instance,25 and with

multinomial logistic regression models to assess agreement and discordance between partners’ reporting of IPV in 

another study.26 

FINDINGS

The findings for this study are reported in seven manuscripts (prepared to date) that currently are under peer 

review18,19,21,22 or are ready for submission.23,25,26 Results have been presented at a 2017 national conference and 

are scheduled for further presentation in November 2018. In this summary report, we highlight our key findings; 

further detail is available from the authors (until the point at which these studies are accepted for publication). 

Mumford et al.18 draws on the full weighted study sample of 2,284 young adult respondents (Primes), of whom 

1,561 reported being in an intimate partnership. The prevalence of verbal aggression perpetrated by young adults 

declined with the intimacy of the relationship, such that aggression against a partner (72%) exceeded aggression 

directed at friends (43%) and strangers (34%). Similar rates of physical violence (about 9%) were reportedly 

perpetrated against partners, friends, and strangers. The study design drew on neurobiological explanations for the 

link between childhood adversity and subsequent aggressive behavior27-30 to investigate risk factors for both the 

aggression and violence outcomes. Adjusting for a range of personal characteristics, both adverse childhood 

experiences and recent stressors exhibited direct associations with verbal and physically aggressive outcomes.

Taylor et al.21 draw on a subset of the baseline sample of Primes (n=871 women plus n=690 men who reported

being in an intimate partnership) to examine the traditional overlap of victimization and offending behavior covering 

three aggression outcomes (psychological, physical, and sexual abuse). The study further advances the field by 

comparing the victim-offender overlap in partnered relationships — in other words, IPV — to the same phenomenon 

in non-partnered relationship (i.e., relationships between the Prime and Friends/Strangers). Results from this study 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

8 

point to a high degree of overlap between victimization and offending across the three abuse outcomes, as well as a 

modestly consistent set of risk factors for the victim-offender overlap for partner and non-partner abuse experiences, 

including an association between conflict management styles and low-self-control and the victim-offender overlap.

The person-centered approach of Liu et al.22, drawing on problem behavior31 and social learning theories32 

revealed six profiles of psychological aggression exhibiting victimization and perpetration in various combinations by 

relationship type. The six profiles spanned from Low Aggression (16.7% of the sample) to Consistent Aggression 

(17.1%) across relationship types, and included classes of individuals reporting aggression towards Partners only 

(21.8%), towards Partners and Friends (not Strangers) (26.2%), towards Partners and Strangers (not Friends) 

(13.9%), and towards Friends and Strangers (not Partners) (5.2%). Aggression profiles were found to be significantly 

associated with physical violence perpetration and victimization overall and in each of the three relationship contexts.

Berg et al.19, used a social interactionist framework to investigate the link between depression and subsequent 

violence.

33,34 Specifically, findings from this iCOR paper indicate that depressed individuals are frequently involved in 

verbal conflicts that create situational opportunities for violent encounters, and that substance abuse co-morbidity in 

the form of illicit drug use may account for some of the effects of depression on both conflict and violent behavior, 

consistent with other studies. However, the findings suggest that reported child abuse does not account for the 

linkage between depression and violence in adulthood although individuals who suffered abuse as children are more 

likely to become involved in verbal conflicts in adulthood, and consequently, to engage in physical violence. The 

findings also withstood controls for self-reported violent victimization in supplementary analyses. 

In a separate study by Berg et al.23 drawing on subcultural theorizing and the street code35,36 among a general 

population sample of young adults confirms prior research findings that the street code is positively associated with 

involvement in verbal conflicts (mutual, victimization, and offending) and with disputatiousness as a conflict 

management strategy, and negatively associated with remedial (conciliatory) efforts. Second, the results showed 

that disputatiousness mediated the association between verbal conflicts and subsequent physically violent offending 

and victimization, and that remedial actions also serve as a mediator of violence perpetration (but not victimization). 

Third, this study shows that remedial actions are constructive in mitigating the effect of disputatiousness as a 

mechanism between verbal conflicts and subsequent physical violence.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

9 

The final two manuscripts prepared for submission during this funded period make use of the unique dyadic data 

afforded by the iCOR study design. Johnson et al.25 findings indicated that the adoption of a street code were 

associated with both actor and partner effects related to higher levels of psychological aggression. Actor and partner 

effects for psychological aggression were also present for adverse child experiences of emotional and physical 

abuse, anxiety and depression screen, and love and caring. Partner effects were only observed for self-control and 

recent life stressors. No associations were observed for problem drinking and illicit drug use. Thus, consistent with 

our first hypothesis and prior dyadic analyses, an individual’s level of psychological aggression was determined not 

only by their own risk profile, but that of their partner’s as well. Partner and individual-level risk factors for 

psychological aggression operated similarly for men and women. In addition, we found no significant interaction 

between actor effects and partner effects. Instead, our findings suggested that risk factors associated with the 

individual and those associated with the partner both contributed to each individual’s psychological aggression 

independent of the other. Liu et al.26 assessment of male and female young adults’ concordance on reports of 

psychological, physical, and sexual IPV suggests great discordance with relatively low agreement regarding men’s

perpetration of and women’s victimization of IPV, and vice versa. The pattern of concordance differed across types of 

IPV, e.g., couples tend to agree on the occurrence of psychological IPV, while they tend to agree on the nonoccurrence of physical and sexual IPV. Several covariates were significantly related to the pattern of concordance. 

For example, couples who perceive their relationship as having a high level of conflict tend to agree in their reports of

psychological aggression occurrence, but they may disagree on physical IPV (i.e., when they perceive the 

relationship has high conflict, at least one of them tend of report physical IPV). Personal characteristics also play a 

role in the reporting of IPV. For example, when there is a large age difference, women tend to underreport physical 

or sexual IPV; men who self-report with high self-control tend to over-report psychological aggression; and when the 

male partner is more aggressive, the reporting is likely not very accurate for psychological aggression, although both 

parties tend to affirmatively report physical IPV.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY AND PRACTICE IN THE U.S.

Funding for the iCOR project has resulted in an innovative, nationally representative, longitudinal data collection 

yielding three waves of data regarding conflict/aggressive behaviors and conflict management strategies (across 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

10

three different forms of relationships: partners, friends, and strangers) among young adults in the United States. 

Further, this project has collected data from the respondent cohort’s intimate partners (cross-sectional) to potentiate 

dyadic analyses and to gain the partners’ perspectives on the prime respondents’ conflict behavior and conflict 

management strategies. These data are a unique resource potentiating extensive further secondary data analyses in 

this young adult nationally representative sample of U.S. households. Moreover, the project instruments and 

protocols for recruiting young adult partners to participate in a cohort dyad study for online or telephone 

administration serve as important methodological innovations that may be helpful to other researchers going forward. 

The iCOR research studies have drawn on a rich array of theoretical models to investigate aggression and 

violence outcomes, with the purpose of advancing thinking about the integration of often unconnected theoretical 

frameworks to criminological studies. For example, our research highlights the possible value of integrating 

subcultural research with social psychological models and the potential for this work to advance our understanding of 

crucial empirical patterns including the victim-offender overlap. Further attention to neurobiological impacts on 

emotional and behavioral regulation is also supported by the iCOR research, extending past work from convenience 

samples to this general population study. Traditional theoretical models including social learning theory, problem 

behavior theory, routine activities theory, self-control theory, and social interaction theory are also reflected in the 

iCOR study design and research findings.

These iCOR data and analyses have advanced the field of research regarding the victim-offender overlap by

documenting the national prevalence of aggression and violence outcomes beyond intimate partnerships, but also 

between friends and strangers. The iCOR project is also one of the few national studies on offending behavior, most 

prior aggression studies cover just victimization. Beyond prior IPV studies, there have not been comparable general 

population studies of young adult aggression and violence distinguishing partners, friends and strangers. 

Understanding the prevalence of these outcomes in a general population sample and the extent to which explanatory 

variables are consistent predictors of victimization, perpetration, or mutually aggressive/violent behavior is a 

significant addition to the field. From confirming the predictive role of early childhood adversities and depressive 

symptomology, to identifying the role of both disputatious and conciliatory conflict management strategies, iCOR 

results further document that often the explanatory variables associated with aggression and violence are consistent 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

11

for both perpetration and victimization, a finding consistent with the high prevalence of mutuality in aggression and 

violence.

The unique design of the iCOR study allows the close examination of interpersonal aggression and violence in 

three separate types of relationships. Our work points to the importance of breaking down substantive silos, i.e., 

encouraging research that explores the overlap and interplay of intimate and non-intimate relationship violence within 

the same study. Findings also highlight that individuals may be involved in aggression and violence in different 

relationship contexts, and point to the need for preventive interventions to focus on whether involvement in 

aggression and violence is happening in some or all relationships in order to tailor intervention strategies.

