Lindsey Aloia (Rollins College) and Denise Solomon (The Pennsylvania State University) published their findings in the journal Human Communication Research. Aloia and Solomon studied 50 romantically involved couples and found that the more intense the conflict interaction was rated between the couples the stronger the physiological stress response to the conflict. This relationship, however, was weakened for individuals who reported a higher level of childhood exposure to verbal aggression.

For the experiment the couples provided saliva samples to determine their baseline cortisol levels. They were then interviewed separately about the most stressful areas of conflict in their relationship and filled out a questionnaire that asked about their childhood experiences with verbal aggression. Following the interview, partners were asked to sit together and discuss an area of conflict alone for 10 minutes. The sessions were videotaped. After the discussion the couples were separated again and provided two additional saliva samples over a period of 20 minutes after the conflict. Trained judges then watched video recordings of the couples and rated the intensity of the conflict communication of each couple. Finally, cortisol levels were calculated to evaluate experiences of stress using the collected saliva samples.

Previous research has examined the experience of conflict within a multitude of relationships. These studies make it clear that conflict can produce a number of negative outcomes. For example, exposure to conflict has been linked to depression, distress, and anxiety; feelings of hurt and anger; relationship dissatisfaction; and subsequent physical violence. Recent efforts point to the role of physiological processes in understanding the variation in individuals' experiences of interpersonal conflict.

Considering the physiological implications for stress and viewing interpersonal conflict interactions as potential stressors highlights how experiences of conflict are shaped by both the demands of the interaction and people's adaptive capacity to handle that stressor. "Conflict experiences can be beneficial, by alleviating tension and avoiding conflict escalation, reducing communication apprehension, and contributing to closeness within the relationship," said Aloia. "Given the diversity of outcomes associated with interpersonal conflict, efforts to understand variation in the experienced negativity of conflict experiences are extremely important in helping people navigate these interactions."

  1. Does the word for in last paragraph mean caused by / coming from ?

  2. Does the demands of interaction mean the severe and hardship of interaction?

  3. What does this part mean : contributing to closeness within the relationship ?

  4. Is the word research in third paragraph plural and uncountable and is about more than one research?

A million thanks in advance. I did want to ask separate questions but some of them are really trivial. Please do not vote down.

2 Answers 2


The first sentence should read (the original is using "for" rather loosely):

Considering the physiological implications of stress....

The demands of the interaction means "what the interaction requires (emotionally) of the person who is interacting"

"Contributing to closeness within the relationship" means "conducing to intimacy/bonding"


Is the word research in third paragraph plural and uncountable and is about more than one research?

In the sentence alone, it is ambiguous and uncountable, with the implication that it's plural. The next sentence, which starts with "These studies," indicates clearly that "research" is meant to be plural. "Research" and "studies" are being used somewhat interchangeably, in these two sentences.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .