TPC-Journal-V5-Issue3

The Professional Counselor /Volume 5, Issue 3 372 Table 2 Correlations Between Constructs of Interest 1 2 3 4 5 1. Gender 1 .02 .22* .13 -.17* 2. Perceived stress (PSS) 1 .19* .05 -.04 3. Intimate justice (IJS) 1 .26** -.05** 4. Acceptance of violence (ACV) 1 -.05 5. Use of technology (UTR) 1 Note . PSS = Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983; Cohen & Williamson, 1988); IJS = Intimate Justice Scale (Jory, 2004); ACV = Acceptance of Couple Violence (Foshee, Fothergill, & Stuart, 1992); UTR = Use of Technology in Relationships (Draucker & Martsolf, 2010; Schnurr et al., 2013). * p < .05. ** p < .001. The significant correlations supported a hierarchical linear regression analysis to examine the predictive relationships between variables. The IJS served as the dependent variable, while PSS, ACV and UTR scores served as independent variables. The model included three steps, adding predictor variables one step at a time to examine the contribution of each variable. Model one included ACV scores, contributing 6.8% of the variance and demonstrating statistical significance; F (1, 133) = 9.70, p = .002. Model two included UTR scores, adding 18.9% of the variance and achieving significance; F (1, 132) = 33.65, p < .001. Finally, model three added PSS, contributing 2.5% of variance and also achieving significance; F (1, 131) = 4.54, p = .035 (See Table 3). The model as a whole contributed to 26.6% of the variance, although UTR contributed the most variance to IJS scores. Table 3 Predictors of Partner Violence Risk (Intimate Justice) Variable Δ R 2 β p Model 1: ACV .068 .261 .002 Model 2: UTR .189 -.435 < .001 Model 3: PSS .025 .158 .035 Note . ACV = Acceptance of Couple Violence (Foshee, Fothergill, & Stuart, 1992); UTR = Use of Technology in Relationships (Draucker & Martsolf, 2010; Schnurr et al., 2013); PSS = Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983; Cohen & Williamson, 1988).