“It is not the bruises on the body that hurt. It is the wounds of the heart and the scars on the mind.”
- Aisha Mirza
A study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships found that a specific measure of emotional abuse, the Multi-Dimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (MMEA), captures a large range of distinct abusive behaviors that occur during interpersonal conflict more effectively than other scales.
This study was conducted by Donald A. Godfrey, Caitlin M. Kehoe, Victoria E. Bennett, Adriana Bastardas-Albero, and Dr. Julia C. Babcock, all researchers from the University of Houston.
Emotional abuse and psychological abuse are both forms of intimate partner violence that can significantly affect the well-being of individuals in relationships. The similarities and differences between the two forms has created a lot of confusion in terms of how they are supposed to accurately be measured.
The Multi-Dimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (MMEA) is a questionnaire typically used to measure emotional abuse that differs from various other forms of psychological abuse.
The Conflict Tactics Scale- Psychological Aggression scale (CTS2-PA) and its severity subscales is another questionnaire that measures conflict, and was used in comparison to the MMEA.
The purpose of this study was to validate the accuracy of the MMEA during observed interpersonal conflict by evaluating its association with emotionally abusive behaviour.
The Study & Findings
To conduct the study, heterosexual couples were recruited from newspaper ads seeking “couples experiencing conflict.” Trained research assistants screened the female applicant via phone call.
To be classified as intimate partner violence (IPV), female participants had to report at least two acts of male-to-female IPV within the past year. To be classified as nonviolent, there had to be zero reports of severe male-to-female violence and zero reports of male-to-female violent acts within the past five years.
Next, the female participants completed the MMEA and CTS2-PA questionnaires assessing their own abuse towards their partners and their partner’s abuse towards them. The MMEA contained 28 questions assessing emotional abuse within the last six months. Conversely, the CTS2-PA assessed psychological abuse within the last year using statements such as, “I called my partner fat or ugly.”
Afterwards, male and female participants took part in a conflict discussion task, where they were first led through the play-by-play interview. During this interview, couples explored an emotional-laden topic within their relationship that needed discussing.
Following the interview, couples were instructed to sit in a comfortable position for four minutes without interacting with each other in order to capture resting physiological arousal. Couples were then recorded talking about the agreed upon problem.
Behavioral coding was done to observe and evaluate the participants’ emotions based on their body posture, facial expression, verbal content, tone, and conversational context.
The results displayed that both the CTS2-PA and the MMEA considered all the relevant facets of psychological abuse that can be viewed during conflict discussions.
The MMEA, however, utilizes a multi-dimensional approach to recognize many more abusive behaviors that can be seen in the lab. The MMEA ‘s total emotional abuse score was significantly associated with the male and female participants' belligerence during the conflict discussion, whereas the CTS2-PA was also associated with the female participants' contempt. Belligerence and contempt were both noted when participants made mocking and belittling remarks.
This confirms the greater construct validity of the MMEA in comparison to the CTS psychological aggression subscale.
In conclusion, it is recommended that researchers primarily make use of the MMEA, possibly even accompany it with other CTS subscales such as physical assault and injury subscales to accurately measure intimate partner abuse.