The dyadic design of the iCOR study provided a unprecedented opportunity to explore the agreement and 

discordance of the reporting of IPV between couples in a fine-grained fashion, separately for male perpetration and 

female victimization and vice versa, as well as separately for three subtypes of IPV, namely psychological, physical 

and sexual. Findings highlight the potential bias associated with the method of relying on single party’s reports of IPV 

as used in the majority, if not all, studies of IPV, and raised important questions for future studies of reporting bias of 

IPV and other interpersonal violence. In addition to comparing couple’s reporting of IPV, the iCOR study also asked

detailed information about both the couple’s personality traits, conflict management style, and violence history, 

allowing the investigation of how dyadic characteristics (e.g., not only one’s own attitudes and self-control but that of 

one’s partner) predict an individual’s perpetration of aggression. 

In conclusion, the iCOR project has filled a number of important gaps in criminology regarding the role of conflict 

preceding violence and how conflict management strategies can help escalate these conflicts into episodes of 

violence. The team’s journal articles also have included suggestions to program developers on how these results 

can be incorporated into prevention efforts. In addition, the project further documents the victim-offender overlap 

phenomenon and builds on the considerable literature on predicting this overlap with some new risk factors. The 

iCOR project data will be publically available through the ICPSR archive in 2019 for others researchers to continue to 

explore and help draw out additional policy implications to better inform violence prevention strategies. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

12

Appendix Table 1. Base sample description*, ages 18-32, iCOR 2016-2017, 

n % / mean (S.D.)

Age 2284 26.3 (4.1)

Gender

 Female 1437 62.9%

 Male 847 37.1%

Race/ethnicity 

 White 1207 52.9%

 Black 362 15.8%

 Hispanic 443 19.4%

 Asian 101 4.4%

 Other 171 7.5%

Household characteristics

 Median household income $37,500

 Household size (mean & median) 3.04 & 3

 Household income $100,000+ 268 11.7%

Marital/cohabitation status 

 Not partnered (reference) 625 27.4%

 Partnered, Separate Residences 500 21.9%

 Partnered, Shared Residence 1156 50.6%

Education

 Never graduated high school 132 5.8%

 High school 449 19.7%

 Some college 963 42.2%

 4-year college degree or > 740 32.4%

Location of residence

 South 841 36.8%

 West 591 25.9%

 Midwest 553 24.2%

 Northeast 299 13.1%

 Urban 2061 90.2%

 Non-urban 223 9.8%

Access to the internet 1938 84.9%

*AmeriSpeak Panelists for whom background data is available.

Appendix Table 2. Partner sample description, iCOR 2016-2017

n % / mean (S.D.)

Age 480 29.2 (5.5)

Gender

 Female 183 38.1%

 Male 297 61.9%

Race/ethnicity 

 White 301 62.7%

 Black 51 10.6%

 Hispanic 82 17.1%

 Asian 25 5.2%

 Other 21 4.4%

Education

 Never graduated high school 22 4.6%

 High school 14 2.9%

 Some college 207 43.1%

 4-year college degree or > 237 49.4%

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

13

References

1. Montgomery R, Dennis JM, Ganesh N. Response Rate Calculation Methodology for Recruitment of a TwoPhase Probability-Based Panel: The Case of AmeriSpeak. info@AmeriSpeak.org: NORC at the University of 

Chicago; 2018.

2. Felson RB, Steadman HJ. Situational factors in disputes leading to criminal violence. Criminology. 

1983;21(1):59-74.

3. Felson RB, Berg MT, Rogers EM, Krajewski A. Disputatiousness and the Offender–Victim Overlap. Journal of 

Research in Crime and Delinquency. 2018;55(3):351-389.

4. Straus MA, Hamby SL, BoneyMcCoy S, Sugarman DB. The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) - 

Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues. 1996;17(3):283-316.

5. Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik RJ, Arneklev BJ. Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and 

Hirschi's general theory of crime. Journal of research in crime and delinquency. 1993;30(1):5-29.

6. Goldberg LR. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological assessment. 

1992;4(1):26.

7. Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA, Ware Jr JE, Barsky AJ, Weinstein MC. Performance of a five-item 

mental health screening test. Medical care. 1991;29(2):169-176.

8. Tseloni A, Wittebrood K, Farrell G, Pease K. Burglary Victimization in England and Wales, the United States and 

the Netherlands: A Cross-National Comparative Test of Routine Activities and Lifestyle Theories. British Journal 

of Criminology. 2004;44(1):66-91.

9. Stewart EA, Schreck CJ, Simons RL. “I ain't gonna let no one disrespect me” Does the code of the street reduce 

or increase violent victimization among African American adolescents? Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency. 2006;43(4):427-458.

10. Bush K, Kivlahan DR, McDonell MB, Fihn SD, Bradley KA. The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDITC): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Archives of internal medicine. 1998;158(16):1789-1795.

11. Harris KM, Halpern CT, Whitsel E, et al. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research 

Design. http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design; 2009.

12. Selner‐O'Hagan MB, Kindlon DJ, Buka SL, Raudenbush SW, Earls FJ. Assessing exposure to violence in urban 

youth. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1998;39(2):215-224.

13. Turner HA, Finkelhor D, Ormrod R. Poly-Victimization in a National Sample of Children and Youth. American 

Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2010;38(3):323-330.

14. Ge X, Conger RD, Lorenz FO, Simons RL. Parents' stressful life events and adolescent depressed mood. J 

Health Soc Behav. 1994;35(1):28-44.

15. Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth M, Jang SJ. Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: 

a longitudinal test of interactional theory. Criminology. 1994;32(1):47-83.

16. Pierce GR. The Quality of Relationships Inventory: Assessing the interpersonal context of social support. In: 

Burleson BR, Albrecht TL, Sarason IG, eds. Communication of social support: Message, interactions, 

relationship and community. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1994:247-266.

17. Long JS. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Vol 7: Sage; 1997.

18. Mumford EA, Taylor BG, Berg M, Liu W, Miesfeld N. Risk factors for perpetration of aggression across 

relationship contexts among young adults in the U.S. Child Abuse & Neglect. Revise & Resubmit 2018.

19. Berg M, Rogers EM, Liu W, Mumford EA, Taylor BG. Depression and Interpersonal Violence: A Test of a Social 

Interactionist Explanation. Aggressive Behavior. Revise & Resubmit, 2018.

20. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley; 1990.

21. Taylor BG, Mumford EA, Liu W, Berg M, Bohri M. Exploring the Victim-Offender Overlap for Intimate Partners in 

a Nationally Representative Sample of Young Adults Criminal Justice & Behavior. Revise & Resubmit 2018.

22. Liu W, Taylor BG, Mumford EA, Berg M. Profiles of psychological aggression across relationship contexts and 

association with physical violence Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Revise & Resubmit 2018.

23. Berg M, Rogers EM, Taylor BG, Liu W, Mumford EA. An Examination of the Street Code, Dispute Related 

Processes, and Interpersonal Violence. British Journal of Criminology. Prepared for Submission 2018.

24. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL. Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press; 2006.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview: The Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution (iCOR) Study

14

25. Johnson W, Taylor BG, Mumford EA, Liu W, Berg M. A Dyadic Multi-Level Model of Correlates of Psychological 

Aggression Among Intimate Partners. Pers Relat. Prepared for submission 2018.

26. Liu W, Taylor BG, Mumford EA, Berg M. Agreement and discordance between partners’ reporting of IPV. 

Psychology of Violence. Prepared for submission, 2018.

27. Larry J. Siever MD. Neurobiology of Aggression and Violence. American Journal of Psychiatry. 

2008;165(4):429-442.

28. Damasio A, Carvalho GB. The nature of feelings: evolutionary and neurobiological origins. Nat Rev Neurosci. 

2013;14(2):143-152.

29. Beech AR, Mitchell IJ. A neurobiological perspective on attachment problems in sexual offenders and the role of 

selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors in the treatment of such problems. Clinical psychology review. 

2005;25(2):153-182.

30. Grady MD, Levenson JS, Bolder T. Linking Adverse Childhood Effects and Attachment. Trauma, Violence, & 

Abuse. 2016;0(0):1524838015627147.

31. Jessor R. Problem‐behavior theory, psychosocial development, and adolescent problem drinking. British journal 

of addiction. 1987;82(4):331-342.

32. Bandura A. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1977.

33. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Human Aggression. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002;53(1):27-51.

34. Hiday VA. The Social Context of Mental Illness and Violence. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 

1995;36(2):122-137.

35. Anderson E. Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: Norton; 1999.

36. Wolfgang ME, Ferracuti F, Mannheim H. The subculture of violence: Towards an integrated theory in 

criminology. Vol 16. London: Tavistock Publications; 1967.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.